I cannot see this ever working

there is a reason the BSD license is the cuck's license of choice

that's why you don't give anyone your software until you get your money

Please kys you fucking jew.

Attached: 1540661801179.jpg (533x585, 66K)

>Why should you be able to resell it exactly as you got it?
have you ever been to 7-11? they are reselling you those cheetohs exactly as they got them

Does it even matter? You will never create anything people will be interested in.

Debian has links to companies that will do that for you.

You never were able to buy a product and get a whole factory with it. That's where your comparison fails.

We were always reselling the thing we bought as a single instance of an object. That is the same for SW and nobody has limited your ability to resell licenses or keys, it has been ruled legal multiple times. Only thing limiting your ability now are DRM platforms and even if you link your license to a steam or anything like that you are still allowed to resell your account. It's not convenient, but using a platform like that is a choice you accept if you are willing to.

When you sell a car do you complain when the new owner sells it?

No. Because I'm also not selling the magical power to spawn a new car at 0 fucking cost, you nigger.

no one is forcing you to use an open source license retard

You can add value by providing a ready-made package and adding extra stuff like printed documentation, there was a guy who used to sell boxed copies of GIMP until recently and SuSE still sells boxed copies of their distro (though only in German-speaking countries now, they used to sell it in the US and some other countries too)

Some Linux distros and *BSDs also sell ready-made DVD installers for the marginal cost of the disc, there's still a handful of users out there who find this more convenient than downloading a copy so there's a (small) market for it

>So if I work on something for 2 years, somebody can just buy it from me and sell it as if it was his?
>implying you're capable

>So if I work on something for 2 years, somebody can just buy it from me and sell it as if it was his?
Depends on the license. You don't have to allow commercial redistribution, for example many Creative Commons licenses don't. Even if you do he can only sell it if he can convince others to pay for it when they can get it for free from you. In practice that means either 1. he needs to add value to it, such as doing busy work that other people don't want to and will pay for (compiling), adding nice documentation etc. or 2. he needs to deceive them into thinking this is something you need to pay for, which is a borderline scam. I'd hazard a guess most people willing to try the second option don't particularly care whether or not your license allows them to do it.

yes, OP is a jew

>I cannot see this ever working
And yet it does, for Linux, the entire GNU ecosystem, etc. So, maybe you just don't see very well.

You don't get the factory, its just trivial to set it up.

Kinda like it was/is for the richfags on most simpler objects. And how it mostly is in China and other places that don't give much of a fuck about copyright/patent monopolies. It allows them to get shit done, iterate rapidly, and leaves a lot of room for small and medium businesses that deal with smaller customer's needs. I'm rather more fond of libre and shenzen free for all than monopolyware "you bought it but got limited rights to do anything with your copy".

I honestly agree. Freedoms 0 and 1 allow you to very much own your software, without owning the rights to distributing it. A specialised Freedom 3 - allow the patches to be redistributed, but not the whole thing as that's basically a loophole to get around the lack of freedom 2 by adding some trivial change - would also allow the community to build upon and improve a project. And so far, none of these in any way impact the traditional licensing model (other than forbidding restrictive ToS being shoehorned into the license) allowing people to still sell software effectively, while essentially providing every relevant freedom to the users. If your goal is to own your PC and what runs on it, these freedoms achieve that.

Freedom 2, however, is the one from which all the accusations of communism and all the problems with commercialised free software stem. I can see its use, but it also has a lot of issues, and the fact that Free Software (tm) is widely accepted as an indivisible bundle of four rules, this annoying Freedom 2 greatly hampers the spread and adoption of the other three freedoms - ultimately harming the end users of software as a whole.

Is there any existing license at all that does something like what I described in the first paragraph?

That's the only thing that worked, ever. And not even because it's free, but because they made it incredibly difficult to branch out on your own, without failing. nVidia are the only ones with enough money to do that.

Yea, people actually imitated bridges before and the architect didn't get paid every time.

I could care less if it's instant or not, you just should not necessarily get paid multiple times [or even for 20, 60 or two lifetimes] for designing something once and retain the exclusive right to decide about all uses and modifications. It obstructs progress.

do you use links/lynx btw?

That's what the intellectual property fags want you to believe.

But a system where you have all freedoms is better for users and better for society's technological progress. It's just not as good for investors that would like to shop for monopolies and get rich on them rather than doing more work and more improvements to get paid again.

As i interpret it, the four freedoms are meant to be placed on a community that is willing to advance the knowledge of mankind and do something productive without parasites leaching off of other peoples works.
Other licenses may apply more to the real world with harmful people

but i could be very wrong in my approach

It may be vastly better than the gimped version I'm proposing but my version is in turn vastly better than nothing, and nothing is what's currently adopted by 99% of the world's commercial software development. Note here that I'm not proposing that as an alternative to the GPL, but rather as an alternative to proprietary software.

>but user! The GPL already IS an alternative to proprietary software!
Yes but it's completely unsuitable for the normal software business model, so from the point of view of software companies it's not an alternative at all. If you keep dogmatically hammering the same thing, it's still not going to get adopted by them. Whereas if you get them to adopt a compromise, users will vastly benefit, and we can keep evangelizing the full version in the meantime.

I have done once or twice, but generally no, I use Firefox.

>I cannot see this ever working
I don't know, I'm posting this from a fully free operating system that's technically more advanced than commercial alternatives like windows.
As a software developer all the tools I work with are also free, not even by choice but because they're either the most powerful or the most convenient.
Seems like it worked great to me.
I mean yeah, no games and no photoshop. If you're a "digital artist" monkey then yeah, sucks to be you.

>the opposite of free is commercial

Attached: 1472757313340.jpg (1039x1191, 111K)

When's the last time you bought free software?

Should've open sourced it from the start and had people help, faggot

Realistically you never get by trying to sell just "free" software
If you just sit there and allow someone take your work and sell it then you deserve it as you can provide more than the person selling your work.
You made a piece of software your are the best candidate in the world to also sell professional support.

Redhat is pretty commercial and is free software

cringe and bluepilled
making something and marketing it to retards for $9.99 will always be more profitable than asking for money to some autists on kickstarter and then giving the result for free (unless it's a fucking scam)

Attached: 1539472715734.jpg (606x412, 80K)

This is the GPL you mongoloid.

>buy movie
>put your own watermark on it
>sell it for profit
>"hurrr, why am I not allowed to do this???"

you freedomfags are just a bunch of thieves, scammers and copycats trying to get by with other peoples work

most open source software is libraries that people that work at commercial companies work on and have under a open source license because it benefits everybody

>to make money you just have sell support
How can people be this stupid?! I hope your job gets outsourced to pajeet coders and you die lonely and hungry.

>Why the fuck should a person that just takes my work be able to resell it?
Because you allowed him to do it?
You decide how to license your software, nobody else does.
Nobody forces you to publish free-software.
What the free-software movement seeks to do is convince users to use software that respects their freedom, and developers to think about the users freedoms.
One of those freedoms is the freedom to redistribute.
As you have correctly guessed, this basically makes it impossible for you to sell your software. Most foss developers just live with that fact.
If you don't care about the users freedom, then just keep your source closed.

Have you never owned a physical good? People sell used items all the time.

nice projection

>buy
>sell
I'm not going to buy it from you, I'm just going to pirate it and upload it to the internet for millions of other people to also download for free. I don't care what license you put on it because I'm not a licensecuck.

>freedom{0..3}

Attached: 1511648731732.jpg (979x1000, 161K)

> Why the fuck should a person that just takes my work be able to resell it?
Why should people buy it if they can take it for free? It won't work if that person doesn't provide any additional services.

look ma im le haker pirat xDDDD infromation wants to be free xDDD oh, me? no, i haven't done anything worthwhile with my life, why do you ask?
inbr le ebik bootlicker amirite guis?

I don’t think you understand that you, like many other programmers, don’t have the money or time to take legal action against someone that decides to do this anyway. So who the fuck cares? Choose a license and get it over with

Attached: 6BB3B00B-1A07-47BB-BCEA-DD53735EB3CD.jpg (624x414, 65K)

Reselling is the most common form of selling overall. Take Newegg for example. They don't make anything and they're selling everyone else's stuff. They purchased that from either a distributor (again, another reseller) or directly.

You're retarded. The GPLv3 prohibits sale of software. Any changes that are made to the software cannot be put to market. If you work on something for 2 years, nobody can sell it as if it was his.

You have no idea what you are talking about. GPLv3 lets you sell it as long as you provide access to the source code.

In that case they're offering a service that the original author didn't offer.

Do you think when bestbuy installs your grandma's copy of office for $300, they're stealing from the microsoft?

No, I have no problems with people selling free software as long as they follow the rules set by the license. I was just explaining to user how free software can be sold.

>The GPLv3 prohibits sale of software
Can you point out exactly where the GPL says that?
Protip: it never says that; GPL software can be sold and is sold.

I just read through this thread and half the comments are down the fucking rabbit hole. It's totally normal to sell open source software. It's totally normal to sell proprietary software that runs on GNU+Linux. It's totally normal to charge for configuration and customization of FOSS. You can hardly sudo apt-get install -y a ready to use server.

gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
stop being anti freedom user and embrace stallmans ways desu

Sell it for a lot of money, so you won't need to sell copies. If your product is aimed at the common user, rather than a large corporation, distribute the costs through crowdfunding.

Non-gratis free software can work by a commission model. Licensed models are inherently broken, because any serious attempt at preventing copying is effectively asking for everyone to copy it.

how dare you deny someone the freedom to profit from your work

how else are you going to make money from it? taxes aren't going to pay for it like civil engineering projects

But you can do the same thing for their copies, so what's the issue?

Well don't work for giant corporation like google for free by using these retarded licenses, people try and pretend that's not what the gpl is but it is exactly that. No redistribution, maybe only personal use, etc. or whatever license requirements you want and duel license aka sell it to business users.

>If your product is aimed at the common user, rather than a large corporation, distribute the costs through crowdfunding.
crowdfunding is even more broken than licensing because you're basically gambling paying for a product that doesnt exist yet and may not exist or may exist in a different form than what you anticipated, and you're paying for something years before you even get it

Emacs originally sold for $150 + your own tape. If Stallman of all people was making money out of distributing free software, anybody can.
There's also the case of all those small businesses that distributed shareware, free software and public domain software for money through magazine ads back in the day.

How important is it to you whether or not it is instant?