If your software is free, then how are you supposed to make any money off of it?

>money

Attached: money_and_scarcity.jpg (750x901, 69K)

>freedom
Software is just a tool. Freedom isn't a function of what you can do TO the tools you have, but rather of what you can do WITH the tools you have. Hence, GNU/Linux is less free than Windows, because Windows can accomplish more than GNU/Linux can.

Attached: 1517493974819.png (2408x1488, 1.33M)

>paying to be in a botnet is freedom

How exactly can windows do more than gnu/linux? What exactly can it accomplish more? Just asking because I am unsure what you mean by just saying that it is. I would assume third party software availability isn't a factor in this comparison since those are addictions to the base OS.

Show thumbnails in the filepicker.

>what is KDE

No idea, ask Red Hat.

You don't. The best you can hope for is that someone steals your GPL'd code so that the FSF's jewish lawyers can get rich.

free software runs the robots that make the products i sell.
pick and place is love.

It's illegitimate for the guy on the left to say "but you can't copy it", because information isn't economically scarce. The fact that you can copy it perfectly and endlessly for essentially zero cost means that it isn't property. In a perfect world there'd be no concept of copyright (or patents, or etc). But we don't live in that world, and the GPL is just a hack meant to make the world function better in spite of that flaw.

Yet another retard who doesn't understand that free software means free as in freedom, not necessarily in price.
This isn't the 90s anymore, this meme stopped being funny long ago.
Sage.

>undermine western civilization
Sign me right the fuck up.

This is such a weak argument.
>It's illegitimate for the guy on the left to say "but you can't copy it", because information isn't economically scarce.
So food can't be property either.
>The fact that you can copy it perfectly and endlessly for essentially zero cost means that it isn't property.
So your private data can't be your property either.

>So food can't be property either.
Food is property because if you have a banana and I take it and eat it, you no longer have any use of the banana. The banana is a tangible object. I can't just snap my fingers and make two bananas from one. On the other hand, if you have software and I copy it, you still have your copy. You can still use your copy of the software in any way you please, my having a copy in no way impinges on any rights of yours.

>So your private data can't be your property either.
No, it isn't. (it isn't anyone else's property, either) Thats why, if you don't want other people to have it, your only proper course of action is to not tell it to them.

Don't include compile instructions.

Support or donations, same way you make money off any other software. Dumb nomries are only more likely to donate to proprietary software projects because they don't know they can get it for free.

>I copy it, you still have your copy. You can still use your copy of the software in any way you please, my having a copy in no way impinges on any rights of yours.
It's not about my rights. It's about the creator's rights.
>Thats why, if you don't want other people to have it, your only proper course of action is to not tell it to them.
This is just absurd. What you're defending is the death of the right to privacy. You're basically saying anyone who gets ahold of your private information can do whatever they want with it. You shopped online? That's too bad, the store can sell their entire customer database away at no liability whatsoever. Your credit card company wants to sell your purchase record? Go right ahead, nothing's stopping them! Oh, and how about your ISP telling everyone your browsing history? No problem at all!
You are nuts.

>So your private data can't be your property either.
Private data already isn't considered property and can legally be shared freely, are you retarded?

Incorrect. Data is intellectual property (at least where I live).

>It's not about my rights. It's about the creator's rights.
Why would the creator have any more rights than you to something that isn't property?

>What you're defending is the death of the right to privacy.
Well since data isn't property, you aren't depriving corporations of their property if you force them to delete (or not collect) data as a regulatory matter.

>Why would the creator have any more rights than you
Because he created it.
>something that isn't property
But it is property.
>data isn't property
It is, user.
>you aren't depriving corporations of their property
You are depriving individuals of their property (and privacy) if you don't acknowledge data is property.
>if you force them to delete (or not collect) data as a regulatory matter
So basically data isn't property... but you should treat it like property nonetheless?
If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck, user.