"free" software

t. mactoddler

Why do you feel entitled to bash on those that disagree with you?

Unironically kys for each and every post you make like this, you as in every person that does it.

You sound like a fruit. Are you gay?

>Why do you feel entitled to bash on those that disagree with you?
Because he is. It's called "criticism".

Go to bed, Microsoft. Get ready to close your doors. You're finished.

because community collaboration increases the availability and quality of both programming libraries and end products

this is why many go to standard components are open source, such as wordpress, zend or symfony in web design, and why even large corporations support open source software framewords or offer free access to their libraries, like google does with tensorflow and a bunch of other stuff

the economic difference between physical goods and digital goods is that digital goods cost virtually no labour to reproduce once they have been first produced.
communism as a form of government is not a good analogy to the open software movement, because real life communism dealt primarily with the production of material goods

i write free software because im not a kike jew and i want people to improve and contribute to what i created. i have passion for my project.

nobody feels entitled to my free software. it is a decision of the person putting in the work to create something cool.

why is this so hard to understand, mr. shekelstein?

>what every tranny looks like by 30

>tranny
>30 yo
Pick only one

Welp I’m convinced, I’m deleting OpenBSD and installing Windows 10 right now. Another fine high effort post, OP.

what the fuck is this post
shut up you fucking retard don't ever post this worthless garbage again

Excellent bait good sir

Because I made it with my time and years of skill and I wish to make money from that and I wish to protect my assets which I am right to do

>OpenBSD
Based and UNIXpilled

You're not modifying his "work" your expanding his initial idea. Wether everyone agrees the expansion is an improvement or not is another matter. That's why it should be free to begin with.

Why are you entitled to greater protection on your assets than me?
Why should I care about how much time you put in when still you disrespect my basic rights?
Why do you think that making money requires you to disrespect my basic rights?

You mean UNIX-like.

Just because the fat freetard said they are basic rights, doesn't mean they really are.

>entitled
The developers choose a free license, not the users. Entitlement doesn't enter in to it. That said, I do feel entitled to require that my TAX MONEY not be used to pay for closed-source software. Seems pretty obvious, no?

>The developers choose a free license, not the users.
But people say that is evil, even if the user agrees to it.
>that my TAX MONEY not be used to pay for closed-source software
fair

who is this goddess

>2 adults should not be able to enter a legally binding contract
fuck off commies

I don't care about whoever you're talking about. They are basic rights because it's my property and realistically you can't enforce your bogus licenses on me without instituting mass surveillance. That is where I draw the line.

go die in a fire

Attached: 21784768_581d1f3506_o.gif (362x400, 59K)

>t. Autism-like

commies get the rope

Attached: 1537564060874.png (607x561, 40K)

What if we remove Bagel and then make free proprietary software for the masses? NazBoltu if you will?

Because if you don't agree to not modify, not share, not publish, and not sell the product of my work, then I'm not gonna sell it to you.
And if you agree to those terms and still do it that makes you a thief and a leech.

Nothing user said suggests that they're a communist.

>you should be entitled
Not entitled to, but I do appreciate the software that allows to modify, share, publish and sell someone else's work and I do the same.

Don't forget to post the link to your shitty $5 app that some indian teenager did for less than 10

Well, there's a bunch of folks doing it for free and they're doing it better than you so good luck with that.

t. commie

Please provide evidence to accompany your claim.

the helicopter is waiting degenerate :^)

...

>unironically defending something as turbojewish as intellectual property

We need a day of the rope for these faggots

fuck off and die commie

Attached: 1553177409139.jpg (600x396, 138K)

Technically nothing is truly your own property. Everything you know is owned by the jews, even your goddamn organs.

fuck off commie

How Jews does it?
Sometimes, I dream of being rich Jew
That would be comfy

Because you agreed to be restricted.

Lol yeah all the foss image editors and music makers are way better than photoshop and ableton
Youre dumb

>wah, there 5 programs I can't replace
>wah, therefore everything foss sucks
>you're dumb
>wah
there there, user, there there

>(you)

Attached: you.webm (640x360, 2.73M)

I'm not entitled to do it, the creators just let me. Are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to distribute their work however they wish? You sound like a giant socialist communist cry baby go fuck yourself

The point is that FOSS is fine, but proprietary software is also fine as long as both parties agree.

What does society need? It needs information that is truly available to its citizens—for example, programs that people can read, fix, adapt, and improve, not just operate.

Attached: 1458329081190.png (1797x1260, 2.61M)

this post is banana brains, but it's not your fault
ESR you fucking retard!

go fuck yourself Steve Ballsack, mr doesnt care if your software has unnecessary functionalities.

Try to overcome driver compatibility issues with proprietary code.

Most importantly even Microflacid or Android profits from Linux... Look up Azure.

I will never agree to that and it's disrespectful of you to even ask.
>Hey sign this paper and give me 20 bucks, it makes it so I can enter your house at any time without permission and you aren't allowed to ask what I'm doing or even look at me while I'm there, but hey you get a cool video game in return!
No thanks, you belong in jail with the rest of the psychos.

Jesus fucking Christ Richard it was just a printer. You can stop now.

>user spends years making an MMO
>user releases it as open source licensed under the GPL
>user sells first copy to commie user
>commie user uploads his purchase to github.
>niggers download from github so they don't have to pay user
>niggers modify all the rules of the MMO, setup their own servers
>user no longer gets any money
>???
>user wonders why he's poor.
>viva la free software

Attached: index.jpg (220x165, 4K)

>unironically using the words "commie" and "nigger"
>be such shit at running services that a bunch of nobodies can make a better server than you
>wonder why you went out of business
Jow Forums pls go

>Sell someone else work.
I think you should talk with your boss.
Welkom in the commi world.

Attached: images(2).jpg (200x252, 9K)

Just do like I do, software I sell are all closed source, and if for some reason I want to make a free software, I just publish it with APACHE, so it doesn't get infected with GNU/AIDS.

Apache2 is a good license but doesn't defend the user's freedom, it shouldn't be used in cases where this is important.

>software I sell are all closed source
Don't do this. Closed source licenses are the actual AIDS, not gpl.

Did YOU write the code you're running?

Fuck you, freetard.

Nice strawman. What the piece of paper actually says is
>Hey sign this paper and give me 20 bucks, it makes it so you can use this piece of software I spent my time and expertise making. Of course you can't modify it and sell it because you didn't write it. If you want to modify and sell a similar product, write your own.

Proprietary software is soulless.

Better than being a proprietard

>Apache2 is a good license but doesn't defend the user's freedom, it shouldn't be used in cases where this is important.
It basically allows you to do whatever you want with the code. That's freedom, forcing others to contribute back is not.
>Don't do this. Closed source licenses are the actual AIDS, not gpl.
I'm not giving my job away. If you want to work for free, feel free to do it yourself. I'm never making an open source software for a company unless it's part of the contract.

>Acknowledge that it takes time and expertise to write good software
>Acknowledge that there is a real need for many to be able to study and modify what is running on their own computer
>At the same time tell people to "just write their own lol" while pushing your broken solution that requires your users to promise not to look at what you're actually doing ever
Is this some kind of a joke?

No such thing. Keep being retarded while I laugh at you.

How is there no such thing when I'm responding to one now?

Copyleft does not require anyone to contribute back. That is a meme pushed by dual licensing companies that profit from that.

>I'm not giving my job away. If you want to work for free, feel free to do it yourself. I'm never making an open source software for a company unless it's part of the contract.
It's free as in freedom, not free as in price. Free as in price is a meme pushed by marketing departments who you shouldn't be signing contracts with in the first place.

Look at all this straw manning. Pretty impressive.

There is no straw man. Just accept that you're intentionally making your products worse.

I don't care, if I'm publishing something as open source, I want the person to use that code the way he wants. I don't give a shit about anything else. If he wants to sell it, sure, do it. If it's open source it's because it doesn't matter to me and you can do WHATEVER YOU WANT.

>It's free as in freedom, not free as in price. Free as in price is a meme pushed by marketing departments who you shouldn't be signing contracts with in the first place.
Retard. If I sell open source shit and the company needs a new feature, support or whatever they can just pay the lowest bidder to do it for them. I'm not allowing that because I'm not an idiot. The program I developed is mine, I'm basically just selling the license for them to use. I don't care if I'm hurting your feefee or whatever, that's how I work. That's how basically anyone that isn't retarded works. If they want an open source software, sure, but they'll have to pay more.

Because the licence says I can

Nobody's forcing you to GPL you're project.
Some people GPL they're work because they want to share it (and possibly the workload of developing it) without getting cucked.

Not every software is created because someone wants to sell it. They might want to just use it. If there's GPL'd software that does ALMOST what you need, you can use it, and modify it. If you want to redistribute your modded version, you have to make your new version publicly available with the same license.
>The cost of using GPL'd software is your contribution. The rest is legal fluff. - Linus Torvalds.

You have many anons saying that using anything but GPL is immoral.

>If you want to redistribute your modded version, you have to make your new version publicly available with the same license.
Freedom™

how the fuck do you make a living writing software if everyone is free to modify and redistribute your work?

freedom fucks are putting people in the poorhouse

>why on earth do you think you should be entitled to modify, share, publish, sell someone else's work
because sometimes your praised paid developers fuck shit up so bad that there's an urgency to fix it, especially if it is the only product that gives me the functionality I want or need
>you sound like a giant socialist communist cry baby
and you sound like you're from india
but anyways, I'm not seizing the only copy of the source code and claiming it as my own, I'm modifying my own copy of the source this hypothetical developer gave me, there's the difference
>go fuck yourself
you first

>Be terrible at something
>Be replaced by someone else that knows better
>It's the license that brought this upon me, not my own incompetence!

How do you expect to be taken seriously when you start out with several false statements. The ever-present freetard lies, your commie fantasy isn't relevant.

No one is stopping you from reverse engineering it.

A few very succesful projects get donations. Of course the average developer or small team will never create the next Linux, but freetards always mention those few projects.

So what? Just keep being immoral.

The same is true of proprietary software. Everyone dreams of being the next Gates or Jobs, but only 1% of all apps are profitable.

Are you sure it's only 1%?
I think many people choose the wrong approach, they choose a field where you only make money when you have millions and millions of users, like mobile apps or websites.
I had a few projects that made me some money, it was only like a few hundret or so a month, but I think it's more realistic to build some small desktop software in a niche market. I also think noone would have bought my software if it were open source.

>I don't care, if I'm publishing something as open source, I want the person to use that code the way he wants.
GPL allows this. Non-copyleft licenses do too, but they also let proprietary developers add terms that say people can't use it the way they want. So that's why they don't defend freedom.

>Retard. If I sell open source shit and the company needs a new feature, support or whatever they can just pay the lowest bidder to do it for them. I'm not allowing that because I'm not an idiot.
So just like with proprietary software then?
Or did you really think these companies aren't constantly negotiating with outsourcing firms to try and get you to lower your rates?

>If they want an open source software, sure, but they'll have to pay more.
Sometimes you should charge more for this, sometimes you should charge less. It depends on the company and product. One thing is clear though, you should not write proprietary software for any price. Putting a dollar value on the user's freedom ensures that it will be taken from them, and it will be taken from you too, seeing as how you are also a computer user.

>Just keep being immoral.
See above for why this is a poor idea that works against your own interests.

>It's the license that brought this upon me, not my own incompetence!
Not everyone can be perfect, there is always someone better than you. If you put the work into developing the software you should expect for people who want to use it to pay for it.

Also your argument is not even correct anyway, someone who fixes one bug is not really better than the original programmer, he just had more time to focus on that one bug, instead of writing the whole program.

If you put the work into developing the software you should expect for people who want to use it to pay for it.
wrong. Only if you make decent software you deserve money. It's the same with food
>Walk into restaurant
>Order
>Food tastes terrible
>Pay and leave
>Search recipe
>Make it yourself
>Better
You might pay once because you already ordered, but you don't do it twice if you know it's shit

>Also your argument is not even correct anyway, someone who fixes one bug is not really better than the original programmer, he just had more time to focus on that one bug, instead of writing the whole program.
I'm not saying I'm better than the developer, I'm saying, that if they make an oopsie, I can fix it myself as soon as it happens instead of waiting until the developer steps in, which may never happens if they get hired, if they lose the source code, if a company buys from him the code, if he just drops the project and never wants to look at it again and more

Attached: abandoned-project.jpg (550x443, 103K)

Sure you can make the food if you like, noone is stopping you. You can also program whatever software you want, but why should I give you my code?

Would you walk into a restaurant and ask them for the recipe, the source of all their ingredients and so on? The restaurant would never tell because they don't want you to copy them.

I really don't have a problem with a customer fixing bugs himself, as long as he doesn't share the code, but I know too many people will share it. I won't activelly try to ruin my sales.

>GPL allows this. Non-copyleft licenses do too, but they also let proprietary developers add terms that say people can't use it the way they want.
That's part of their freedom, which part of "I don't care" you didn't get?

>So that's why they don't defend freedom.
They do, by not limiting you.

>So just like with proprietary software then?
Yeah, good luck with maintaining a software which there's no source. If they want to change something, they will have to call me or ask someone else to write another software from scratch. Guess which one is cheaper for them?

>Sometimes you should charge more for this, sometimes you should charge less. It depends on the company and product. One thing is clear though, you should not write proprietary software for any price. Putting a dollar value on the user's freedom ensures that it will be taken from them, and it will be taken from you too, seeing as how you are also a computer user.
Bullshit. This is business you retard, not some kind of computer utopia spread by RMS. The "user" is a company, they don't care about anything other than getting their job done.

Jesus Christ, you really fell for the freetard meme. The day you start working is the day you'll understand how that shit doesn't work if you want to make money.

Because I am a commie and I don't believe in private property.

It looks like he's using the fork, or rather utensils, for the first time in his life. How can somebody act so faggy though.

so don't use it you stupid faggot

>jews make up bullshit to get daddy goobermint to restrict your customer's property
>call it "intellectual" property to trick amerimutt capitalists into supporting you
This is the strongest proof that Americans are just retarded jew puppets. You literally can't defend it. How can anyone think you have a right that lasts 90+ years after you're dead? Anyone who unironically defends it is either a sub 80 IQ retard or has a Mouse hand up his ass.