Commies in my GNU

>why isn't for-profit software included in this free os?

Attached: 1551922494219.jpg (600x600, 42K)

>How did you get this idea?
see

What does Red hat do then? Canonical? Suse? Steam sells games for Linux. Many companies pay people to write code for the kernel, drivers and other software. Even if you're ultra gay and the only answer to your question is 'I'm looking to make a quick buck-ware', games fit that bill. But the landscape demands a more humane approach to software development, at least the GPL part.

The GPL expressly protects your right to sell GPLed software, or your modifications thereof. There are a lot of licenses with "no commercial use" clauses and the FSF damns all of them as nonfree.

In any case the GPL is antithetical to communism because it depends on a strong conception of property rights. The GPL is essentially: "This is my software, I control the rights to it, and I'll only give you the right to use it under my terms. My terms are that you're allowed to redistribute it, and any modifications, but only under the same license that I gave to you".

How do you sell something for profit if you are giving it away for free? What kind of retarded logic is this?

>What does Red hat do then? Canonical? Suse?
exploit an american law imposed on software companies?
>Steam sells games for Linux.
not anymore, thanks to epic.
>Many companies pay people to write code for the kernel, drivers and other software.
drivers are one thing but user software is another.

exactly. why do so many linux users think this way about software.

>actually profit from the fruit of their labors on linux
well the software you develop is still there when youre done writing it, it doesnt disappear.

>work your ass off making a piece of software that isn't shit
>whoops, can't sell that!

>not anymore, thanks to epic.
how? that makes no fucking sense you retard

why should we?

it acomplishes the exact same thing: the development and furthering of foss
and the comunity remains as "antiprofit" as ever

companies where autistically running away from gpl, its not like if it was a cockblocker or the "more friendly" lgpl didnt exist

why can't you sell it?

He has decided that because the trend is GPL, his code will have to bear the same license or it magically won't work on Linux.

you do know that FOSS only requires you to give the source alongside the software. It doesn't require you to publish all your code on Gitcuck

I mean, you can sell GPL software. In fact, it's even better than some license like MIT, since the buyer has the obligation to release any changes he made before he can distribute it.

>it only requires you to show all your code, not to show all your code on github

Are you really going to misrepresent my statements just so you can make "le witty gweentext"?

>FOSS only requires you to give the source alongside the software.
>this is a good thing

It is a good thing. And before you argue that one only needs to sell a single copy before everybody gets it for free: piracy, or lack of it. People can pirate, but few do, and it's not because of virus threats either.

how does one ensure a profit to make ends meet if someone can just copy-paste it with minor modifications and then sell it in place of yours?

start a patreon and post nudes

you can copy-paste anything digital, including software. Yet you don't see Pajeets at Microsoft having a meltdown because of it.

>how does one ensure a profit
You don't ensure anything. No one is obliged to buy your product, just like no one is obliged to dirty the streets so that those who sweep them get to keep their job. That's the free market people obsess over, and it's only as free as the minds of those with buying power, that is, not much.

If your software is good, people will pay for it. This whole argument is near identical to one of piracy. And just like there was a study that couldn't prove piracy=lost profit, I'm sure the same can be said here.

There is also support. Software has bugs and yet to be added features, among other things. You can provide that, developers get paid.

because Microsoft pajeets have an entire company behind their shitware, and its closed source. My problem is that you can legally get away with copy-pasting the hard work of somebody else and then make a profit off it if you want, or just give it away for free and undermine any chance the original developer had to make a buck.

>you don't ensure anything
not if you have investments you need return on.

>just like no one is obliged to pay street sweepers to clean the streets
ftfy

>If your software is good, people will pay for it.
and then some asshole will come along, copy-paste it, and make profits from your hard work.

>You can provide that, developers get paid.
valid point

>and then some asshole will come along, copy-paste it, and make profits from your hard work.
That's why you license it GPL, so you have an equal standing against those who copy your work, unlike MIT users.
Is there any case similar to what you're arguing? Just wondering, because it seems like Red Hay and friends have a good business even with all the distros based on them.

Again, i'm talking things like photoshop, spreadsheets, etc.

>so you have an equal standing against those who copy your work
interesting. So you can successfully compete if you provide supperior customer support and continually innovate assuming the competitior does not as well?
In regards to foss are you required to use the GPL or can you open source select parts of the source and sores the rest later?

Have you heard of a BSD license?