making a living writing software

[dann]

Why is one entitled to make money writing software? I already said in my previous posts that many other jobs exist outside of programming. If the ethics of Free Software prohibit someone from taking on a proprietary programming job, there are alternative ways to make an income.

No one is entitled to anything. But there is an expectation that if you "work" then you should get some form of compensation. Just because you follow the tenants of free software does not mean that you should not make money writing software; but this does not entitle you to make money either.

I think what is at odds here is the difficulty it is to make money off free software by just writing code. The few cases that this is true are the exception; but I believe what is posited by most (and I am paraphrasing Eric Raymond here) is that you don't "sell" the software but a service behind in: Support contracts, customizations, etc. Thus we see more FOSS companies targeting business as that is where the money is. There is very little money in the consumer market and a lot more headaches comparably with regards to support.

If your philosophical beliefs prevent you from working with the adobe's of the world, then more power to you. That is a personal choice there.

[snarkout]

Being as astute as RMS is, I wonder how he reconciles that.

He's an idealist kook?

You wouldn't be sitting there typing that if RMS didn't stick to his ideals. This board is free software released under the idealistic GPL.

The license is a fine piece of work. That doesn't change the fact that Stallman is both an extreme idealist and a kook. If you want to tilt at windmills, find something more meaningful than software to champion. Whole I firmly believe in the Free Software/Open source Software model as a great means to share software, I do not believe that it is any sort of moral imperative that all software be free - *that* is a logical fallacy. Giving away the fruits of your labors may be what you want to do, and God bless you if that's the case, but to call dogshit on someone who supports their family by working at even - gasp - microsoft is asshattery. Sorry, I'm not a communist, or at least not in favor of communism by conscription.

Beyond that, I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, there is an assload of software out there available for free with source code attached that is not GPL or the creation of RMS. SO asserting that w/o RMS there would be no F/OSS is another logical fallacy, no?

[allix]

If you want to tilt at windmills, find something more meaningful than software to champion.

I agree on that, Greenpeace, earth first , < insert environmental pressure group> , civil rights and other specialist groups do not even think about where the damn software is to make there campaigns, ( a less it was made by a sponsor that was against there interest they are campaigning for), they just care that it works.

At the end of the day free software is not illegal.

Sorry, I'm not a communist, or at least not in favor of communism by conscription.

neither is rms

taken from http://www.entretodas.net/?p=1529

It is somehow funny that it had to be a North American the one to promote and communicate of the most social -socialist, even- approach and that it is finally making inroads in Europe.

The Free Software Movement has something in common with Socialism: we encourage cooperation and sharing, and contribution to the community.
Proprietary software forbids sharing, keeping the users divided and helpless.

The Free Software Movement also has something in common with Capitalism: your copy of a free program is your property, and there is a free market for all sorts of support and services relating to free software. Most proprietary software says you cannot own a copy, and the developer has a monopoly on support.

[Tsuroerusu]

Sorry, I'm not a communist, or at least not in favor of communism by conscription.

neither is rms

RMS is actually a Liberal:

Why would I, as a Liberal, have anything favorable to say about a Republican such as Ron Paul?

Source: http://www.stallman.org/ron-paul.html.

[Wally Balljacker]

The license is a fine piece of work. That doesn't change the fact that Stallman is both an extreme idealist and a kook. If you want to tilt at windmills, find something more meaningful than software to champion. Whole I firmly believe in the Free Software/Open source Software model as a great means to share software, I do not believe that it is any sort of moral imperative that all software be free - *that* is a logical fallacy. Giving away the fruits of your labors may be what you want to do, and God bless you if that's the case, but to call dogshit on someone who supports their family by working at even - gasp - microsoft is asshattery. Sorry, I'm not a communist, or at least not in favor of communism by conscription.

Beyond that, I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, there is an assload of software out there available for free with source code attached that is not GPL or the creation of RMS. SO asserting that w/o RMS there would be no F/OSS is another logical fallacy, no?

My original point was simply that RMS started the whole movement, and we owe a lot to his fervent idealism. You can disagree with his politics, but you can't deny that he has had a major impact on the community that we all love and enjoy.

[snarkout]

I would never deny that. I would appreciate his position a hell of a lot more if he were just in favor of his own license and what comes along with it rather than insisting that the entire world share his vision and calling people who don't "hoarders" and the like.