Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 14th Apr 2009 15:38 UTC
On June 29, 2007 the Free Software Foundation released the GNU General Public License, version 3. What happened since then? Federico Biancuzzi had the opportunity to discuss many subjects with the FSF's founder and president Richard Stallman.
Thread beginning with comment 358896
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-04-22
You're clearly looking at things from a salesman's point of view. RMS is not a salesman, he's a programmer. From a programmer's point of view it shouldn't really matter if you get paid for developing commercial software or custom software. It only matters from a salesman's point of view. And salesmen can always find other commodities to sell if they can't sell software.
The point that you seem to be happily ignoring is that developing commercial non-free software employs a radically smaller number of programmers than developing custom software which has never been meant to be sold or distributed to others. And if organizations and companies can't buy commercial software, there will be an increasing need to hire more programmers to do in-house software customization and development. That means more well-paid jobs for skilful programmers.
And here's a point that is worth repeating: custom in-house software, that is never distributed to others, is neither free or non-free.
The point that you seem to be happily ignoring is that developing commercial non-free software employs a radically smaller number of programmers than developing custom software which has never been meant to be sold or distributed to others. And if organizations and companies can't buy commercial software, there will be an increasing need to hire more programmers to do in-house software customization and development. That means more well-paid jobs for skilful programmers.
And here's a point that is worth repeating: custom in-house software, that is never distributed to others, is neither free or non-free.
No I am not looking at this from a salesman's view, but as a business owner. Yes RMS is a programmer, that clearly has shown he has no understanding of business, markets, and economics 101. Your whole argument is with the end of commercial software, thus the end of the personal computer movement. First off not all businesses are going to hire developers. Second, the advancement in technology today is such that a few programmers can not equal what a commercial product could do. Already this shows a complete lack of understanding of how a business operates. You are talking about hiring several developers at a salary above $50k, when a company of say 50 employees will pay a fraction of that in software licenses. Does it really take rocket science to figure out which model is more efficiant? Which model has a better chance of survival in the market? Obvious to me from day one, a business survives by NOT hiring employees that produce no value, but in hiring employees that do produce value. The idea that businesses will just hire programmers to make up for the lack of commercial software is just down right idiotic, there is no other way to put it. The whole problem with this argument is it is fantasy, void of all reality.
Basic business 101 - Never hire employees when an alternative service or product can be obtained for a fraction of the cost.
Reality 101 - To think that commercial software is going away, is just down right idiotic. No other way to put it. There is a market for it, and where there is a market there will be businesses seeking entry.
Really at this point it is pointless to go further as the whole notion that closed source commercial software will end, it never will. This certainly does not stop people from producing FOSS, but do not entertain the notion for a fraction of a second that the business model that has been proven effective will change.
Member since:
2006-01-01
You're clearly looking at things from a salesman's point of view. RMS is not a salesman, he's a programmer. From a programmer's point of view it shouldn't really matter if you get paid for developing commercial software or custom software. It only matters from a salesman's point of view. And salesmen can always find other commodities to sell if they can't sell software.
The point that you seem to be happily ignoring is that developing commercial non-free software employs a radically smaller number of programmers than developing custom software which has never been meant to be sold or distributed to others. And if organizations and companies can't buy commercial software, there will be an increasing need to hire more programmers to do in-house software customization and development. That means more well-paid jobs for skilful programmers.
And here's a point that is worth repeating: custom in-house software, that is never distributed to others, is neither free or non-free.