Does history have any precedents we could learn from of vast numbers of the members of a profession inexplicably insisting on working for free, devastating the opportunities for profit of those remaining? Should we go to their conventions and smash all their laptops like union workers barring the gates of a factory to stop anyone else working while they're on strike? Maybe lynch them wherever we find them like medieval guild members when they found someone charging less than the agreed on rate for their services? We have to do something I need to EAT for god's sake
now remake this but using chez vs guile on what is a scheme bbs
what is a scheme bbs? You're jut making noises
I earn a fortune by writing and selling free software. Sucks to be you.
>>1 By killed yourself OP.
Plain and simple.
>>3
please look in a mirror
It happened in USSR.
The regime forced people to work for free.
Many of the FOSS people are students living off their parents.
So their code has low value.
Will be worse when AI becomes production ready
Programming is doomed as a profession.
I get paid by a publicly traded company to contribute to open source and quite honestly the stuff we write is worse than the stuff the NEETs write.
All serious free software projects are funded by developers of proprietary software. The only people who give a shit about free software are other developers. If you're writing a library, development tools, or anything similar targeted at developers it makes sense to release it under a free license. Otherwise, you are just kneecapping yourself and ensuring that you will never make a meaningful living without working for the man.
>>9
I make a living by writing and selling free software.
just don't release your free software under a cuck license
I've come around to the idea of a middle ground between free and proprietary software, non-free but still open source software. E.g. something that allows personal use and modification but not wholesale redistribution. Something like a Creative Commons Non-Commercial license. Seems like a good balance between letting developers profit off their works and allowing users the freedom to use the software how they want.
how can we stop communism
You can’t
>>13
can not stop death
>>14
This is what someone with senescence says.
1% of the animal kingdom already regrows entire limbs and brains, you just need to CRISPR gud.
OP probably already intoxicated theirself to death, because he's been cancelled from gigs.
>>1 One can’t fix stupid people. Don’t try to stop them, we live in a free world. If one try to suicide himself is perfectly legal for him to do that, if one try to amputate his/her/theirs arm is also totally legal to do this. Stupid people will always exist, is a miracle of the diversity we live in.
Is true that they drag us with them in their mud. Just try to detach from them and let them sink hopping that is future will be less retards in our profession.
Open source only makes sense to break a monopoly, like Linux did, or to break a monopoly for programming tools when there was not to much choice.
Creating frameworks and other overengineered open source that fragments the ecosystem is totally retarded.
I've come around to the idea of a middle ground between free and proprietary software, non-free but still open source software. E.g. something that allows personal use and modification but not wholesale redistribution. Something like a Creative Commons Non-Commercial license.
What you are proposing is known as "source-available software".
It is not considered open source.
We need more purely public domain software, which one can just adapt without worrying about license issues, like one adapts classic fairy tales.
you can sell and profit off of free and open source software. the free means freedom not free beer. you just got to respect the freedoms of the end-user.
I've come around to the idea of a middle ground between free and proprietary software, non-free but still open source software. E.g. something that allows personal use and modification but not wholesale redistribution. Something like a Creative Commons Non-Commercial license.
There is not middle ground. You can’t have a cake and eat it too. You have to choose between having it or eating it.
You are forced to give away all your hard work and expose trade secrets, if you use anything GPL. Because Stallman is a statist commie-nazi.
We need more purely public domain software, which one can just adapt without worrying about license issues, like one adapts classic fairy tales.
Don't worry. Microsoft Windows will enter the public domain sometime in the 21st century. However, even when software enters the public domain, you might not have access to the source code ("trade secrets").
Stay away from Lisp: most of the Lisp libraries GPL licensed.
Compare to the Microsoft C#, which is MIT
>>21
No that's wrong about the GPL. Because Stallman is not a statist commie.
You are forced to give away all your hard work and expose trade secrets, if you use anything GPL. Because Stallman is a statist commie-nazi.
True. Once is free, you can’t sell it. Once is free even if was created by yourself even if you donate it for free it doesn’t have any value for the receiver of donation because anyway he/she can get it for free from the people who ‘modify’ your work, from plagiators.
you can sell and profit off of free and open source software. the free means freedom not free beer. you just got to respect the freedoms of the end-user.
Not true. You are naive about human nature because you are assuming all the people on the planet are honest. Once it is open source and everyone can copy it and modify it is exactly like free beer. Anybody can pretend is his/her creation after making a trivial modification.
>>26
I've made a fortune by writing and selling my own free software. My niche is to work as a software consultant that specializes in writing free software replacements to proprietary software. My customers are perfectly welcome to copy and modify then redistribute the software that I've sold to them; in actual practice they don't do this because that isn't a normal part of their business function. I write software that is perfectly designed for their business and they have no interest in doing work such as doing tech support for supposed software users, making further changes for the sake of supposed software users, or collaborating software development with supposed software users. I am perfectly happy for my customers to start doing this if that was their desire as they are entitled under the GPLv3 or later.
FOSS is futurism! (〜￣▽￣)〜
Nonfree malware delenda est!
https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/