If you want people to pay you for your software, stop writing it for free. Conversely, if you write it for free, don't expect people to pay you for it. Otherwise you are no better than someone at an intersection with a bottle of Windex and a squeegee who, unsolicited, cleans a windshield and then demands the driver to pay for it.
The original authors of Free Software and open source were career academics and others who were paid to do other things, or were sponsored by scientific and defense research grants. I don't know how anyone got the nutty idea that you could make money on FOSS itself. Practically every time someone has tried to make money on FOSS it has failed.
(Edit: this comment previously ended with "...from Netscape on down.")
It's not about the definition of ownership, either. The author of FOSS software retains ownership, unless they explicitly convey it to someone else.
It's about how software is licensed--the terms and conditions under which someone can make a copy. That's why it's called the GNU Public License, or the MIT License, and why there's a LICENSE file.
The mere act of copying does not convey ownership, and never has.
You are likely too much in it to see the other side.
Free software licensing is an attempt to make copyright irrelevant: it's basically a no-copyright world it aims for, but then structured into the copyright world of licensing to use and distribute. It is nothing but a workaround, and copyleft uses it to make the default an even stronger case for reuse (by including sources).
In no-copyright world, you get a copy of something and do with it as you please. No licenses, no permissions. People frequently consider this "ownership" akin to owning a physical item (you get a copy of a book, or a toaster, and you do not ask for a license to tear a page out or repaint the toaster).
> Free software licensing is an attempt to make copyright irrelevant
The creators of the GPL never said this. That's an interpretation that Richard Stallman would probably disagree with if you asked him.
> In no-copyright world, you get a copy of something and do with it as you please. No licenses, no permissions. People frequently consider this "ownership" akin to owning a physical item (you get a copy of a book, or a toaster, and you do not ask for a license to tear a page out or repaint the toaster).
I'm aware of all this. It's also irrelevant, because we live in a world with copyright, and despite the fever dreams of some, that's not changing any time soon.
Perhaps you should allow the person I was responding to answer for him/herself.
I apologize for intruding on your personal conversation on a public forum.
What the RMS's opinion on copyright in software was when he kicked off "free software" is pretty obvious from <a href="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html — you may certainly have a different interpretation of "you should be able to give a copy to your friend" than I do.
otterley · · focus · HN ↗
The original authors of Free Software and open source were career academics and others who were paid to do other things, or were sponsored by scientific and defense research grants. I don't know how anyone got the nutty idea that you could make money on FOSS itself. Practically every time someone has tried to make money on FOSS it has failed.
(Edit: this comment previously ended with "...from Netscape on down.")
pyuser583 · · focus · HN ↗
It’s about the definition of ownership. What does it mean to own a program?
When you distribute the program, you must also distribute the code for it. That’s open source.
otterley · · focus · HN ↗
It's about how software is licensed--the terms and conditions under which someone can make a copy. That's why it's called the GNU Public License, or the MIT License, and why there's a LICENSE file.
The mere act of copying does not convey ownership, and never has.
thayne · · focus · HN ↗
otterley · · focus · HN ↗
necovek · · focus · HN ↗
Free software licensing is an attempt to make copyright irrelevant: it's basically a no-copyright world it aims for, but then structured into the copyright world of licensing to use and distribute. It is nothing but a workaround, and copyleft uses it to make the default an even stronger case for reuse (by including sources).
In no-copyright world, you get a copy of something and do with it as you please. No licenses, no permissions. People frequently consider this "ownership" akin to owning a physical item (you get a copy of a book, or a toaster, and you do not ask for a license to tear a page out or repaint the toaster).
otterley · · focus · HN ↗
The creators of the GPL never said this. That's an interpretation that Richard Stallman would probably disagree with if you asked him.
> In no-copyright world, you get a copy of something and do with it as you please. No licenses, no permissions. People frequently consider this "ownership" akin to owning a physical item (you get a copy of a book, or a toaster, and you do not ask for a license to tear a page out or repaint the toaster).
I'm aware of all this. It's also irrelevant, because we live in a world with copyright, and despite the fever dreams of some, that's not changing any time soon.
Perhaps you should allow the person I was responding to answer for him/herself.
necovek · · focus · HN ↗
What the RMS's opinion on copyright in software was when he kicked off "free software" is pretty obvious from <a href="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html — you may certainly have a different interpretation of "you should be able to give a copy to your friend" than I do.