Embed Notice
HTML Code
Corresponding Notice
- Embed this notice@midway >Claiming something has no value to society isn't up to any one person.
It is, as one person has to make the claim.
>Society itself decides that as it's subjective.
Yes, society contains many things that are known to have no value, but people do those things anyway.
>Saying that you can only make money based on time you worked is a silly argument.
I don't think you read the article properly.
What was claimed is that it's only legitimate to be paid for actual work done (i.e. payment based on time worked), which is something I agree with.
>the business model depends on having more than one person pay for the product.
It's up a business to decide if their business model is based on one person, or many.
>Otherwise the price for the first copy would be astronomical. Insisting that each user pay is a way to keep the price down.
Paying a few programmers to work a few months on some software does cost a fair amount, but not an astronomical amount - although the business managing the programmers wants to charge a price so astronomical that <0.1% of profits are equivalent to all the programmers wages.
Demanding that each and every user pay is a way to be profitable - but it makes no difference to the actual cost of developing the software.
>What piracy has lead us to is software and other digital media being offered as subscription services more directly (e.g. SaaS).
Unauthorized copying has nothing at all to do with the increased levels of digital handcuffs and subscription services - many companies have just realized that screwing over the customers is more profitable and they'll all keep doing that for as long as the suckers keep paying.
>So for those of us who actually prefer having an actual copy, that option is slowly going away. So you end up renting it more explicitly than before anyway.
The option for an actual copy is only going away because people refuse to choose with their wallet and just say no to degeneracy.
I do not pay for proprietary software, or for monthly subscription "services", so I'm doing my part, barely anyone else seems to be doing so though.
>I say all this as a proponent of FOSS
I wish to eliminate all forms of proprietary software, including "FOSS".
>50 GitHub repos all with an MIT license
Github is proprietary and licensing under expat is a terrible idea - as it's just a handout to proprietary software companies - clearly your time is valuable, so why use it to do gratis work for proprietary software companies?
I recommend licensing under the AGPLv3-or-later.
>the creator should get to decide if he wants to release his product as FOSS or not.
The author of a copyrightable work has the option to choose the license on resulting work.
The author should have the choice whether to distribute some software or not, but it's not acceptable for any author to release proprietary malware.