thinking software should be free is like going to a restaurant and trying to get free meal because food is basic human need. if you make your code open source you have no respect to your work.
Nice try winpajeet but free means freedom. You can charge money for freedom software but you can't restrict its use after purchase. Proprietary software is like going to a restaurant and ordering a steak and the waiter tells you that you're only allowed to eat it with a spoon and you only have 5 minutes to eat it. With free software you can eat it however you want and add some pepper if you feel like it. You can even let your wife have some of it to try it out. Why would any customer accept anything but freedom? There are no downsides from user's point of view.
You're debating the possibility of Free Software when it literally exists right now. This is like making a theory that says rain is impossible - its obviously refuted by the fact it does rain.
"Why would anyone spend all that time and money building cars when horses exist? Clearly, cars will never work." and then you go outside and see everyone driving them. You're refuted by reality - Free software exists and tons of people do pour a lot of time into it, for various reasons.
if you have a million users you only need something like 1 cent to a dollar from each of them a month to be profitable. you can do this pretty easily if you put an affilliate link somewhere into your software, like ubuntu does with their amazon links.
One good thing about it, apart from just saving other people time, is that if there's high quality free source code for common problems/scenarios then there'll be a higher probability that the software using that free code will be of a higher quality
(unless if they override the code they're importing with lower quality code i guess). So if you want other people to create higher quality software then you can always write high quality free libraries and stuff for them to use
People shouldn't be pressured to open source things though, and generally they're not which is good
>Why would someone pour hours of their life into developing something for free?
resume padding
once they get a job they dont give a shit about their precious intellectual property pet projects
Because they like it. And they need to solve a problem. And they like solving problems. And they're aware others may face similar problems, and would like to be of assistance; and not a greedy douche. On top of that, someone else may have a similar problem, but see a more effective solution than what you have used, and they can improve the solution and add any other functionality they seem necessary. Kinda how humans progress, this just speeds up the process when you don't have to reverse engineer something and fight corporate lawyers for copyright infringement.
>Why would someone pour hours of their life into developing something for free?
In the old days, you could just code at work and then go home and live a chill life without having to keep up some stupid FOSS project or dick measure with your GitHub account.
To answer your question, sperglord homosexuals who love coding SO much they do it for free (like a janny) in their off time. Then those sperglord homosexuals want to hire other sperglord homosexuals and now you can't get a job because these naggers infest every company at every layer.
They don't. They hope the result will be monetizable in some way when they're done.
FOSS just gives them a "i-its foss, INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREEEEEEEE *programmer convulses and wires fall out of nose*" cope for when they fail.
Because they feel like it.
thinking software should be free is like going to a restaurant and trying to get free meal because food is basic human need. if you make your code open source you have no respect to your work.
>proprietary software is literal goyslop
sounds bout rite
Less time online
more time studying English, malachi.
Nice try winpajeet but free means freedom. You can charge money for freedom software but you can't restrict its use after purchase. Proprietary software is like going to a restaurant and ordering a steak and the waiter tells you that you're only allowed to eat it with a spoon and you only have 5 minutes to eat it. With free software you can eat it however you want and add some pepper if you feel like it. You can even let your wife have some of it to try it out. Why would any customer accept anything but freedom? There are no downsides from user's point of view.
>food analogy
IMAGINE BEING AT COMPUTERS
If you're comparing it to food, it'd be like if once one person cooked the dish, everyone else could just have a free clone of it.
tpbp and /thread
Well done for triggering the failures.
Because they have a soul.
revolving everything you do around money is soulless
to flex their e-penis
You're debating the possibility of Free Software when it literally exists right now. This is like making a theory that says rain is impossible - its obviously refuted by the fact it does rain.
Autistic retard
"Why would anyone spend all that time and money building cars when horses exist? Clearly, cars will never work." and then you go outside and see everyone driving them. You're refuted by reality - Free software exists and tons of people do pour a lot of time into it, for various reasons.
~~*you*~~ wouldn't get it
A lot of contributors to FOSS stuff work at big tech and get paid to do so.
Companies that rely on FOSS pour millions of $ into donations as well.
intellectual property is a israeli psyop. You cannot own ideas.
if you have a million users you only need something like 1 cent to a dollar from each of them a month to be profitable. you can do this pretty easily if you put an affilliate link somewhere into your software, like ubuntu does with their amazon links.
One good thing about it, apart from just saving other people time, is that if there's high quality free source code for common problems/scenarios then there'll be a higher probability that the software using that free code will be of a higher quality
(unless if they override the code they're importing with lower quality code i guess). So if you want other people to create higher quality software then you can always write high quality free libraries and stuff for them to use
People shouldn't be pressured to open source things though, and generally they're not which is good
>Why would someone pour hours of their life into developing something for free?
resume padding
once they get a job they dont give a shit about their precious intellectual property pet projects
>resume padding
>const
>const
i write software for myself the way i like
and then release it, because why not
normies won't use it so monetization is hopeless
>Why would someone pour hours of their life into developing something for free?
Because they need it themselves.
I write the code for free but people donate a substantial amount of money
Because they like it. And they need to solve a problem. And they like solving problems. And they're aware others may face similar problems, and would like to be of assistance; and not a greedy douche. On top of that, someone else may have a similar problem, but see a more effective solution than what you have used, and they can improve the solution and add any other functionality they seem necessary. Kinda how humans progress, this just speeds up the process when you don't have to reverse engineer something and fight corporate lawyers for copyright infringement.
They don't do it for free, they do it for themselves and then they share their work with others because it doesn't cost them anything to do so.
>Why would someone pour hours of their life into developing something for free?
In the old days, you could just code at work and then go home and live a chill life without having to keep up some stupid FOSS project or dick measure with your GitHub account.
To answer your question, sperglord homosexuals who love coding SO much they do it for free (like a janny) in their off time. Then those sperglord homosexuals want to hire other sperglord homosexuals and now you can't get a job because these naggers infest every company at every layer.
People can be motivated by things other than money, such as ideology or fun.
Fame.
They don't. They hope the result will be monetizable in some way when they're done.
FOSS just gives them a "i-its foss, INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREEEEEEEE *programmer convulses and wires fall out of nose*" cope for when they fail.