How do FOSS advocates want people to live?

If you are an app developer or something, does the FOSS community expect you to get by via donations? Are they against independent developers charging for products that people might want to pay for?

Other urls found in this thread:

gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Write custom software (this one actually gives you money) or crowdfund.

The better question is, why care what some faggots on the internet think? Are they going to come and beat you up for making money with nonfoss?
I'm a programmer who likes Foss as an idea but I don't worship it, we are inherently practical people and don't get too absorbed in ideological crap, that's for retards like pol. So basically fuck you.

Ask Red Hat how they do it.

Not all libre software is gratis.

see
FREE & OPEN SOURCE (TM)
Does not imply that you get no money for the development.

I am full time developer at a local company, working 40h/week as dev ops, however, since I have zero social life, and lots of free time, I am working after hours remotely for FOSS project that pays me, what they sell is "CLOUD SOLUTIONS", however, they include 24/7/365 phone/mail/telegram/whatever support, and that thing actually pays their bills. But the software and everything is free and on github.

Except for selling the access to the software that you licence as free and open, they do not provide any other business model.

dumbass

I'd be willing to pay for Wire, if they wouldn't limit payment to just businesses. I also pay for Tutanota premium. I also donate to eff.org yearly.

FOSS seems geared more towards corporations. Of course Red Hat can make money charging for service and support.

If you're a one man dev making some useful desktop application, charge away.

you're mixing up "free as in beer" and "free as in freedom"
blame english for not having a word like "libre"
there's nothing stopping you from selling foss

This
>mfw people confuse freedom with price and free software with open source shit
>mfw I explain that the term free has many meanings in English and price is one of them and they blame me for using an ambiguous word
I bet those tards don't even know what libre is

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as FOSS is in fact, FLOSS. The two political camps in the free software community are the free software movement and open source. The free software movement is a campaign for computer users' freedom; we say that a nonfree program is an injustice to its users. The open source camp declines to see the issue as a matter of justice to the users, and bases its arguments on practical benefits only.

To emphasize that “free software” refers to freedom and not to price, we sometimes write or say “free (libre) software,” adding the French or Spanish word that means free in the sense of freedom. In some contexts, it works to use just “libre software.”

A researcher studying practices and methods used by developers in the free software community decided that these questions were independent of the developers' political views, so he used the term “FLOSS,” meaning “Free/Libre and Open Source Software,” to explicitly avoid a preference between the two political camps. If you wish to be neutral, this is a good way to do it, since this makes the names of the two camps equally prominent.

“Free and Open Source Software” is misleading: it suggests that “free and open source” names a single point of view, rather than mentioning two different ones. This conceptualization of the field is an obstacle to understanding the fact that free software and open source are different political positions that disagree fundamentally.

Thus, if you want to be neutral between free software and open source, and clear about them, the way to achieve that is to say “FLOSS,” not “FOSS.”

We in the free software movement don't use either of these terms, because we don't want to be neutral on the political question. We stand for freedom, and we show it every time—by saying “free” and “libre”— or “free (libre)”.

Stallman recommend selling free software

No, but we expect you to learn how to fucking read.
Open Source != you can't charge money for the software.

Are you against actually thinking?
Can you form a coherent thought?
There are numerous examples of industry built on open source software, and numerous companies making good profit on the software.

Do your own fucking research.

>app developer
programmer

Free software means devs get paid for their work. Someone wants some coding done and they pay for it. Donations and crowd funding can be one way.

With propriety software, devs get paid for each sale of the software or by subscription. Both of these make no sense as the cost of distributing the software costs nearly nothing.

FOSS work well with services but not so much with products unless you go the double licensing way.

1. Get paid by someone else to develop software
2. Provide free and desirable software but have some kind of donation system that keeps you afloat (porn games and patreon come to mind)
3. Provide free software and charge a fee for custom add-ons, support and services
4. Sell it for a price
5. Let your boyfriend take care of your communist ass

>there's nothing stopping you from selling foss
You're crazy if you believe this, any for pay open source project I've seen has a fork with the drm removed and prebuilt binaries.

If it has DRM then it isn't free software, DRM is meant to restrict the user by design and interferes with freedom 0. Besides, DRM isn't a requirement for selling software, unlike what every corporation wants you to believe

>use """free""" license to get browny points from freetards
>sell same software with normal license to "evil corporations"

same goes for paid proprietary software
if a user doesn't want to pay, there's almost always some other way to get it (copy from a friend, torrents, cracks/serials, etc)
the people who do pay are either;
a. oblivious to 'other' means
b. want to support the developer(s)
c. find the official source most trustworthy or convenient
there's no reason why such people wouldn't pay for foss

arguing that it's too easy to just take foss without paying is stupid, it's often just as easy to take paid proprietary software as well, yet a lot of people, for one reason or another, pay anyway

How else do yo expect for young developers to get some projects on their resume and actual contribute to the general good.

Read this
gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

Sucker corporations, paying for what they could get for free only to doom their future software to death.