this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2026
1893 points (96.8% liked)

pics

26201 readers
506 users here now

Rules:

1.. Please mark original photos with [OC] in the title if you're the photographer

2..Pictures containing a politician from any country or planet are prohibited, this is a community voted on rule.

3.. Image must be a photograph, no AI or digital art.

4.. No NSFW/Cosplay/Spam/Trolling images.

5.. Be civil. No racism or bigotry.

Photo of the Week Rule(s):

1.. On Fridays, the most upvoted original, marked [OC], photo posted between Friday and Thursday will be the next week's banner and featured photo.

2.. The weekly photos will be saved for an end of the year run off.

Weeks 2023

Instance-wide rules always apply. https://mastodon.world/about

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 27 points 1 day ago (4 children)

What many people don't think about is that open source / free software is anti-billionaire software.

Since all software is bits, and it's free and easy to copy bits, to make money from software, a company needs to build a "moat". A moat is something that protects your company from people choosing alternatives. Open source software is built without a moat, so that anybody and everybody can access it. And, if you build with the GPL anybody who builds something based on your software is forbidden from building a moat of their own.

This means that it's really hard to get rich building free / open source software. But, it also means that in any area where there is free / open source software it's much harder for fully commercial, closed source, for profit companies to make big profits. Enshittify too much and people will just switch to the alternative, even if the alternative is significantly less stable, not as easy to use, is lacking features, etc. Piss people off too much and they might actually invest engineering money on improving the open source alternative.

Adobe is a big company with their fingers in many different pies. Photoshop is only one of their products. Gimp alone can't do much to hold Adobe back, but it does limit what they can do with Photoshop and still expect to make money from it.

[–] Digit@lemmy.wtf 3 points 1 hour ago

to make money from software, a company needs to build a “moat”.

No. There are other ways.

I've paid more for Free Software licensed software voluntarily than I ever did for proprietary software with its moats. Largely because they have no moat.

[–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

This means that it’s really hard to get rich building free / open source software.

Red Hat, Canonical and others disagree.

[–] hamid@crazypeople.online 1 points 40 minutes ago

Meta is probably the biggest example of profiting from open source

[–] Gates9@sh.itjust.works 7 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Software licensing will eventually be relegated to the “dustbin of history”, hopefully it won’t be after humanity emerges from a post-apocalyptic hellscape.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 11 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Yeah. Software licensing is artificial scarcity, trying to make the new world of bits seem like the old world of objects so that people who knew how to make money with objects can still make money with bits.

[–] Digit@lemmy.wtf 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Are not the copyleft licenses the opposite of artificial scarcity, not just affirming that opposite, but also affirming to not impose that artificial scarcity later on, as a condition?

Even permissive licenses start from an absence of artificial scarcity. Even if though later on, forks can add their artificial scarcity.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 2 points 21 hours ago

I agree that it's artificial scarcity, but I don't think the conversation is going to fully be able to move to removing that scarcity until we find a way to handle the people who rearrange the bits actually living in a world of objects and totally authentic scarcity.

It's the same dilemma we have with authors and musicians. Even if it can be infinitely copied the people who make it still need to eat, and not just be able to find a way to eat, but to reliably and predictably eat which makes donations and crowd funding iffy at best.

As a user and contributer to open source, I'm loath to put up any defense of something that irritates me more often than not. As a person who makes a living working on the closed side I can honestly say I would probably not be in the field if there wasn't as much ability to make a living in it.

Software patents can fuck off though.

[–] KneeTitts@lemmy.world 6 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

apocalyptic hellscape

Which is, sadly, where we are right now

[–] bitchkat@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago

Heading there but plenty of room to get worse

[–] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 2 points 20 hours ago

If only I was free enough to code the end of software companies.