Sometimes I wonder if open-source tools would be better if people were forced to always pay for the software they use.
The https://www.imsta.org/piracy.php page throws some interesting thoughts.
> Serum reportedly has a piracy rate of 94% and it is still being developed.
> It would be a mistake to infer that the popularity of a music software product automatically translates into riches for the software developer.
🤔
D group: team foss
"The entirety of music software consumers can be divided into 3 categories: A Group, B Group and C Group. The A Group buys all their software products. The B-Group buys some software and uses some illegal software. The C Group will never use legal copies and will always use illegal versions."
Apparently, foss software doesn't exist.
@celesteh That is the A group though. If something is free, you pay in other ways by donating, submitting reports and spreading positivity around a project.
Also, foss does not mean free of cost, many people happily pay for an Ardour subscription.
People that use opensource tools without ever contributing anything back can be thought to be in the C group.
I think it might be more productive to think of it being available on a sliding scale of "payment", where it's possible and allowable to give nothing back. We recognise that there are extremely valid reasons somebody might just download and use a tool without any further interaction with the community surrounding the tool.
Their binary opposition between "legal" and "illegal" doesn't really describe FOSS and involves coercive state power. I specifically avoid that model.
@celesteh we can always contribute stuff back in indirect ways, that is mostly what I mean.
I do not expect people to contribute to every single opensource project they use, but instead, stuff like making their own things also free/open, or contributing to a few select projects or could be by just refusing to use pirated software.
I teach a lot of foss software to under grad music students. There are a lot of good ideological reasons to do this, but a better reason is that they own the software properly once they download it and don't need to pay.
Their relationship to foss may change over time, but right now, giving them stuff for free is totally appropriate.
Folks can be encouraged to do more, but it shouldn't be necessary or even expected.
@celesteh I expect people to do more than just use the tools provided to them for free though.
We are not at a point where software licensing and privacy are in good standing, so just letting status quo be is akin to letting things move more and more into a wrong direction.
Active participation is not required IMO, simply refusing to use pirated software already helps.
Otherwise it is just unfair that commercial tools get both paying and non-paying customers. Gets impossible to compete.
@falktx
We might agree to disagree. I'm much more interested in the music they're able to make.