Not a valid comparison as their work can’t be transferred. This, to me, is arguing that software should be developed for a specific customer and not distributed further. Which probably isn’t what you’re arguing.
If I buy a house that needs work, contract that work to be done, and then sell that house with the work done, I believe I have distributed the result of that labor.
With the proprietary software model, I would not be able to sell a house that I have had electrical work done under contract. That is bogus.
You're actually making the case for licensed software without free distribution here -- the plumber has worked on your house, and possibly installed parts, just as someone may work on a computer, and possibly install software. If you want, you could remove those parts and sell them to your neighbour, but then you wouldn't have them anymore. Or, you could sell the house whole, just as you could sell a computer with software installed (okay, peculiarities of licensing may make that challenging, and I'm in favour of licensing reform).
But what you can't do with plumbing work is have it performed, then copy it to your neighbour's house whilst still keeping it for yourself. You can do that with free software.
Yes, because they don't have a product to sell, just their labor. But software IS a product.
You could argue that there should be no products at all. Again, what would our economic model look like then? You are using a product right now, HN. Among many others, I am sure.
>Yes, because they don't have a product to sell, just their labor. But software IS a product.
I'd argue the end result ofthem connecting tubes, electrical switches, etc can be considered a product in the same sense. Thing is when they leave the owner can transfer their creation to someone else (tho often with the house it was done in), let someone else use it, let someone else look at it and learn from it, let someone else fix it, etc all despite the more restrictive nature of it all.
When it comes to software a lot of this is too often suddenly a problem.
A building would be analogous to an application in my example. The professions I mentioned sell their labor to produce a fully featured building. Software engineers should sell their labor to produce a fully featured application.
The difference here is that buildings naturally succumb to the laws of physics, while software is only subjected to the more liberal laws of information by nature. We apply laws such as copyright to software to create artifical scarcity in order to benefit the authors to an artificial degree, at the expense of general freedom and technological advancement.
Are you against products in general, or just when it comes to treating software as a product? I think that is a question you should answer first.
Furthermore, if software is not allowed to be a product, can you sell a service based on software as a product? If no, services as Netflix cease to exist. If yes, where is the boundary between the software and the service?
Finally, who are you to tell people what they can and cannot sell as a product? Sounds like the worst kind of regulation to me!
> Furthermore, if software is not allowed to be a product, can you sell a service based on software as a product?
Yes.
> If yes, where is the boundary between the software and the service?
At... the boundary...? I think it's pretty clear that services and software are different things. You even called them different things.
If I write software for you, that act is a service. What is produced is software. The former should be monetized rather than the latter.
If I let you use my computer (ie for storage), that is a service. The software for accessing my computer is software. The former should be monetized rather than the latter (which is true in the case of Netflix).
> Finally, who are you to tell people what they can and cannot sell as a product?
Ok, then I will provide you just with services from now on. Internally, I might use software to be able to provide you with that service, but as I provide you just with a service, that doesn't seem to matter to you.
Yes, instead of a software product, I am selling you a SaaS, and apparently you are fine with that.
As far as how they monetize their service, yes. I think it is a shame that their client is malware, and that it's not possible to use the service without their malware client. That is a separate issue though.
