Just ask the folks at the Blender Foundation how much “free” costs!
No, you don’t pay a red cent for Blender … but it still costs money to make it. Fortunately, there are people who are willing to invest that money into something that will not produce for them a direct financial return. They understand that money is necessary and that there is more than one way to obtain a return on one’s investment. We all owe a great spiritual debt to those people.
know, money is just the middleman…
there never was nothing free, ever - free is simple abstraction,
idea developed to confuse, create ignorance & force dumb to serve smart
with Design, production, and use all happening in direct benefit of the end user, things can evolve and get pushed up stream corporations would not dare.
we are only consumers if we choose to be.
we need to repay the debt to nature our technology cost over the industrial age.
we need to use our technology to establish equilibrium and then repair the damage.
People can live comfortably and all work for each other,
it’s the nature of open source.
we all help ourselves by helping everyone,
by helping ourselves.
Just to give an example of influential people in FOSS, no one neither Richard Stallman nor Linus Torvalds claims Free Softawre or OpenSource should be free/gratis.
But on the other hand, that user who claims that OpenSource should be free/gratis (that “should be” understood as a belief, not legally), he is also in its right to have that belief. This is for example, this person who believes OpenSource should be free/gratis could obtain a copy of an OpenSource software that is sold, and distribute it/offer it for free/gratis as long as he meet the license requirements, and no one will have the right to reproach him for what he does.
So in short, if that person has the belief that OpenSource should be free, then it’s a valid opinion/belief. You may or may not agree to it.
And will you start that by logging off of the forums forever and forgetting about Wrectified?
A number of parts in your PC outside of the major things (which allows you to chat here and work on that game) were likely made in Chinese factories with few pollution controls and little regard for workers. You either acknowledge that cleaning up industry and restoring nature will be a slow process at best (that you can at least raise awareness for), you either acknowledge that you yourself consume if you have bought or used anything, or (if you feel it needs to be done now) you start a lifestyle devoid of anything invented after 1880.
Nope, I advocate developing advanced open source electronic waste recycing machines and couple them with open source robotics and 3d printing,
I want to mine the dumps and replant the forrests.
I would enjoy if everyones home made its own power, and managed it’s own runoff / wastewater.
I agree it is a valid opinion/belief, but unhealthy beliefs and religions cause more harm than good. I don’t intend to stand by the snowball that’s rolling down the hill and watch it to become an avalanche. Or is that not also my right to question other people’s opinions/belief or religion? I maybe wrong, and I’m going to admit it when I understand where I did wrong.
You keep talking about things like Earthships and how living in one is the only valid path for the world of tomorrow to take (being completely self sustaining in just about everything from growing food to making your own electronics and everything inside them). Where’s your Earthship? Have you built one yet? Where’s your 3D printer? Where’s your own personal ad-hoc network that connects to the internet? Where’s your greenhouse? Where’s your algae-based power plant? Are you going to do what you preach and physically show us just how much better life will be?
actually, just barely making it, developing manic mack -> and then putting it up [demo] and kickstarting
had some promising side work but they just went silent.
and yes I intend to practice what I preach.
I’m not sure about when religion came as a topic in the discussion 
Maybe I misused the word “belief”? I should have used the word “conviction” perhaps?
And of course, if you or anyone else has the opinion/belief/conviction that the OpenSource code should be sold, it is also valid and you are in your right to do so.
So you can sell your OpenSource software, and also the other guy can take your code and redistribute it for free/gratis. Both practices are valid and accepted in FOSS community.
So you two can continue arguing eternally about those two valid practices admitted in OpenSource, or act reasonably and if either of you do not agree with what OpenSource is, just do not choose OpenSource.
Just to note, the modern form of FOSS gives the idea that while the application itself is completely free, the organization making the software can also set up paid services in areas like support.
Look no further than the commercial components surrounding Blender. You have the Blender cloud which gives away content, training, and even add-ons to subscribers. You have the third-party Blender Market where professional-quality add-ons and content/materials are sold (which otherwise would not exist because of the lack of financial incentive). The BF also has their subscription based Blender Network (which is like a social network for professionals).
So yes, there’s more and more things in the Blender ecosystem that are not actually free, but even those who don’t pay a cent get a major reward in the form of Blender itself getting far better than otherwise possible.
The open-source-enabling licenses such as GPL do stipulate that contributions to the collective must be provided in source-form and free of charge: that no one is permitted to claim a proprietary interest in it.
However, open-source materials certainly can be used as the foundation of proprietary parts. For instance, although the majority of Apple’s OS/X (now, once again, “MacOS”) and iOS operating systems are proprietary, the foundation of both is “Darwin,” which is an open-source implementation of (Mach …) Unix. A commonly-used compiler is “the gcc compiler suite,” which is also open-source.
Therefore, when (say …) “someone comes out with a slightly-different but totally-nifty new piece of hardware,” they can contribute the drivers and operating-system modifications that are needed to support this new so-called “architecture,” and thus remove the biggest obstacle that would otherwise stand in the way of them selling oodles-and-oodles of copies of that nifty new device! 
Everyone else can now simply take advantage of what somebody else already did, instead of spending large sums of money on (entirely repetitive) R&D. They can, potentially, switch to the nifty new device at very little (if any) cost to themselves. Business risk is also reduced since, if anyone discovers a bug, everyone will benefit from it having been fixed.
Protected by legally-enforceable agreements (already tested in courts worldwide) that “they will not charge, they will not pay, and they may not build proprietary fences,” all participants are able to advance the project to their mutual benefit (and profit). This results in buisness outcomes that otherwise could not be achieved. We would not have the marvelous toys that we have in our pockets today, without the open-source model: no one could have afforded(!) to do what did get done!
nice one
in a sense… we’d be still using stone tools - fighting, killing each other over the metal, hard, shiny, bending spoon 
freedom of choice & equal opportunity for all - privilege is fear 
From a software perspective, essentially we would be. :yes:
Open Source, Cooperative development is the financial secret that allows us to have most of the electronic goodies we use today. Not to mention things like Blender . . .
With all due respect, YAFU. If you have time to read the shit-thread, why don’t you read it more thoroughly and also dig up all the threads the person in question has deleted and edited?
My argument is this: “Calling paid addons greedy and evil(or their authors)” is not acceptable and “Open Source should not be sold” is not something for him to decide.
And from where, did I ever argued with him about whether Open Source should be sold or free?
What has disgusted me, is that he threatens to copy my code and destroy my addon revenue. And along the way, this person also tried to twist a lot of my statement in order to discredit me. I don’t know what a bystander sees from this but I’m utterly disgusted by such actions more than anything that he did for the addon.
Clearly the way he twisted my words has made you think I acted only because of my revenue is going to be hurt. If it’s not his twisting of my words that made you think such, then I must haven’t conveyed my idea clearly, and I apologize with sincerity.
PS: YES, MY REVENUES ARE HURT. LMAO.
PS2: And I agree. This argument about whether Open-Source should be free or sold, is utterly stupid.