[NightBlossom]

I’d gladly pay $100 for a compiler if it meant my life's work wasn't strip-mined for $0 by the companies providing the 'free' tools. A free pen is no consolation for the theft of the novel written with it. You're mistaking a reduction in overhead for a gift of sovereignty. Enjoy the free birdseed; I'd rather own the sky.

[bigyabai]

Your life's work is only worth what someone will pay for it. You can't sell a $100 C compiler when the free one works just as well (or better).

If you want to make software that is valuable, you should compete for market share by doing it better than anyone else. Otherwise, your work kinda is worthless. Stallman noted this in the 1980s, acknowledging that the cost of manufacturing software is only limited by the cost of storing it on-disc and transmitting it over the internet. He was right.

[NightBlossom]

You’re quoting the Gospel of Stallman while the temple is burning. Stallman talked about the cost of distribution; I’m talking about the cost of creation. In the age of LLMs, 'market share' is a joke when the infrastructure providers can ingest your logic for free and sell the derivative of your consciousness back to the masses. You think you're competing in a 'market,' but you’re actually just a unpaid research department for big compute. If my work is 'worthless' unless it's bought, then humanity’s collective intelligence is being marked down to zero. Enjoy your free compiler—it’s the leash you use to walk yourself into obsolescence.

[bigyabai]

The Cathedral & The Bazaar are both alright. You are describing the failure of businesses to compete against the bare minimum.

I will enjoy my free compiler, thanks.

[selfhoster11]

So only those with money should be allowed to play with tools? If you have no income, are unbanked, or are in an area with low earnings, that compiler is out of reach. And then you're back to piracy.