[inklesspen]

I don't see anywhere where he demands free-of-charge access. Stallman supports "free software" where the "free" means that the user's liberty to manipulate the program is preserved.

In Stallman's dream world, you would be free to charge for your service, or put ads up, or whatever you like. But your service would use standardized file formats, and the user would be able to modify the application (both server-side and client-side) to suit his needs.

[jskopek]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the two ideals (being able to charge for your work VS. being able to modify others' work) contradictory?

I have zero experience with Firefox extension development, but everything I _have_ seen about it points at it being very difficult to mirror in a closed source environment.

[viraptor]

These are not contradictory. People still buy services. Also, you don't have to charge users directly. Three simple examples:

- firefox - open, free, gets money from google

- openmoko - open mobile, you can even download their pcb design and CAD files, but they do sell the product

- specialised apps - company I work for releases some code as open-source, but that doesn't mean that our users have resources to provide the same service themselves, so we don't lose anything

[hank777]

if you can "modify" the server side and the client side, you can "modify" the need to pay.

[jrockway]

Of course, but we already do this. I block all ads, which means I'm modifying your app to not make any money off of me. Such is the reality of the Internet and general purpose computers.

[axod]

No, you just think you block ads. It's extremely naive to think you actually block all ads. I'm sure a lot of people have made money out of you online from advertising you don't recognize as advertising.

edit: Sure, downvote me if you like. If you like to think adblock etc actually block all adverts I guess it's up to you. It blocks a small class of 'obvious adverts'. Several websites will pass outgoing links through a jump script which may or may not then go through affiliate links. Adblock is useless against such things. There are several such examples.

[jodrellblank]

That's fine. I use flashblock and adblock to block annoying flashing animated noisy colourful page disrupting ads, to block ads and ad servers tracking me and giving them power and commercial gain with no gain to me, and to stop FireFox playing noise from background tabs I can't find quickly.

I don't do it to stop site owners 'making' money from me. If you can get non-annoying ads to me, and make money from me, that's brilliant. If that's all anyone did, I'd get rid of *block altogether.

[dave_au]

If you can arbitrarily modify the server side of any instance of the application then you can also just pay using someone elses credit card details.

Although I think what Stallman would probably prefer is the source to the site / web application being available so that people can run their own instances.

HN and reddit have their source available. I don't see anyone using the reddit code in a way that's any threat to reddit, mainly since the size of the community is an asset that's hard to compete with.

Potentially off-topic, since I'm not familiar with the prevalent licensing, but the various django applications look pretty nice for this kind of thing.

[sketerpot]

Paying is usually more convenient. Convenience is worth money.