6 ms·

It disturbs me that you're getting down voted. Somehow, we eschew extremism in all facets of life, but when it comes to free software, it's so expected that (e

It disturbs me that you're getting down voted. Somehow, we eschew extremism in all facets of life, but when it comes to free software, it's so expected that (even if tongue in cheek) asking a question has a reaction where someone thinks you're not contributing to the conversation. I have more goodwill towards github than I do for RMS, with his gcc shenanigans.

yoha 11y ago
I feel the downvotes are actually due to the smiley.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
From my experience, it's the opposite. When I try to promote free software, I face backlash from people who see no ethical concerns with proprietary software, or who are apologetic to "open source" instead. Usually it's in the form of some smartass who will redefine the word "freedom" to mean something different from the context at hand, which refers to the Four Freedoms comprising the Free Software Definition. Either way, GitHub is proprietary, so it is against GNU's principles.
- atonse 11y ago
  That's the problem with all this stuff seeming black and white, "who see no ethical concerns with proprietary software" – isn't that quite a blanket statement? some proprietary software or all proprietary software? What's the blanket ethical concern? Just like I don't need to see the exact farm where my tomatoes came from, or which mine the metal came from for my car engine, I don't need to see every single line of code for my Netflix player. Seriously, where's the ethical concern there? Where do you draw the line from "I don't trust anyone, I need to verify everything", to "I trust them enough to not worry too much", to "I don't care"?
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    You're only proving my point. The only thing you can think of is access to the source code. That has never been the main concern of free software. It's a necessary precondition of needing the preferred form of work in order to properly exercise freedoms 1 and 3. Not that your analogy is even correct. An end product like metal would be more like a circuit, not amenable to modification in of itself. The Netflix player is general-purpose software running on your property which you are forbidden from studying, using for any purpose, modifying or redistributing. The ethical concerns are enormous and no metaphor to physical objects is applicable when the stakes are so different.
    - code_sterling 11y ago
      No, there are no ethical concerns whatsoever here. If you don't want software you can't tinker with, then don't use Netflix. If Netflix were required by every citizen, then there would be ethical concerns. You are NOT required to use any proprietary software. This is the exact extremism that I'm talking about, where you feel I should have a problem with this even though my opinion doesn't affect your choices at all. It's the same logic as religion, who feels I shouldn't be allowed to marry someone of the same sex even though it doesn't affect them in any way. It's extremism, and it's quite frankly ignorant.
      - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
        And again. You're talking about tinkering. What about the freedom to run for any purpose? What about the fact that one is renting a proprietary service with a de facto universal backdoor and spyware capabilities? How is that not an ethical concern? Voluntary association does tend to work in this case, but it doesn't change the fact that a party is engaging in unethical behavior. Furthermore, the ultimate end result of "Don't like it, don't use it" is the erosion of choice. You are NOT required to use any proprietary software. Oh, hell yes, you are. Government agencies, who have a duty to serve the public, run proprietary software all the time. Meaning they are deprived of computational sovereignty and cannot guarantee they are performing their duties unfettered. If you've been to public school in most countries, you are taught to use proprietary software in IT classes. An institution devoted to learning compels students to use software that explicitly forbids being learned from and studied. Even more harmful are proprietary formats, which are like a lock and time bomb on your data, yet are ubiquitous. Network services are a big ethical dilemma of their own and yet practically unavoidable. Software is essential to contemporary civilization, and you will be using lots of proprietary programs. You cannot reasonably expect people to become hermits over it. It's the same logic as religion, who feels I shouldn't be allowed to marry someone of the same sex even though it doesn't affect them in any way. What a load of nonsense. It is the proprietary software vendor who deprives users of freedom. Your analogy is backwards and completely inappropriate. Free software mandates you have the freedom to run the program for any purpose, so gay marriage would be unrestricted. Proprietary vendors would have terms that may or may not restrict it.
  - simondedalus 11y ago
    Here's a link to one person's answer: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html The person to whom you replied seems to quite literally be talking about "people who see no ethical concerns with proprietary software" as such. Some people do. You want to know why they do? There are many resources available online that you can use to read up on why they do. If after reading them you still don't need to see every line of code on your Netflix player, you will still be disingenuous if you pose "problems with proprietary software as such" as some kind of ending of a reductio ad absurdum. Disagreement is fine; you don't need to be confused by it.
  - belorn 11y ago
    I see a ethical problem with people who would sue a fellow human being because they cared to share a piece of unmodified software which was useful. I also find people unethical who would go out and punish or actively prevent a fellow human being who seek to understand software which is currently running on a machine that they own. I also admier people who fixes broken software on their own machines and then goes to share the improvements. I find ethical concerns when people try to prevent those improvements from being run or being shared. Those proprietary software which isn't covered by the above concerns are unlikely to be ethical concerns to me, but what is then the definition of proprietary software?
- drewcrawford 11y ago
  I keep trying to provoke a reasoned argument with a pro-FSF person, this seems like as good of an opportunity as any. You may want to move this to email (my email is in my profile). > I face backlash from people who see no ethical concerns with proprietary software I think this could be clearer. RMS himself has stated [0] that selling exceptions is perfectly fine, so even free software zealots do not object to proprietary licensing in all of its forms. I think most people object to proprietary licensing in some forms. This is a case where speaking in riddles and platitudes is not effective policy. > or who are apologetic to "open source" instead Again this is a platitude turn of phrase. I support some kinds of open source and not others, as do I expect most thinking people. Does that make me "apologetic"? Am I the problem? No clue. > Usually it's in the form of some smartass who will redefine the word "freedom" to mean something different from the context at hand Quite frankly, one could accuse the entire Free Software movement of this, as that is essentially its purpose: to redefine the loaded term "freedom" in a nonintuitive way. But accepting for the sake of argument the FSF's vision of software "freedom" as the correct definition, I am not convinced it is an actual view instead of a post-hoc rationalization. For example, the FSF claims [1] the RPL is non-free for 3 reasons: 1. It puts limits on prices charged for an initial copy. 2. It requires notification of the original developer for publication of a modified version. 3. It requires publication of any modified version that an organization uses, even privately. Now my question is this: which of the four freedoms, specifically, give rise to these objections? Because from my POV the RPL not only protects the four freedoms, but does so strongly, for exactly the reasons here that are presented as so-called "objections". So, the only conclusion that I can draw, is that the 4Fs are a lot of nonsense, a "just-so" story to explain why GPL License is Best License. Freedom is allowed to go so far, but no further, until GPL v4, and then we can go further. I am sorry if some of this seems trollish or offputting. I promise it is not. I have read probably hundreds of books and essays on this and I cannot find anything that satisfies me that "Free Software" is an intellectually defensible philosophy. This may be because the people who are best-positioned to defend it have better things to do than defend it to me. I want to like the free software community, and we do collaborate, in a sense, but it is always strategic and not ideological. It just so happens, in cases, the GPL and my objectives are compatible. But the FSF's objectives and my objectives are not really compatible at all. So there is the same funny taste in my mouth from working at cross-purposes that I get when writing proprietary software. It has the same artificiality. [0] https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#RPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#RPL

yoha 11y ago

I feel the downvotes are actually due to the smiley.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

From my experience, it's the opposite. When I try to promote free software, I face backlash from people who see no ethical concerns with proprietary software, or who are apologetic to "open source" instead. Usually it's in the form of some smartass who will redefine the word "freedom" to mean something different from the context at hand, which refers to the Four Freedoms comprising the Free Software Definition. Either way, GitHub is proprietary, so it is against GNU's principles.

atonse 11y ago
That's the problem with all this stuff seeming black and white, "who see no ethical concerns with proprietary software" – isn't that quite a blanket statement? some proprietary software or all proprietary software? What's the blanket ethical concern? Just like I don't need to see the exact farm where my tomatoes came from, or which mine the metal came from for my car engine, I don't need to see every single line of code for my Netflix player. Seriously, where's the ethical concern there? Where do you draw the line from "I don't trust anyone, I need to verify everything", to "I trust them enough to not worry too much", to "I don't care"?
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  You're only proving my point. The only thing you can think of is access to the source code. That has never been the main concern of free software. It's a necessary precondition of needing the preferred form of work in order to properly exercise freedoms 1 and 3. Not that your analogy is even correct. An end product like metal would be more like a circuit, not amenable to modification in of itself. The Netflix player is general-purpose software running on your property which you are forbidden from studying, using for any purpose, modifying or redistributing. The ethical concerns are enormous and no metaphor to physical objects is applicable when the stakes are so different.
  - code_sterling 11y ago
    No, there are no ethical concerns whatsoever here. If you don't want software you can't tinker with, then don't use Netflix. If Netflix were required by every citizen, then there would be ethical concerns. You are NOT required to use any proprietary software. This is the exact extremism that I'm talking about, where you feel I should have a problem with this even though my opinion doesn't affect your choices at all. It's the same logic as religion, who feels I shouldn't be allowed to marry someone of the same sex even though it doesn't affect them in any way. It's extremism, and it's quite frankly ignorant.
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      And again. You're talking about tinkering. What about the freedom to run for any purpose? What about the fact that one is renting a proprietary service with a de facto universal backdoor and spyware capabilities? How is that not an ethical concern? Voluntary association does tend to work in this case, but it doesn't change the fact that a party is engaging in unethical behavior. Furthermore, the ultimate end result of "Don't like it, don't use it" is the erosion of choice. You are NOT required to use any proprietary software. Oh, hell yes, you are. Government agencies, who have a duty to serve the public, run proprietary software all the time. Meaning they are deprived of computational sovereignty and cannot guarantee they are performing their duties unfettered. If you've been to public school in most countries, you are taught to use proprietary software in IT classes. An institution devoted to learning compels students to use software that explicitly forbids being learned from and studied. Even more harmful are proprietary formats, which are like a lock and time bomb on your data, yet are ubiquitous. Network services are a big ethical dilemma of their own and yet practically unavoidable. Software is essential to contemporary civilization, and you will be using lots of proprietary programs. You cannot reasonably expect people to become hermits over it. It's the same logic as religion, who feels I shouldn't be allowed to marry someone of the same sex even though it doesn't affect them in any way. What a load of nonsense. It is the proprietary software vendor who deprives users of freedom. Your analogy is backwards and completely inappropriate. Free software mandates you have the freedom to run the program for any purpose, so gay marriage would be unrestricted. Proprietary vendors would have terms that may or may not restrict it.
- simondedalus 11y ago
  Here's a link to one person's answer: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html The person to whom you replied seems to quite literally be talking about "people who see no ethical concerns with proprietary software" as such. Some people do. You want to know why they do? There are many resources available online that you can use to read up on why they do. If after reading them you still don't need to see every line of code on your Netflix player, you will still be disingenuous if you pose "problems with proprietary software as such" as some kind of ending of a reductio ad absurdum. Disagreement is fine; you don't need to be confused by it.
- belorn 11y ago
  I see a ethical problem with people who would sue a fellow human being because they cared to share a piece of unmodified software which was useful. I also find people unethical who would go out and punish or actively prevent a fellow human being who seek to understand software which is currently running on a machine that they own. I also admier people who fixes broken software on their own machines and then goes to share the improvements. I find ethical concerns when people try to prevent those improvements from being run or being shared. Those proprietary software which isn't covered by the above concerns are unlikely to be ethical concerns to me, but what is then the definition of proprietary software?
drewcrawford 11y ago
I keep trying to provoke a reasoned argument with a pro-FSF person, this seems like as good of an opportunity as any. You may want to move this to email (my email is in my profile). > I face backlash from people who see no ethical concerns with proprietary software I think this could be clearer. RMS himself has stated [0] that selling exceptions is perfectly fine, so even free software zealots do not object to proprietary licensing in all of its forms. I think most people object to proprietary licensing in some forms. This is a case where speaking in riddles and platitudes is not effective policy. > or who are apologetic to "open source" instead Again this is a platitude turn of phrase. I support some kinds of open source and not others, as do I expect most thinking people. Does that make me "apologetic"? Am I the problem? No clue. > Usually it's in the form of some smartass who will redefine the word "freedom" to mean something different from the context at hand Quite frankly, one could accuse the entire Free Software movement of this, as that is essentially its purpose: to redefine the loaded term "freedom" in a nonintuitive way. But accepting for the sake of argument the FSF's vision of software "freedom" as the correct definition, I am not convinced it is an actual view instead of a post-hoc rationalization. For example, the FSF claims [1] the RPL is non-free for 3 reasons: 1. It puts limits on prices charged for an initial copy. 2. It requires notification of the original developer for publication of a modified version. 3. It requires publication of any modified version that an organization uses, even privately. Now my question is this: which of the four freedoms, specifically, give rise to these objections? Because from my POV the RPL not only protects the four freedoms, but does so strongly, for exactly the reasons here that are presented as so-called "objections". So, the only conclusion that I can draw, is that the 4Fs are a lot of nonsense, a "just-so" story to explain why GPL License is Best License. Freedom is allowed to go so far, but no further, until GPL v4, and then we can go further. I am sorry if some of this seems trollish or offputting. I promise it is not. I have read probably hundreds of books and essays on this and I cannot find anything that satisfies me that "Free Software" is an intellectually defensible philosophy. This may be because the people who are best-positioned to defend it have better things to do than defend it to me. I want to like the free software community, and we do collaborate, in a sense, but it is always strategic and not ideological. It just so happens, in cases, the GPL and my objectives are compatible. But the FSF's objectives and my objectives are not really compatible at all. So there is the same funny taste in my mouth from working at cross-purposes that I get when writing proprietary software. It has the same artificiality. [0] https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#RPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#RPL