27 ms·

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 c

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.
- e12e 11y ago
  I applaud you taking the time to respond carefully like this. It's always nice to be reminded of the simple, yet powerful foundation at the heart of Free software: the four freedoms: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Note that "access to the source code" is not one of the four freedoms -- it's merely a precondition to be able to satisfy them. ed: It might be interesting to note, that most of these freedoms exist for physical objects: you are generally allowed to fix broken physical things, even those that are under patent protection. Or to make sure stuff fits where you need it. And you generally can sell/give away stuff you're not using. These rights are actually protected by law. Free software could be viewed as a rather conservative measure towards ensuring that we get these "everyday" rights wrt software as well.
  - giovannibajo1 11y ago
    Actually, it's exactly the first freedom the one missing from physical objects. You are free to analyze Coke with a microscope, but you won't get the recipe. You are free to 3D-scan a fork and analyze its alloy, but you won't be given the original CAD project and the production plans for the material. I'm not sure if you were implying that the 4F are replicating what happens with physical objects; I would disagree with this. The 4F expect from software much more than we expect from any other good or service we buy/rent/consume.
    - e12e 11y ago
      Ah, but there are multiple levels: You can take chair apart, or split your pants along the seams -- and if you can find a material with comparable strength, or a fabric you like -- you are free to make as many "copies" as you want. You are free to attach a metal head to a shaft and call it a hammer, and look at other hammers for inspiration, if your hammer doesn't work quite right. You are of course right that it only goes so far -- and this is perhaps most scary in the field of bioengineering -- with the possibility of a) sterile produce (you wouldn't be able to plant a potato any more), and b) patented/"copyrighted" gene sequences -- making it illegal to plant certain "proprietary" produce without a license grant. I do agree that the analogy is flawed -- is the shape of a fork more like the api or the source code? I suppose the main difference is that many useful physical things are trivial conceptually (once you've had/seen the idea).

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.

e12e 11y ago
I applaud you taking the time to respond carefully like this. It's always nice to be reminded of the simple, yet powerful foundation at the heart of Free software: the four freedoms: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Note that "access to the source code" is not one of the four freedoms -- it's merely a precondition to be able to satisfy them. ed: It might be interesting to note, that most of these freedoms exist for physical objects: you are generally allowed to fix broken physical things, even those that are under patent protection. Or to make sure stuff fits where you need it. And you generally can sell/give away stuff you're not using. These rights are actually protected by law. Free software could be viewed as a rather conservative measure towards ensuring that we get these "everyday" rights wrt software as well.
- giovannibajo1 11y ago
  Actually, it's exactly the first freedom the one missing from physical objects. You are free to analyze Coke with a microscope, but you won't get the recipe. You are free to 3D-scan a fork and analyze its alloy, but you won't be given the original CAD project and the production plans for the material. I'm not sure if you were implying that the 4F are replicating what happens with physical objects; I would disagree with this. The 4F expect from software much more than we expect from any other good or service we buy/rent/consume.
  - e12e 11y ago
    Ah, but there are multiple levels: You can take chair apart, or split your pants along the seams -- and if you can find a material with comparable strength, or a fabric you like -- you are free to make as many "copies" as you want. You are free to attach a metal head to a shaft and call it a hammer, and look at other hammers for inspiration, if your hammer doesn't work quite right. You are of course right that it only goes so far -- and this is perhaps most scary in the field of bioengineering -- with the possibility of a) sterile produce (you wouldn't be able to plant a potato any more), and b) patented/"copyrighted" gene sequences -- making it illegal to plant certain "proprietary" produce without a license grant. I do agree that the analogy is flawed -- is the shape of a fork more like the api or the source code? I suppose the main difference is that many useful physical things are trivial conceptually (once you've had/seen the idea).