3 ms·

> There's just no reason for corporations to take RMS's "ethical" route when the profits lie squarely in the other direction. Lofty academic ideals don't buy yo

> There's just no reason for corporations to take RMS's "ethical" route when the profits lie squarely in the other direction. Lofty academic ideals don't buy your family groceries. I agree he's a bit too extreme; I recall a video where he told a proprietary software developer that between continuing to do his job and letting his children starve, he should do the latter. But there does have to be someone advocating for this, because free software is in general a social good and is unarguably indispensable in our industry. It's not impossible to make money off it either; look at Red Hat and Canonical, for example. But I'd never argue that all software has to be free or that everyone should do it.

icebraining 11y ago
I agree he's a bit too extreme; I recall a video where he told a proprietary software developer that between continuing to do his job and letting his children starve, he should do the latter. I'd like to know the context, because that sounds like a "ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer" situation. It's a common trolling/derailing technique: you make a general point, and people reply with these very specific and extreme situations that "disprove" it. I'd never argue that all software has to be free or that everyone should do it. Why not?
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  >I'd like to know the context, because that sounds like a "ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer" situation. Agreed. The situation where you have to do an ultra-specific job or starve from lack of employment doesn't really exist. Jobs manage to appear and disappear over time without a death toll of millions.
- justinlardinois 11y ago
  >> I'd never argue that all software has to be free or that everyone should do it. > Why not? Because not all useful types of software have volunteers willing and able to write them or business models that sustain them. Expecting all software to be free is unrealistic.

icebraining 11y ago

I agree he's a bit too extreme; I recall a video where he told a proprietary software developer that between continuing to do his job and letting his children starve, he should do the latter. I'd like to know the context, because that sounds like a "ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer" situation. It's a common trolling/derailing technique: you make a general point, and people reply with these very specific and extreme situations that "disprove" it. I'd never argue that all software has to be free or that everyone should do it. Why not?

Dylan16807 11y ago
>I'd like to know the context, because that sounds like a "ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer" situation. Agreed. The situation where you have to do an ultra-specific job or starve from lack of employment doesn't really exist. Jobs manage to appear and disappear over time without a death toll of millions.
justinlardinois 11y ago
>> I'd never argue that all software has to be free or that everyone should do it. > Why not? Because not all useful types of software have volunteers willing and able to write them or business models that sustain them. Expecting all software to be free is unrealistic.