3 ms·

Or, it exists because there are infinitely more people who use software than even know how it works. Let's say that tomorrow, society gets together and mandates

Or, it exists because there are infinitely more people who use software than even know how it works. Let's say that tomorrow, society gets together and mandates that any and all computer code is subject to the GPL. Do you maintain that the user/developer distinction goes away? I don't think it does.

krapp 10y ago
>Do you maintain that the user/developer distinction goes away? I don't think it does. I would argue that wouldn't be sufficient to remove it in practice, since a good part of that distinction is cultural. People aren't taught to interact with their code because most computers are closed systems, making such interaction impossible, and most software is merely a product to be consumed. Almost no one (understandably) wants to know how to use a c compiler to build the source code for their applications, much less take the time to review and modify it, no one wants to configure and maintain, even in the open source world it's unusual to actually contribute. However, it would at least be a distinction without a legal difference.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  I can't agree with that. I know how to read and write code, but I do not have the time to maintain, say, a fork of Firefox to fix their questionable UI direction, much less deal with the politics of getting my changes into the mainline app. Stallman's ideal world, and by the sound of it, yours, is one in which everyone is a programmer. Put simply, as nice as it would be, this is totally impractical and unrealistic. Opening up a field to all comers does not meaningfully change what people enjoy and specialize in and spend their time on.
  - krapp 10y ago
    It's definitely impractical, as ideal worlds usually are. It made a lot more sense when most computers were in universities, being accessed by engineers, and when compiling from source was just what you had to do, and "software" was a much more fixed concept. But complexity has a way of undermining many utopian visions. I'm not certain the modern web would exist in an all free-software world, or what it would look like. I'm more of an open source than free software person, since I don't buy into the fundamental moral argument of free software, but I have to admit I find the general principle that all software should be editable to be appealing. Knowing how to write software and choosing not to, or at least having the choice one way or the other, to me, is better than not having the choice to begin with.

krapp 10y ago

>Do you maintain that the user/developer distinction goes away? I don't think it does. I would argue that wouldn't be sufficient to remove it in practice, since a good part of that distinction is cultural. People aren't taught to interact with their code because most computers are closed systems, making such interaction impossible, and most software is merely a product to be consumed. Almost no one (understandably) wants to know how to use a c compiler to build the source code for their applications, much less take the time to review and modify it, no one wants to configure and maintain, even in the open source world it's unusual to actually contribute. However, it would at least be a distinction without a legal difference.

Karunamon 10y ago
I can't agree with that. I know how to read and write code, but I do not have the time to maintain, say, a fork of Firefox to fix their questionable UI direction, much less deal with the politics of getting my changes into the mainline app. Stallman's ideal world, and by the sound of it, yours, is one in which everyone is a programmer. Put simply, as nice as it would be, this is totally impractical and unrealistic. Opening up a field to all comers does not meaningfully change what people enjoy and specialize in and spend their time on.
- krapp 10y ago
  It's definitely impractical, as ideal worlds usually are. It made a lot more sense when most computers were in universities, being accessed by engineers, and when compiling from source was just what you had to do, and "software" was a much more fixed concept. But complexity has a way of undermining many utopian visions. I'm not certain the modern web would exist in an all free-software world, or what it would look like. I'm more of an open source than free software person, since I don't buy into the fundamental moral argument of free software, but I have to admit I find the general principle that all software should be editable to be appealing. Knowing how to write software and choosing not to, or at least having the choice one way or the other, to me, is better than not having the choice to begin with.