3 ms·
> Personally, I am not really of the opinion that all software must inherently be free, but there is a significant problem. It seems pretty clear to me that som
by catdog 10y ago
> Personally, I am not really of the opinion that all software must inherently be free, but there is a significant problem. It seems pretty clear to me that some software must be free and I think we should have laws in place to ensure it. But where do we draw the line?
If we make everything free we can stop (re)drawing the lines all day. I agree that not absolutely everything must be free under all circumstances but if you think it trough there are not many reasons to suddenly stop somewhere.
> We've already come such a long way
I would say both yes and no. On one hand we have a lot of free software now, often really good and widely used, great. On the other hand computing devices get more and more locked down these days where you sometimes wish back something like Windows in the late 90s/early 2000s where you practically had more control over what the device did than whats often possible today.
- mikekchar 10y agoI tend to agree that we might as well make everything free. It's easier and has less downsides for society. The one place I can really see an argument for non-free software is art. However, it is possible that trademarks and author moral rights are enough to deal with that issue. So the software would be free, but you can limit who participates in the "official" version. It might suck for someone to rebrand/fork your work and claim it as their own, making no reference to the original. I believe the GPL and moral rights in most countries allow that scenario.