5 ms·

Am I the only one sitting here, thinking that I value the 4 freedoms, but thinking that software vendors does not owe that to us in any way? I use free softwar

Am I the only one sitting here, thinking that I value the 4 freedoms, but thinking that software vendors does not owe that to us in any way? I use free software where it makes sense. I don't use it for my desktop, because it cannot do what I need it to do. I use it for my 3d printer because it can do what I need it to. I pay (at least indirectly through my MSDN subscription at my job) for Windows, and it it suddenly stops working that is it, and I'll have to figure out a different solution. I don't like that the ECU of my car is closed down, but trade secrets an all, I can understand. I would love to be able to at least look, not necessarily modify the software, I'm not qualified to do that and I don't want to void my warrenty. But this is a trade secret, of course it is not open for anyone to look at.

crististm 10y ago
I'm not sure about this. In the prisoners dilemma, you may be at a loss if you don't care about others. Likewise, you may be at a loss if you don't value enough these freedoms for others when building and giving 'things'.
mikekchar 10y ago
> Am I the only one sitting here, thinking that I value the 4 freedoms, but thinking that software vendors does not owe that to us in any way? A lot of people feel that there is an absolute sense of justice. What do the vendors owe us? From my point of view, whatever they owe us is a factor of the societal norms. My interpretation of the idea of free software is that software that is not free potentially harms society. The kinds of things that vendors/governments can do with the power they gain from denying software freedom to their users is detrimental to us all. In that way it behoves us to strive for software freedom. Do they owe us? No, I don't think so because it is not part of our cultural norm. It would be nice if it was, though.
- hvidgaard 10y ago
  When designing an algorithm, you pour hours upon hours into creation and testing. If the source is freely available, you basically hand this over to other people to copy. We would completely hamstring R&D in the private sector if we don't allow them to guard this secret. Now if govenerments actually posted money into basic R&D in collaboration with the private sector on the premises that the work will be public domain, this might not be a problem, but when they pay for it themself, it's foolish to belive they want to share in this market economy. I could see a model where all e.g. car manufactures collaborate on creating an ECU software company, they all pay to, but it requires ALL manufactures to participate, otherwise someone enter the party, without paying the entrance fee. It's a classic prisoners dilemma - if all play nicely, it's a net benefit for all of them, but if one doesn't it's a net loss for all. I would like a "Rights of ownership" define access to the source code, I just cannot see how.
  - mattmanser 10y ago
    Hours upon hours is the problem, hours upon hours isn't very long. Putting a couple of days work into something isn't something that should be patent-able. It's practically obvious. I was thinking about this the other day, the basic problem with software patents is that almost all problems are trivial to solve as soon as you actually ask the question. It's just that there are so many questions in software engineering. Most programming problems are fairly easy to solve for a smart person. Many programmers have come up with virtually ideal solutions very quickly, people matching grep's search speed in days or came up with almost an identical shuffling algo as the ideal one in a couple of minutes. Until you have a storefront and logged in users, you can't ask the question "how can my users quickly buy something online", and come up with a one-click button. And so instead of being awarded for hard, complicated work that took months or years of man-effort, patents are being awarded for being the first to ask questions that are simple to solve with a few hours work.
    - hvidgaard 10y ago
      When I said "hours upon hours" I was thinking about years of work to create or prove something. If you cannot protect and benefit from that work, private companies are not going to do it. We agree on the sad state of software patents right now, but it seems that there is some movement against it.

crististm 10y ago

I'm not sure about this. In the prisoners dilemma, you may be at a loss if you don't care about others. Likewise, you may be at a loss if you don't value enough these freedoms for others when building and giving 'things'.

mikekchar 10y ago

> Am I the only one sitting here, thinking that I value the 4 freedoms, but thinking that software vendors does not owe that to us in any way? A lot of people feel that there is an absolute sense of justice. What do the vendors owe us? From my point of view, whatever they owe us is a factor of the societal norms. My interpretation of the idea of free software is that software that is not free potentially harms society. The kinds of things that vendors/governments can do with the power they gain from denying software freedom to their users is detrimental to us all. In that way it behoves us to strive for software freedom. Do they owe us? No, I don't think so because it is not part of our cultural norm. It would be nice if it was, though.

hvidgaard 10y ago
When designing an algorithm, you pour hours upon hours into creation and testing. If the source is freely available, you basically hand this over to other people to copy. We would completely hamstring R&D in the private sector if we don't allow them to guard this secret. Now if govenerments actually posted money into basic R&D in collaboration with the private sector on the premises that the work will be public domain, this might not be a problem, but when they pay for it themself, it's foolish to belive they want to share in this market economy. I could see a model where all e.g. car manufactures collaborate on creating an ECU software company, they all pay to, but it requires ALL manufactures to participate, otherwise someone enter the party, without paying the entrance fee. It's a classic prisoners dilemma - if all play nicely, it's a net benefit for all of them, but if one doesn't it's a net loss for all. I would like a "Rights of ownership" define access to the source code, I just cannot see how.
- mattmanser 10y ago
  Hours upon hours is the problem, hours upon hours isn't very long. Putting a couple of days work into something isn't something that should be patent-able. It's practically obvious. I was thinking about this the other day, the basic problem with software patents is that almost all problems are trivial to solve as soon as you actually ask the question. It's just that there are so many questions in software engineering. Most programming problems are fairly easy to solve for a smart person. Many programmers have come up with virtually ideal solutions very quickly, people matching grep's search speed in days or came up with almost an identical shuffling algo as the ideal one in a couple of minutes. Until you have a storefront and logged in users, you can't ask the question "how can my users quickly buy something online", and come up with a one-click button. And so instead of being awarded for hard, complicated work that took months or years of man-effort, patents are being awarded for being the first to ask questions that are simple to solve with a few hours work.
  - hvidgaard 10y ago
    When I said "hours upon hours" I was thinking about years of work to create or prove something. If you cannot protect and benefit from that work, private companies are not going to do it. We agree on the sad state of software patents right now, but it seems that there is some movement against it.