5 ms·

Every project has different requirements. It's not for you to say whether something is good or not for others. I don't mean to sound like a prick, but while I

Every project has different requirements. It's not for you to say whether something is good or not for others. I don't mean to sound like a prick, but while I personally love open source, I tire of the evangelism of its virtues.

kuschku 10y ago
So, you’re advocating that you should be able to sell products that are impossible to repair, impossible to modify, with 0 days warranty period, and then expect people to accept that? I’m sorry, but there’s a reason we don’t allow that for physical things either. > Every project has different requirements. That might be. But that doesn’t change the problem I mentioned above.
- theprotocol 10y ago
  Yes, you should be able to create any kind of product you want as long as it's within the law. You're not the authority on what constitutes a problem. It's certainly debatable and far from settled, contrary to the definitive character of your indignation. And it's far more nuanced than your ungenerous characterization of it - this is part product, part intellectual property. What's great is you are free to exercise your philosophy in your products, and if you're right, then that will make your products superior. I don't feel the need to utterly destroy my ideological "enemies" to the point that I need closed source software to die, just because I believe in open source. Nor can I claim to have an indisputable moral high ground that just goes without saying.
  - debaserab2 10y ago
    Wow, I think you just articulated something that I've definitely felt, but have a hard time explaining – I feel like I am some kind of traitor to open source software for feeling this way.
  - sametmax 10y ago
    Morality is arbitrary, neither point of view is more valid than the other one. Take your text, and replace FOSS with berries and closed source with banana, and you'll feel even more right. Do it with freedom and slavery, you'll feel so wrong.
  - sqeaky 10y ago
    In isolation I agree with you, but software does not exist in isolation. It exists in market places, on pacemakers, in airplanes, on voting machines and everywhere else. Right now the default way to release "of the shelf" products is without source code. It is not a real business decision for many, so they default to what everyone else does. For no real reason, then they defend this with lobbyist and lawyers. This includes airplanes, pacemakers, etc... I really do think closed source software should be illegal, because I think that is the only way that I will be able to verify there are no issues something I use, like a medical device. I cannot verify my grandmother's pacemaker and if there is a bug she dies. Currently, the source code doesn't need to be shared with her or me, just because its a trade secret. Why should a trade secret be more important than the lives of users of a product. But its not just the one life threatening extreme. Look at the Vizio TV news for the past few weeks. These entertainment should be about as innocuous as possible. Vizio has enough data to know the political leanings of 90% of Vizio TV owners. How would you feel if they sold that to people in a political party that opposes you? This is software on entertainment devices, and it has this kind of power. To make it worse, they got away with it for 18 months before anyone figured it out. They might have gotten away with entirely if they used a bit of encryption. Forget the virtues of open source, I firmly believe closed source software is not compatible with the basic freedoms required the long term for any democracy.
    - theprotocol 10y ago
      You've picked some pretty dangerous subjects in healthcare and privacy. It's no coincidence that these areas are focal points for regulatory legislation - this is serious stuff, but that's why we have laws and other mechanisms in place to deal with these things. The regulatory environment is precisely what addresses the fact that software does not exist in isolation. It's ludicrous though to suggest that all closed source software become illegal. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater! You'll be hard pressed to find any regulatory justification for such a blanket measure. This is overreaching, entitled ideological authoritarianism. The danger is that you don't see it because it all sounds so ethical on the surface, especially when framed through the dramatic lens of your grandmother's pacemaker. Maybe I do think there needs to be more transparency in healthcare products, and I think that what Vizio did is despicable - but we can't just knee-jerk all the way to the other extreme of outright banning all closed source. What you're essentially advocating for is the application of absolute power on everyone in order to prevent some from abusing their power. Do you not see the dangerous escalation of the stakes once you take this approach? I'm almost more afraid of you than I am of Vizio. I wrote some code yesterday and didn't share it - are you going to justify forcibly prying it from me?
  - kuschku 10y ago
    > Yes, you should be able to create any kind of product you want as long as it's within the law. Exactly. And what if the law says "anyone has the right to repair or modify any software product they have a license to"? And what if the law says that makers may "not try to discourage users with technical or legal means from using their rights"? That’s the point where we’re at, and intentionally making it hard for users to modify the software just for that purpose is something you only do to prevent users from using their rights. > You're not the authority on what constitutes a problem No, but the people who wrote above laws are. > this is part product, part intellectual property. Which, luckily, EU law has settled even more definitely than anything else: If you can buy a license for something, then you own that product for which you bought the license in the same way as if you had bought a physical product. And you can create private copies for yourself, you can modify it like you can repaint your IKEA table, you can return it within of 14 days and get all the money back, and you can resell it to others.

kuschku 10y ago

So, you’re advocating that you should be able to sell products that are impossible to repair, impossible to modify, with 0 days warranty period, and then expect people to accept that? I’m sorry, but there’s a reason we don’t allow that for physical things either. > Every project has different requirements. That might be. But that doesn’t change the problem I mentioned above.

theprotocol 10y ago
Yes, you should be able to create any kind of product you want as long as it's within the law. You're not the authority on what constitutes a problem. It's certainly debatable and far from settled, contrary to the definitive character of your indignation. And it's far more nuanced than your ungenerous characterization of it - this is part product, part intellectual property. What's great is you are free to exercise your philosophy in your products, and if you're right, then that will make your products superior. I don't feel the need to utterly destroy my ideological "enemies" to the point that I need closed source software to die, just because I believe in open source. Nor can I claim to have an indisputable moral high ground that just goes without saying.
- debaserab2 10y ago
  Wow, I think you just articulated something that I've definitely felt, but have a hard time explaining – I feel like I am some kind of traitor to open source software for feeling this way.
- sametmax 10y ago
  Morality is arbitrary, neither point of view is more valid than the other one. Take your text, and replace FOSS with berries and closed source with banana, and you'll feel even more right. Do it with freedom and slavery, you'll feel so wrong.
- sqeaky 10y ago
  In isolation I agree with you, but software does not exist in isolation. It exists in market places, on pacemakers, in airplanes, on voting machines and everywhere else. Right now the default way to release "of the shelf" products is without source code. It is not a real business decision for many, so they default to what everyone else does. For no real reason, then they defend this with lobbyist and lawyers. This includes airplanes, pacemakers, etc... I really do think closed source software should be illegal, because I think that is the only way that I will be able to verify there are no issues something I use, like a medical device. I cannot verify my grandmother's pacemaker and if there is a bug she dies. Currently, the source code doesn't need to be shared with her or me, just because its a trade secret. Why should a trade secret be more important than the lives of users of a product. But its not just the one life threatening extreme. Look at the Vizio TV news for the past few weeks. These entertainment should be about as innocuous as possible. Vizio has enough data to know the political leanings of 90% of Vizio TV owners. How would you feel if they sold that to people in a political party that opposes you? This is software on entertainment devices, and it has this kind of power. To make it worse, they got away with it for 18 months before anyone figured it out. They might have gotten away with entirely if they used a bit of encryption. Forget the virtues of open source, I firmly believe closed source software is not compatible with the basic freedoms required the long term for any democracy.
  - theprotocol 10y ago
    You've picked some pretty dangerous subjects in healthcare and privacy. It's no coincidence that these areas are focal points for regulatory legislation - this is serious stuff, but that's why we have laws and other mechanisms in place to deal with these things. The regulatory environment is precisely what addresses the fact that software does not exist in isolation. It's ludicrous though to suggest that all closed source software become illegal. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater! You'll be hard pressed to find any regulatory justification for such a blanket measure. This is overreaching, entitled ideological authoritarianism. The danger is that you don't see it because it all sounds so ethical on the surface, especially when framed through the dramatic lens of your grandmother's pacemaker. Maybe I do think there needs to be more transparency in healthcare products, and I think that what Vizio did is despicable - but we can't just knee-jerk all the way to the other extreme of outright banning all closed source. What you're essentially advocating for is the application of absolute power on everyone in order to prevent some from abusing their power. Do you not see the dangerous escalation of the stakes once you take this approach? I'm almost more afraid of you than I am of Vizio. I wrote some code yesterday and didn't share it - are you going to justify forcibly prying it from me?
- kuschku 10y ago
  > Yes, you should be able to create any kind of product you want as long as it's within the law. Exactly. And what if the law says "anyone has the right to repair or modify any software product they have a license to"? And what if the law says that makers may "not try to discourage users with technical or legal means from using their rights"? That’s the point where we’re at, and intentionally making it hard for users to modify the software just for that purpose is something you only do to prevent users from using their rights. > You're not the authority on what constitutes a problem No, but the people who wrote above laws are. > this is part product, part intellectual property. Which, luckily, EU law has settled even more definitely than anything else: If you can buy a license for something, then you own that product for which you bought the license in the same way as if you had bought a physical product. And you can create private copies for yourself, you can modify it like you can repaint your IKEA table, you can return it within of 14 days and get all the money back, and you can resell it to others.