5 ms·

There’s plenty of reason for end user software to be closed source. The biggest one is so that it can exist. Plenty of software would not be written if someone

by koolba 7y ago

There’s plenty of reason for end user software to be closed source. The biggest one is so that it can exist. Plenty of software would not be written if someone was not paid to do it. And plenty of those would not be paid if the source was available. If you disagree, vote with your wallet.

ddevault 7y ago
No one is entitled to a business model. If you can't exist without being ethically sound, then you can't exist - period. Capitalism is not a replacement for ethics. And in any case: you can sell open-source software.
- DrJokepu 7y ago
  Nobody is entitled to my labor either.
  - ddevault 7y ago
    Correct. But we are entitled to the source code for programs which run on our computers, or is paid for by our taxes.
    - koolba 7y ago
      > Correct. But we are entitled to the source code for programs which run on our computers, ... No you're not. If you want the source code for the programs to run on your computer either write them yourself, choose FOSS ones, or pay someone to write one that supplies the source. Nobody is mandating you buy a particular piece of software or run it on your computer. You're choosing to do it. If you decide you're not going to run closed source software that's your personal choice. > ... or is paid for by our taxes. That's moving goal posts.
    - renewiltord 7y ago
      Haha, I know that Sourcehut is open-source and you derive revenue from the fact that people prefer to use it as a SaaS product, but it is amusing that the SaaS-ness of it means that your statement only applies to the front-end portion.
      - ddevault 7y ago
        The SourceHut backend is also open source. A related idea is "if you're handling my data, I'm entitled to view the code which is doing so".
        renewiltord 7y ago
        Right, right, I know. It's just the style of what you said was amusing, not your actual practice, which is consistent.
    - smabie 7y ago
      Why are we entitled to it?
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  And in any case: you can sell open-source software. Do you do that?
  - ddevault 7y ago
    Yes.
    - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
      That's interesting, I could only see services on your web site. What software do you sell?
- metaobserver 7y ago
  No one is entitled to free software and should not expect others to slave off and give away fruits of their hard work for free. This entitled communist mentality is unethical.
  - ddevault 7y ago
    It's my computer, not yours. If you want to run software on it, I get to see the source code, that's the deal. We could agree that I can't use your software under these terms, but this would exploit those who don't understand the value of the source code. This is how spyware is born. If it runs on my machine, it's open source, or it's bunk. And, once again, you can sell open source software.
    - jayshua 7y ago
      If two people, in full understanding of the value of source code, both decide for one to provide a proprietary closed-source software and the other to run it in exchange for money - is it still unethical?
      - ddevault 7y ago
        I don't understand your question.
        jayshua 7y ago
        Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point then. I got from your posts roughly: It is unethical for end-user software to be closed source, everyone is fundamentally entitled to the source code for programs they run on their computer. Further, if an end-user decides not to run the closed-source software, it is still unethical because many people don't understand the value of source code and they are still being exploited when they purchase/run the software. My question: Is it still unethical if the exchange and use of proprietary software is made only between people who fully understand the value of source code and decide to anyway?
jimktrains2 7y ago
> If you disagree, vote with your wallet. That only works if you have the option to. The vast majority of the time you don't. Edit: Perhaps I'm being misunderstood? I mean that there very often no equivalent, or even near equivalent option, for you to choose between. As an example, I cannot pay extra for a "smart" consumer electronic, including car infotainment systems, with no proprietary bits and with access to the source. Even "smart" phones which can have their bootloader's unlocked, which isn't a huge portion, don't provide access to the proprietary bits needed to compile your own AOSP system. However, I'm calling out phones separately as there are a few, nascent nearly fully open source options.
freedomben 7y ago
Minor nit, open source != free as in beer. In FSF philosophy it's not wrong to charge money. It is wrong not to include the source with the customer's purchase.
- niij 7y ago
  I love open source software and use it everyday, so this question is coming from genuine curiosity. I'm a bit conflicted about how I feel above the "ethical" argument for OSS. Why is closed source software unethical? Is it unethical for McDonald's to sell me a Big Mac, even though they won't provide the recipe for the secret sauce (yes I know it's Thousand Island dressing)?
  - freedomben 7y ago
    It's a great question, and I wish I had more time to delve into it. It really comes down to how a person defines their ethics. FSF philosophy (which I love but am not 100% in sync with) is detailed here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html Discussion around why proprietary software is unethical: https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary.html https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary.html A lot of it ties into theories around power dynamics as well. When you deny someone the freedom to see what is running on their machine, you put the developer/company in an unfair position of power over the user. We have seen that abused time and again for spying purposes and data collection, for example. Anyway, interesting stuff. I'll try to come back when I get some time.
  - TheDong 7y ago
    A closer real-world analogy is "is it unethical for john deere to sell a tractor that you're not able to service due to artificial restrictions". But the McDonalds one sorta holds up too. Let's examine the 4 freedoms: 1. Freedom to eat the food you purchased using any utensils (freedom 0) 2. Freedom to modify the food (i.e. add ketchup or hot sauce) and study it (investigate the ingredients in it, i.e. ask how much sodium is in it, or if the oil it was cooked in was meat oil). 3. Freedom to share an unmodified piece of the food with others (give a friend some fries) 4. Freedom to share the food, even if you've modified it or attempted to copy it (give your friend fries with ketchup on it, freedom to share your home-made fries modeled after McDs with a friend). It's arguable if "provide the recipe" needs to be included in those freedoms. Maybe. Either way, I'd argue that yes, it's unethical for macdonalds to sell you food without at the very least giving you the above freedoms, and also telling you all important ingredients in it (allergens and nutritional info, etc) The reason people aren't complaining about freedom wrt food is because the freedoms are already mostly there. Software licensing commonly requires things like "you can't use this software without an active internet connection to verify you purchased it", or "you can't install it on two computers". I've yet to find a food that has a limitation of "you can only eat this food if you're on the phone with us so we can verify you're not putting ketchup on it". If food was restricted in the same ways software is, I would call it unethical, yes. Selling mystery food with no ingredient list, that I'm not allowed to attempt to make my own variant of, that I can't add any additional ingredients to, and that I can't eat at my leisure.. yeah, that would be either unethical or a form of performance art.

by koolba 7y ago

ddevault 7y ago

No one is entitled to a business model. If you can't exist without being ethically sound, then you can't exist - period. Capitalism is not a replacement for ethics. And in any case: you can sell open-source software.

DrJokepu 7y ago
Nobody is entitled to my labor either.
- ddevault 7y ago
  Correct. But we are entitled to the source code for programs which run on our computers, or is paid for by our taxes.
  - koolba 7y ago
    > Correct. But we are entitled to the source code for programs which run on our computers, ... No you're not. If you want the source code for the programs to run on your computer either write them yourself, choose FOSS ones, or pay someone to write one that supplies the source. Nobody is mandating you buy a particular piece of software or run it on your computer. You're choosing to do it. If you decide you're not going to run closed source software that's your personal choice. > ... or is paid for by our taxes. That's moving goal posts.
  - renewiltord 7y ago
    Haha, I know that Sourcehut is open-source and you derive revenue from the fact that people prefer to use it as a SaaS product, but it is amusing that the SaaS-ness of it means that your statement only applies to the front-end portion.
    - ddevault 7y ago
      The SourceHut backend is also open source. A related idea is "if you're handling my data, I'm entitled to view the code which is doing so".
      - renewiltord 7y ago
        Right, right, I know. It's just the style of what you said was amusing, not your actual practice, which is consistent.
  - smabie 7y ago
    Why are we entitled to it?
tonyedgecombe 7y ago
And in any case: you can sell open-source software. Do you do that?
- ddevault 7y ago
  Yes.
  - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
    That's interesting, I could only see services on your web site. What software do you sell?
metaobserver 7y ago
No one is entitled to free software and should not expect others to slave off and give away fruits of their hard work for free. This entitled communist mentality is unethical.
- ddevault 7y ago
  It's my computer, not yours. If you want to run software on it, I get to see the source code, that's the deal. We could agree that I can't use your software under these terms, but this would exploit those who don't understand the value of the source code. This is how spyware is born. If it runs on my machine, it's open source, or it's bunk. And, once again, you can sell open source software.
  - jayshua 7y ago
    If two people, in full understanding of the value of source code, both decide for one to provide a proprietary closed-source software and the other to run it in exchange for money - is it still unethical?
    - ddevault 7y ago
      I don't understand your question.
      - jayshua 7y ago
        Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point then. I got from your posts roughly: It is unethical for end-user software to be closed source, everyone is fundamentally entitled to the source code for programs they run on their computer. Further, if an end-user decides not to run the closed-source software, it is still unethical because many people don't understand the value of source code and they are still being exploited when they purchase/run the software. My question: Is it still unethical if the exchange and use of proprietary software is made only between people who fully understand the value of source code and decide to anyway?

jimktrains2 7y ago

> If you disagree, vote with your wallet. That only works if you have the option to. The vast majority of the time you don't. Edit: Perhaps I'm being misunderstood? I mean that there very often no equivalent, or even near equivalent option, for you to choose between. As an example, I cannot pay extra for a "smart" consumer electronic, including car infotainment systems, with no proprietary bits and with access to the source. Even "smart" phones which can have their bootloader's unlocked, which isn't a huge portion, don't provide access to the proprietary bits needed to compile your own AOSP system. However, I'm calling out phones separately as there are a few, nascent nearly fully open source options.

freedomben 7y ago

Minor nit, open source != free as in beer. In FSF philosophy it's not wrong to charge money. It is wrong not to include the source with the customer's purchase.

niij 7y ago
I love open source software and use it everyday, so this question is coming from genuine curiosity. I'm a bit conflicted about how I feel above the "ethical" argument for OSS. Why is closed source software unethical? Is it unethical for McDonald's to sell me a Big Mac, even though they won't provide the recipe for the secret sauce (yes I know it's Thousand Island dressing)?
- freedomben 7y ago
  It's a great question, and I wish I had more time to delve into it. It really comes down to how a person defines their ethics. FSF philosophy (which I love but am not 100% in sync with) is detailed here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html Discussion around why proprietary software is unethical: https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary.html https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary.html A lot of it ties into theories around power dynamics as well. When you deny someone the freedom to see what is running on their machine, you put the developer/company in an unfair position of power over the user. We have seen that abused time and again for spying purposes and data collection, for example. Anyway, interesting stuff. I'll try to come back when I get some time.
- TheDong 7y ago
  A closer real-world analogy is "is it unethical for john deere to sell a tractor that you're not able to service due to artificial restrictions". But the McDonalds one sorta holds up too. Let's examine the 4 freedoms: 1. Freedom to eat the food you purchased using any utensils (freedom 0) 2. Freedom to modify the food (i.e. add ketchup or hot sauce) and study it (investigate the ingredients in it, i.e. ask how much sodium is in it, or if the oil it was cooked in was meat oil). 3. Freedom to share an unmodified piece of the food with others (give a friend some fries) 4. Freedom to share the food, even if you've modified it or attempted to copy it (give your friend fries with ketchup on it, freedom to share your home-made fries modeled after McDs with a friend). It's arguable if "provide the recipe" needs to be included in those freedoms. Maybe. Either way, I'd argue that yes, it's unethical for macdonalds to sell you food without at the very least giving you the above freedoms, and also telling you all important ingredients in it (allergens and nutritional info, etc) The reason people aren't complaining about freedom wrt food is because the freedoms are already mostly there. Software licensing commonly requires things like "you can't use this software without an active internet connection to verify you purchased it", or "you can't install it on two computers". I've yet to find a food that has a limitation of "you can only eat this food if you're on the phone with us so we can verify you're not putting ketchup on it". If food was restricted in the same ways software is, I would call it unethical, yes. Selling mystery food with no ingredient list, that I'm not allowed to attempt to make my own variant of, that I can't add any additional ingredients to, and that I can't eat at my leisure.. yeah, that would be either unethical or a form of performance art.