7 ms·

> I was very surprised by that sentence, because "immoral commercial software" Being commercial is independent to being proprietary; there is a lot of non-comm

> I was very surprised by that sentence, because "immoral commercial software" Being commercial is independent to being proprietary; there is a lot of non-commercial proprietary software and there is also some commercial free software. Regarding the immorality, it is definitely common to justify the necessity of free software on the grounds that proprietary software is immoral towards the users: they cannot know, verify, or control what the program does to them. In the writings of Richard Stallman you certainly find the notion that free software is a necessity precisely because proprietary software is unethical.

oehtXRwMkIs 6y ago
Man it's crazy how to this day even FOSS advocates will confuse proprietary and commercial. It's like confusing ethics and law, where at this point I have to assume the person I'm talking to still holds this false equivalence in their mind because it's so common and clearly not going away.
MaxBarraclough 6y ago
Stallman's position is pretty extreme. One can reasonably object to proprietary code in all sorts of domains, such as medical devices say, but it seems a bit much to say that all proprietary code is necessarily unethical. The GameBoy used proprietary software. Was that unethical?
- fsflover 6y ago
  Yes, it was. The developers of any proprietary software have unjust power over its users, i.e. they could implement any anti-features they wanted and the users cannot not do anything about it. In this sense, the users do not own the device if it runs proprietary software.
  - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
    Sure, you don't get to easily make any changes you wish, but even this has real upsides. Modern consoles are able to offer a multiplayer experience free of the cheating that plagues many PC games. That's because they're bolted-down and deny users the freedom the modify the software. To the customer, that has real value.
    - enriquto 6y ago
      I do not understand your argument. Today there are still competitions of gameboy games (and many other consoles) that have been emulated to death, where all the glitches and cheats are well-known, and there are hundreds of "mods". You can still participate in the "no-cheat" category, which is one of the most popular. The fact that people can cheat, does not force you to cheat when playing. This is exactly the same thing in sports.
      - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
        I was talking about online multiplayer against (untrusted) strangers. I should have been clearer about the online aspect. In online PC gaming, cheating is a real problem, as people are able to modify the game to their advantage. This is next to impossible on modern consoles, and cheating is much less of a problem there. I don't begrudge anyone who wants to opt-in to a designated cheat-based multiplayer session, of course, but it can be a real problem for 'ordinary' gamers.
        cycloptic 6y ago
        That is a problem with the games and with the industry, not with the PC as a platform. Heck, if the console companies had invested in properly secure cheat-preventing solutions (i.e. better network protocols that don't leak info, cheat detection by packet analysis, better replay analysis and banning tools for server admins, decentralized trust/authentication systems, etc) then likely those could have been deployed on other platforms. It seems that nobody has been investing any money in that though, everything has instead been invested in making sure that the hardware is a walled garden. This approach might work temporarily for the individual manufacturer of a single console until it gets cracked and they have to manufacture a new one. But as you can see, it doesn't scale past that.
    - type0 6y ago
      > To the customer, that has real value. And it doesn't offer me any value if I do wish to cheat
- enriquto 6y ago
  > Stallman's position is pretty extreme. Stallman's position is not extreme. It is consistent and firm, but he tries to reach a reasonable compromise. In political parlance you could say that he's a reformist, not a radical. Notice that he argues that it is OK to use proprietary softare, for example for developing free software if it is the only option, or for communicating with other people that cannot use free software at the moment (e.g., zoom meetings). If that is the case, he urges you to at least tell your colleagues from time to time that there are other options and that you would prefer to use free software: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/saying-no-even-once.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/saying-no-even-once.html The linked text is very clear and cannot be construed at all as "extreme". At the same time, he holds that while we can reach temporary compromises, proprietary software is always unethical and that we should strive towards freer options.
  - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
    > The linked text is very clear and cannot be construed at all as "extreme". At the same time, he holds that while we can reach temporary compromises, proprietary software is always unethical Right, and that's exactly what I'm referring to. It's pretty extreme how categorically the FSF applies the term 'unethical'. I'm not saying Stallman is incapable of ever making compromises. If Vim were proprietary, I probably wouldn't use it, but freeware isn't unethical. On the point of Zoom meetings, the FSF have just begun offering a Jitsi service to all Associate Members of the FSF. https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/fsf-gives-freedom-respecting-videoconferencing-to-all-associate-members https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/fsf-gives-freedom-respec...
  - chx 6y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=527500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=527500 disagrees.
- mikekchar 6y ago
  Even RMS, in the past, did not object to all proprietary code. For example games that are a work of art could in some ways be seen as something that might not be modifiable by the end use. He has changed his mind on a lot of topics over the years and I'm not 100% sure about his current thoughts on the matter, but he has definitely said that there are some things where it might not make sense to have software freedom. However, with respect to the GamBoy itself, the issue is that when I buy a GameBoy, I am not able to inspect it, nor am I able to correct it if it is not not working properly. The GameBoy is not unethical in itself. It is forcing your customers to accept a "No user serviceable parts" license in terms of the software that is deemed unethical. Not being able to inspect the code to see what it is doing may have ramifications for the user -- perhaps not so obvious on a device that has no network, but it is where it starts. One of the big problems with the Free Software movement, IMHO, is that it has been confused as being a software creation issue. It is not. It is 100% a consumer rights issue. One of the most important parts of free software is that if I did not give my software to you, then I have no responsibilities towards you at all. If I don't give you a binary, then I never have to give you source code. If you get the binary from somewhere else, I still don't have to give you source code -- the person who gave you the binary does. This is about choosing a license that treats your customer well and about nothing else at all. For decades people have wittingly and unwittingly attempted to spin this as some frothing at the mouth religious issue. It is not. It is purely a consumer rights issue.
  - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
    > It is forcing your customers to accept a "No user serviceable parts" license in terms of the software that is deemed unethical Good point. > Not being able to inspect the code to see what it is doing may have ramifications for the user -- perhaps not so obvious on a device that has no network, but it is where it starts. Sure. This connects to data and privacy concerns. > If I don't give you a binary, then I never have to give you source code. True of the GPL, but not of the Affero GPL. Also, permissive Free Software licences like Apache impose no such requirements, but are still Free Software licences. Free Software isn't the same thing as copyleft. (Of course, if you distribute binaries but refuse to share the source, then what you are doing is no longer Free Software.) > It is purely a consumer rights issue. This makes for easy contrast with the Open Source movement, which is good, but I think it's a little misleading. As an analogy, the right-to-repair movement doesn't expect hardware companies to hand over their design documents, they're just seeking to end open hostility toward third-party repairs. I fully appreciate Stallman's 4 Freedoms, including Freedom 1, the right to study software, but I'm not sure I'd quite call it a consumer rights matter. Payware proprietary software licenses prevent you from freely copying/distributing the software. Patents and design patents can do a similar thing with hardware. That's not really a consumer rights problem. To put that another way, I can see the sense in treating Freedom 0 (freedom to run the program as you wish) and Freedom 1 (freedom to study how the program works) as consumer rights issues. I'm not convinced though that Freedom 2 (freedom to redistribute copies) and Freedom 3 (freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions) are consumer rights issues.
- temac 6y ago
  Stallman is less strict with video games.
- jeegsy 6y ago
  The more I observe the recent and not so recent developments in the OSS world e.g. the funding issues, acquisitions etc, the less extreme I think Stallman is.
jfkebwjsbx 6y ago
> they cannot know, verify, or control what the program does to them Do you want to force every company (not just software ones) to release the entire business details, processes, designs, contacts, experience... for every product they sell? Do you want to force every company (not just software ones) to give each customer an easy way to clone every product? Because for software-only or design-only companies, that is what it means. There are alternative means to make companies behave, like regulations, certifications, inspections, fines, contracts, etc. in every other field. Why software/design companies need to be different?
- wiz21c 6y ago
  you're exaggerating. you can verify, modify a program without having access to processes, designs, contacts, etc. It's much harder without those but it's definitely possible. You're also aware that you can fix your own car, your fridge, your house if you ever want it. Those objects don't actively fight to stay un-repair-able (although the times are changing) as far as cloning goes, I'm sure you're aware that there are many clones of your television, phone, etc. sold every day. But in the end, it's a political choice. Either you agree with the fact that some people protect "their" idea (that they had by studying others' ideas), make profit out of it by keeping it a secret, that is, making sure it won't reach the greater part of mankind but only their customer base. Or you don't agree with that. RMS doesn't and he shows he can do it with an appropriate level of incoherence (notice that most free software, in turns, is written or proprietary hardware : just try to reverse engineer a CPU). So it's not black and white. And if in some field there are rules, laws, etc. don't forget they were put in place also to protect commercial interest (in place of general interest). Software being new, it gives us (the idealists) an opportunity to propose another approach.
  - jfkebwjsbx 6y ago
    > You're also aware that you can fix your own car, your fridge, your house if you ever want it. You can fix material defects. You cannot change the design, which is what you can do if you release the source code. The same way you can make small fixes in a program relatively easily, for instance updating a dependency or patching small bugs in the binary. So you are agreeing with me. > as far as cloning goes, I'm sure you're aware that there are many clones of your television, phone, etc. sold every day. You cannot clone them for free without cost, which is the problem with software given the source code. > making sure it won't reach the greater part of mankind but only their customer base Do you really think a business does not want to sell? Marketing is about telling everyone about your product.

oehtXRwMkIs 6y ago

Man it's crazy how to this day even FOSS advocates will confuse proprietary and commercial. It's like confusing ethics and law, where at this point I have to assume the person I'm talking to still holds this false equivalence in their mind because it's so common and clearly not going away.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago

Stallman's position is pretty extreme. One can reasonably object to proprietary code in all sorts of domains, such as medical devices say, but it seems a bit much to say that all proprietary code is necessarily unethical. The GameBoy used proprietary software. Was that unethical?

fsflover 6y ago
Yes, it was. The developers of any proprietary software have unjust power over its users, i.e. they could implement any anti-features they wanted and the users cannot not do anything about it. In this sense, the users do not own the device if it runs proprietary software.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  Sure, you don't get to easily make any changes you wish, but even this has real upsides. Modern consoles are able to offer a multiplayer experience free of the cheating that plagues many PC games. That's because they're bolted-down and deny users the freedom the modify the software. To the customer, that has real value.
  - enriquto 6y ago
    I do not understand your argument. Today there are still competitions of gameboy games (and many other consoles) that have been emulated to death, where all the glitches and cheats are well-known, and there are hundreds of "mods". You can still participate in the "no-cheat" category, which is one of the most popular. The fact that people can cheat, does not force you to cheat when playing. This is exactly the same thing in sports.
    - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
      I was talking about online multiplayer against (untrusted) strangers. I should have been clearer about the online aspect. In online PC gaming, cheating is a real problem, as people are able to modify the game to their advantage. This is next to impossible on modern consoles, and cheating is much less of a problem there. I don't begrudge anyone who wants to opt-in to a designated cheat-based multiplayer session, of course, but it can be a real problem for 'ordinary' gamers.
      - cycloptic 6y ago
        That is a problem with the games and with the industry, not with the PC as a platform. Heck, if the console companies had invested in properly secure cheat-preventing solutions (i.e. better network protocols that don't leak info, cheat detection by packet analysis, better replay analysis and banning tools for server admins, decentralized trust/authentication systems, etc) then likely those could have been deployed on other platforms. It seems that nobody has been investing any money in that though, everything has instead been invested in making sure that the hardware is a walled garden. This approach might work temporarily for the individual manufacturer of a single console until it gets cracked and they have to manufacture a new one. But as you can see, it doesn't scale past that.
  - type0 6y ago
    > To the customer, that has real value. And it doesn't offer me any value if I do wish to cheat
enriquto 6y ago
> Stallman's position is pretty extreme. Stallman's position is not extreme. It is consistent and firm, but he tries to reach a reasonable compromise. In political parlance you could say that he's a reformist, not a radical. Notice that he argues that it is OK to use proprietary softare, for example for developing free software if it is the only option, or for communicating with other people that cannot use free software at the moment (e.g., zoom meetings). If that is the case, he urges you to at least tell your colleagues from time to time that there are other options and that you would prefer to use free software: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/saying-no-even-once.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/saying-no-even-once.html The linked text is very clear and cannot be construed at all as "extreme". At the same time, he holds that while we can reach temporary compromises, proprietary software is always unethical and that we should strive towards freer options.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  > The linked text is very clear and cannot be construed at all as "extreme". At the same time, he holds that while we can reach temporary compromises, proprietary software is always unethical Right, and that's exactly what I'm referring to. It's pretty extreme how categorically the FSF applies the term 'unethical'. I'm not saying Stallman is incapable of ever making compromises. If Vim were proprietary, I probably wouldn't use it, but freeware isn't unethical. On the point of Zoom meetings, the FSF have just begun offering a Jitsi service to all Associate Members of the FSF. https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/fsf-gives-freedom-respecting-videoconferencing-to-all-associate-members https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/fsf-gives-freedom-respec...
- chx 6y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=527500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=527500 disagrees.
mikekchar 6y ago
Even RMS, in the past, did not object to all proprietary code. For example games that are a work of art could in some ways be seen as something that might not be modifiable by the end use. He has changed his mind on a lot of topics over the years and I'm not 100% sure about his current thoughts on the matter, but he has definitely said that there are some things where it might not make sense to have software freedom. However, with respect to the GamBoy itself, the issue is that when I buy a GameBoy, I am not able to inspect it, nor am I able to correct it if it is not not working properly. The GameBoy is not unethical in itself. It is forcing your customers to accept a "No user serviceable parts" license in terms of the software that is deemed unethical. Not being able to inspect the code to see what it is doing may have ramifications for the user -- perhaps not so obvious on a device that has no network, but it is where it starts. One of the big problems with the Free Software movement, IMHO, is that it has been confused as being a software creation issue. It is not. It is 100% a consumer rights issue. One of the most important parts of free software is that if I did not give my software to you, then I have no responsibilities towards you at all. If I don't give you a binary, then I never have to give you source code. If you get the binary from somewhere else, I still don't have to give you source code -- the person who gave you the binary does. This is about choosing a license that treats your customer well and about nothing else at all. For decades people have wittingly and unwittingly attempted to spin this as some frothing at the mouth religious issue. It is not. It is purely a consumer rights issue.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  > It is forcing your customers to accept a "No user serviceable parts" license in terms of the software that is deemed unethical Good point. > Not being able to inspect the code to see what it is doing may have ramifications for the user -- perhaps not so obvious on a device that has no network, but it is where it starts. Sure. This connects to data and privacy concerns. > If I don't give you a binary, then I never have to give you source code. True of the GPL, but not of the Affero GPL. Also, permissive Free Software licences like Apache impose no such requirements, but are still Free Software licences. Free Software isn't the same thing as copyleft. (Of course, if you distribute binaries but refuse to share the source, then what you are doing is no longer Free Software.) > It is purely a consumer rights issue. This makes for easy contrast with the Open Source movement, which is good, but I think it's a little misleading. As an analogy, the right-to-repair movement doesn't expect hardware companies to hand over their design documents, they're just seeking to end open hostility toward third-party repairs. I fully appreciate Stallman's 4 Freedoms, including Freedom 1, the right to study software, but I'm not sure I'd quite call it a consumer rights matter. Payware proprietary software licenses prevent you from freely copying/distributing the software. Patents and design patents can do a similar thing with hardware. That's not really a consumer rights problem. To put that another way, I can see the sense in treating Freedom 0 (freedom to run the program as you wish) and Freedom 1 (freedom to study how the program works) as consumer rights issues. I'm not convinced though that Freedom 2 (freedom to redistribute copies) and Freedom 3 (freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions) are consumer rights issues.
temac 6y ago
Stallman is less strict with video games.
jeegsy 6y ago
The more I observe the recent and not so recent developments in the OSS world e.g. the funding issues, acquisitions etc, the less extreme I think Stallman is.

jfkebwjsbx 6y ago

> they cannot know, verify, or control what the program does to them Do you want to force every company (not just software ones) to release the entire business details, processes, designs, contacts, experience... for every product they sell? Do you want to force every company (not just software ones) to give each customer an easy way to clone every product? Because for software-only or design-only companies, that is what it means. There are alternative means to make companies behave, like regulations, certifications, inspections, fines, contracts, etc. in every other field. Why software/design companies need to be different?

wiz21c 6y ago
you're exaggerating. you can verify, modify a program without having access to processes, designs, contacts, etc. It's much harder without those but it's definitely possible. You're also aware that you can fix your own car, your fridge, your house if you ever want it. Those objects don't actively fight to stay un-repair-able (although the times are changing) as far as cloning goes, I'm sure you're aware that there are many clones of your television, phone, etc. sold every day. But in the end, it's a political choice. Either you agree with the fact that some people protect "their" idea (that they had by studying others' ideas), make profit out of it by keeping it a secret, that is, making sure it won't reach the greater part of mankind but only their customer base. Or you don't agree with that. RMS doesn't and he shows he can do it with an appropriate level of incoherence (notice that most free software, in turns, is written or proprietary hardware : just try to reverse engineer a CPU). So it's not black and white. And if in some field there are rules, laws, etc. don't forget they were put in place also to protect commercial interest (in place of general interest). Software being new, it gives us (the idealists) an opportunity to propose another approach.
- jfkebwjsbx 6y ago
  > You're also aware that you can fix your own car, your fridge, your house if you ever want it. You can fix material defects. You cannot change the design, which is what you can do if you release the source code. The same way you can make small fixes in a program relatively easily, for instance updating a dependency or patching small bugs in the binary. So you are agreeing with me. > as far as cloning goes, I'm sure you're aware that there are many clones of your television, phone, etc. sold every day. You cannot clone them for free without cost, which is the problem with software given the source code. > making sure it won't reach the greater part of mankind but only their customer base Do you really think a business does not want to sell? Marketing is about telling everyone about your product.