3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
enriquto 6y ago
> Do you want to force every company Dude, I don't want to force anybody to do anything. Even if it is unethical, nobody's saying that proprietary software should be illegal (except maybe when it is paid for by public resources, but this is another issue). I'm just refusing to partake in the proliferation of proprietary software, by my acts, and by telling other people why they might consider to do so.
- jfkebwjsbx 6y ago
  Then you are criticizing and boycotting the fair work of others without offering any way to improve the situation for everyone. I don’t like closed software either and always prefer a open source product if it is good enough. But going to the point of calling "immoral" and "unethical" the work of other engineers who do sell their software as fairly as possible given the constraints of reality is a bit rude.

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.

enriquto 6y ago

> Do you want to force every company Dude, I don't want to force anybody to do anything. Even if it is unethical, nobody's saying that proprietary software should be illegal (except maybe when it is paid for by public resources, but this is another issue). I'm just refusing to partake in the proliferation of proprietary software, by my acts, and by telling other people why they might consider to do so.

jfkebwjsbx 6y ago
Then you are criticizing and boycotting the fair work of others without offering any way to improve the situation for everyone. I don’t like closed software either and always prefer a open source product if it is good enough. But going to the point of calling "immoral" and "unethical" the work of other engineers who do sell their software as fairly as possible given the constraints of reality is a bit rude.