3 ms·
This argument seems to rely heavily on the idea that non-free software is unethical. If you’re already bought into that idea, then clearly schools ought to only
by dathanb82 6y ago
This argument seems to rely heavily on the idea that non-free software is unethical. If you’re already bought into that idea, then clearly schools ought to only use free software. If you’ve not bought into it already, there’s nothing here that’s likely to change your mind.
- fsflover 6y agoIt's not just ethically wrong. There are also practical implications: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-impor...
- dathanb82 6y agoMaybe so. I disagree with much of Stallman’s platform. But regardless of that, I was just observing that the arguments offered in the article in addition to the rest of the dialogue about free vs proprietary software are mostly based on the idea of a moral or ethical imperative behind free software, and relies on an existing body of work to make arguments about why that imperative might exist. Since the article doesn’t attempt to justify the existence of that imperative, it mostly serves as a statement of position, rather than an argument that’s likely to win anybody over who isn’t already on board with the idea.