5 ms·

Stallman was already right, we will never have freedom as long as we use closed sourced software. How can you believe in promises that cannot be validated ?

wrnr 6y ago
OSS is neither a sufficient nor necessary for freedom, let's stop pretending it does, for freedom sake.
- nip180 6y ago
  OSS is an important part of hardware ownership. If I cannot control the software running on my device do I really own the device? If I do not fully control the hardware and software of my devices my ability to participate in the Information Age is limited. OSS is an important aspect of being a free citizen in the Information Age.
  - tw25493606 6y ago
    > If I cannot control the software running on my device do I really own the device? I think that depends on what you mean by "control" and "really own". Recently folks were complaining that Apple is acting as a monopoly because you can't install a non-Safari browser. Of course they're still stuck installing from the app store. So, demand installing from outside the app store, and they're still stuck using iOS. Demand changing the OS, and they're still stuck using Broadcom chips and indirectly supporting the CCP. These are all degrees of control, with associated trade-offs. Being able to easily alter and recompile an application is just one degree of control. There are many others you still won't have until you can fabricate a device from raw materials. And even then maybe your government won't allow you to access the necessary designs and materials (enforced by men with guns). Ultimately, everything is a package deal, and there is really no such thing as "owning" nor "full control", there are just contracts. For example, no one "really owns" their home; they rent the land from the government and (for most folks) the bank. > my ability to participate in the Information Age is limited Indeed, because that system works for its own purposes, not for you. You must conform to it, not vice versa. [1] [1] https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fc-industrial-society-and-its-future#toc17 https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fc-industrial-societ...
- tw25493606 6y ago
  You've made a claim. Perhaps you should make an argument.
pjmlp 6y ago
He is also an idealist, plenty of business scenarios don't work in free beer for all model.
- mulmen 6y ago
  > When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Third paragraph of the preamble at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-1.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-1.0.html. Still unchanged in v3: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html GPL has always been about free-as-in-freedom, not free-as-in-beer.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Except that try to make a living from selling GPL software to desktop users.
    - toyg 6y ago
      The problem here is Linux users, not GPL desktop software. Linux users are technical and skint; they have no problem compiling something from scratch if it can save them a few dollars. GPL desktop software would probably fare better on Windows, ironically, where compiling and installing things correctly is nontrivial even for power-users. This is actually becoming even more the case, now that security is getting more and more important: having a known-safe installable build from a trusted party is extremely valuable.
      - jabl 6y ago
        I think that's how Krita (a painting app) pays the bills. The code is GPL, and most Linux distros package it for free. But on the windows store, they have a for pay version for some relatively low price (€25 or such). It's not a billion dollar business like Photoshop, but apparently it pays the salary for a few full time employees.
    - Torwald 6y ago

wrnr 6y ago

OSS is neither a sufficient nor necessary for freedom, let's stop pretending it does, for freedom sake.

nip180 6y ago
OSS is an important part of hardware ownership. If I cannot control the software running on my device do I really own the device? If I do not fully control the hardware and software of my devices my ability to participate in the Information Age is limited. OSS is an important aspect of being a free citizen in the Information Age.
- tw25493606 6y ago
  > If I cannot control the software running on my device do I really own the device? I think that depends on what you mean by "control" and "really own". Recently folks were complaining that Apple is acting as a monopoly because you can't install a non-Safari browser. Of course they're still stuck installing from the app store. So, demand installing from outside the app store, and they're still stuck using iOS. Demand changing the OS, and they're still stuck using Broadcom chips and indirectly supporting the CCP. These are all degrees of control, with associated trade-offs. Being able to easily alter and recompile an application is just one degree of control. There are many others you still won't have until you can fabricate a device from raw materials. And even then maybe your government won't allow you to access the necessary designs and materials (enforced by men with guns). Ultimately, everything is a package deal, and there is really no such thing as "owning" nor "full control", there are just contracts. For example, no one "really owns" their home; they rent the land from the government and (for most folks) the bank. > my ability to participate in the Information Age is limited Indeed, because that system works for its own purposes, not for you. You must conform to it, not vice versa. [1] [1] https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fc-industrial-society-and-its-future#toc17 https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fc-industrial-societ...
tw25493606 6y ago
You've made a claim. Perhaps you should make an argument.

pjmlp 6y ago

He is also an idealist, plenty of business scenarios don't work in free beer for all model.

mulmen 6y ago
> When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Third paragraph of the preamble at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-1.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-1.0.html. Still unchanged in v3: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html GPL has always been about free-as-in-freedom, not free-as-in-beer.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Except that try to make a living from selling GPL software to desktop users.
  - toyg 6y ago
    The problem here is Linux users, not GPL desktop software. Linux users are technical and skint; they have no problem compiling something from scratch if it can save them a few dollars. GPL desktop software would probably fare better on Windows, ironically, where compiling and installing things correctly is nontrivial even for power-users. This is actually becoming even more the case, now that security is getting more and more important: having a known-safe installable build from a trusted party is extremely valuable.
    - jabl 6y ago
      I think that's how Krita (a painting app) pays the bills. The code is GPL, and most Linux distros package it for free. But on the windows store, they have a for pay version for some relatively low price (€25 or such). It's not a billion dollar business like Photoshop, but apparently it pays the salary for a few full time employees.
  - Torwald 6y ago