4 ms·

>The GPL values the user's freedom, That assumes a very specific kind of user. The kind that has the time and energy, not to mention the ability, to read and u

>The GPL values the user's freedom, That assumes a very specific kind of user. The kind that has the time and energy, not to mention the ability, to read and understand source code and modify it according to his needs. Basically the RMS kind of user. For most users, that freedom is not much of a concern at all. For them, the most important freedom is: the freedom to enjoy the fruits of labour of a large horde of programmers who can make a fruitful living out of creating apps for said users. They enjoy this freedom a lot more in what GNU calls non-free platforms like Windows and Mac and iPhone, which is why they keep flocking to them.

marcodiego 5y ago
> That assumes a very specific kind of user. The kind that has the time and energy, not to mention the ability, to read and understand source code and modify it according to his needs. Actually, no. End users also benefit when code is contributed back to the software they use.
- alex_smart 5y ago
  Good point. Of course open source software has definitely benefitted users in a wide variety of ways: for instance by providing open source tools to help build said software (can't even imagine a world without free compilers these days). My intent was only to help the GPL and free software fanatics see an important freedom provided by non-free platforms, not to belittle the achievements of open source community.
  - marcodiego 5y ago
    I often hear the following invalid argument: "I don't care about code availability, I won't look at it!" to which my response is: "You won't look at it, but other people will, and when they contribute back, you will benefit too." Saying that the source availability is not important because you won't use it is like saying free speech is not important because you have nothing to say.
    - fsflover 5y ago
      > I often hear the following invalid argument: "I don't care about code availability, I won't look at it!" Sounds a bit like "I don't care about free speech, I don't want to say anything!".
      - alex_smart 5y ago
        That's because they literally set it up to deliver that same punchline in the next paragraph. Looks like you got too excited to be able to read the entire comment? XD
        fsflover 5y ago
        No, I was aware that the commenter was on my side. I just suggested an alternative reply to the invalid argument.
        alex_smart 5y ago
        No, you suggested the exact same reply he had already given, just in the next paragraph. > it is like saying free speech is not important because you have nothing to say The only thing your "alternative" reply changes from that is grammar.
        fsflover 5y ago
        Ok, it seems you are right. Strange how I overlooked that.
    - alex_smart 5y ago
      That is just an argument for features/the quality of code, not about freedom. There are other models for make good quality software that has the features users want without making it open source. And no, having the source available for software that you use is not like freedom of speech. Anyway, like I have already said, my intent here was only to try to make people like you see another perspective (namely that non-free platforms can create ecosystems where users enjoy the labours of a large number of developers who can make a profitable living out of programming for that ecosystem - access to such ecosystems is also a freedom and one that many users care about). Apart from making that limited point, I had no interest in having a pointless argument with an open source fanatic.

marcodiego 5y ago

> That assumes a very specific kind of user. The kind that has the time and energy, not to mention the ability, to read and understand source code and modify it according to his needs. Actually, no. End users also benefit when code is contributed back to the software they use.

alex_smart 5y ago
Good point. Of course open source software has definitely benefitted users in a wide variety of ways: for instance by providing open source tools to help build said software (can't even imagine a world without free compilers these days). My intent was only to help the GPL and free software fanatics see an important freedom provided by non-free platforms, not to belittle the achievements of open source community.
- marcodiego 5y ago
  I often hear the following invalid argument: "I don't care about code availability, I won't look at it!" to which my response is: "You won't look at it, but other people will, and when they contribute back, you will benefit too." Saying that the source availability is not important because you won't use it is like saying free speech is not important because you have nothing to say.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    > I often hear the following invalid argument: "I don't care about code availability, I won't look at it!" Sounds a bit like "I don't care about free speech, I don't want to say anything!".
    - alex_smart 5y ago
      That's because they literally set it up to deliver that same punchline in the next paragraph. Looks like you got too excited to be able to read the entire comment? XD
      - fsflover 5y ago
        No, I was aware that the commenter was on my side. I just suggested an alternative reply to the invalid argument.
        alex_smart 5y ago
        No, you suggested the exact same reply he had already given, just in the next paragraph. > it is like saying free speech is not important because you have nothing to say The only thing your "alternative" reply changes from that is grammar.
        fsflover 5y ago
        Ok, it seems you are right. Strange how I overlooked that.
  - alex_smart 5y ago
    That is just an argument for features/the quality of code, not about freedom. There are other models for make good quality software that has the features users want without making it open source. And no, having the source available for software that you use is not like freedom of speech. Anyway, like I have already said, my intent here was only to try to make people like you see another perspective (namely that non-free platforms can create ecosystems where users enjoy the labours of a large number of developers who can make a profitable living out of programming for that ecosystem - access to such ecosystems is also a freedom and one that many users care about). Apart from making that limited point, I had no interest in having a pointless argument with an open source fanatic.