5 ms·

The hardcore free software position is that proprietary software is unethical, and while permissively licensed free software (or public domain) per se is fine,

by jabl 5y ago

The hardcore free software position is that proprietary software is unethical, and while permissively licensed free software (or public domain) per se is fine, they allow such software to be co-opted to produce proprietary software. And thus copyleft licenses are better as they remove that temptation.

galaxyLogic 5y ago
Right proprietary software is the root of all evil, I get it, is some people's position. But what are the arguments that made them believe so, that proprietary software is unethical? How and why (do they believe) "proprietary software" is unethical?
- jabl 5y ago
  Well, I've been around FOSS my entire career, I've read a lot of RMS's writings, contributed to GNU projects, and to be honest, I don't know. Except that RMS got really really mad for not being able to fix a printer driver. I'm not sure free software philosophy would stand up to serious scrutiny from a moral philosophy perspective. One could argue that society as a whole would be better off if zero marginal cost things like software or poetry, or information in general, would be freely available to everyone [1]. But that raises the question how such public goods ought to be financed. In today's capitalistic society it doesn't seem like a very serious proposition. In today's world, the choice is often not between proprietary software for solving problem X vs. free software for solving problem X, but between proprietary software for solving X and no software that solves X. And I don't think society as a whole is better off by not solving problem X unless we have a FOSS solution. [1] Even that has limits. We probably don't want detailed instructions for making, say, biological warfare agents publicly available.
  - galaxyLogic 5y ago
    Makes sense what you say. If we declare that nobody can own (and sell) copyrights then we are very close to saying that nobody can own anything. Then who would get the "goods"? The strongmen, those with biggest guns and most selfish and cruel characters. Jesse James? Only by uniting and making laws, including contract-law, can the weaker actors, the majority, guarantee a fair and better society for everybody. I do like the GNU copyleft licenses I think that is a great idea. But then to say that because I released my software under copyleft everybody else must do the same, or I call them unethical, sounds self-serving. I don't believe that society would be better if "zero marginal cost things like software or poetry, or information in general, would be freely available". Is there any evidence of that? Human nature is that people will produce what benefits them --and others-- the most,. Therefore they choose to grow crops that give them the biggest profits. Think about pharmaceuticals who invest billions in research for new medicines only because patent-laws exist. That does not mean we should give them unlimited power to exploit their patents. We can make a law that progressively taxes exploitative pricing, however that is defined.

by jabl 5y ago

galaxyLogic 5y ago

Right proprietary software is the root of all evil, I get it, is some people's position. But what are the arguments that made them believe so, that proprietary software is unethical? How and why (do they believe) "proprietary software" is unethical?

jabl 5y ago
Well, I've been around FOSS my entire career, I've read a lot of RMS's writings, contributed to GNU projects, and to be honest, I don't know. Except that RMS got really really mad for not being able to fix a printer driver. I'm not sure free software philosophy would stand up to serious scrutiny from a moral philosophy perspective. One could argue that society as a whole would be better off if zero marginal cost things like software or poetry, or information in general, would be freely available to everyone [1]. But that raises the question how such public goods ought to be financed. In today's capitalistic society it doesn't seem like a very serious proposition. In today's world, the choice is often not between proprietary software for solving problem X vs. free software for solving problem X, but between proprietary software for solving X and no software that solves X. And I don't think society as a whole is better off by not solving problem X unless we have a FOSS solution. [1] Even that has limits. We probably don't want detailed instructions for making, say, biological warfare agents publicly available.
- galaxyLogic 5y ago
  Makes sense what you say. If we declare that nobody can own (and sell) copyrights then we are very close to saying that nobody can own anything. Then who would get the "goods"? The strongmen, those with biggest guns and most selfish and cruel characters. Jesse James? Only by uniting and making laws, including contract-law, can the weaker actors, the majority, guarantee a fair and better society for everybody. I do like the GNU copyleft licenses I think that is a great idea. But then to say that because I released my software under copyleft everybody else must do the same, or I call them unethical, sounds self-serving. I don't believe that society would be better if "zero marginal cost things like software or poetry, or information in general, would be freely available". Is there any evidence of that? Human nature is that people will produce what benefits them --and others-- the most,. Therefore they choose to grow crops that give them the biggest profits. Think about pharmaceuticals who invest billions in research for new medicines only because patent-laws exist. That does not mean we should give them unlimited power to exploit their patents. We can make a law that progressively taxes exploitative pricing, however that is defined.