6 ms·

Stallman and the FSF see closed source software as unethical. Imagine if someone asked you for help and said "I don't see how to free my slaves while making a

by tjader 4y ago

Stallman and the FSF see closed source software as unethical. Imagine if someone asked you for help and said "I don't see how to free my slaves while making a living, paying my rent, paying for my children's education". Would you tell them "You shouldn't have slaves, it's unethical" or would you try to help them find a way to run their business with fewer slaves, but still some?

starwind 4y ago
Did you just compare Stallman and the FSF to the Abolitionist movement, and paid software to slavery?
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  Would it help if they had rephrased it more generically? What is something that you find unethical? How does the example feel if you slot that in, instead of slavery?
  - 83457 4y ago
    Analogies
  - Ensorceled 4y ago
    Like a completely different argument. People choose to equivalate bad things to evils like slavery or the holocaust for a reason and all of those reasons are bad.
    - tjader 4y ago
      Sure, tell me the reasons I have for doing something I didn't even do and how they are bad.
- tjader 4y ago
  No. I made an analogy to another behavior that I hope everyone will agree is unethical. The point is that if you accept Stallman's position that closed source software is unethical his response is not unexpected.
  - contrast 4y ago
    Unless you have a low opinion of Stallman, why would you expect him to be so dismissive of the day-to-day concerns of someone who wants to support a family? Using extreme ethical examples to justify a statement is how Godwin’s Law came about, way back in the 90s. It’s a well known tactic to make one’s own position sound reasonable, by implying that anyone is still arguing with you may as well be saying the Nazis weren’t so bad. It’s a good rule of thumb that rather than making a logical argument, you are in fact bringing a rational discussion to an end by invoking slavery, Hitler, or other incontrovertible evil. They are not in any meaningful sense useful analogies for most discussions. The guy wasn’t bringing up anything like slavery. Therefore Stallman’s response is quite likely unexpected to most people.
    - PBondurant 4y ago
      No, this isn't an example of Godwin's law being used as a tactic to end discussion; rather he was using hyperbole - a rhetorical device - to make a point. The slavery reference is not used to suggest that 'non-free software is morally equivalent to slavery/nazism' etc but rather is used as an example of a clear, strongly held moral position in order to emphasise the (possibly more subtle) original point. The point of hyperbole is to further elucidate, not close down. This misunderstanding tends to be caused by (1) treating the rhetorical device literally rather than as an (intentionally exaggerated) analogy, and (2) - as in this case - by assuming that the argument being made is trying to draw some moral equivalence between the analogy and the original example. It isn't.
    - tjader 4y ago
      I wasn't comparing proprietary software to slavery. I was making the point that for Stallman proprietary software is as unethical as slavery is to most people. Maybe I picked the wrong thing to make the analogy, it could have worked just as well with theft, murder, or any other unethical behavior. I wasn't making any point about whether Stallman is right or wrong on that, I was just pointing out that people are attacking the wrong part of his argument. If you disagree with him you should attack his base belief that proprietary software is unethical. > Unless you have a low opinion of Stallman, why would you expect him to be so dismissive of the day-to-day concerns of someone who wants to support a family? When have you ever seen Stallman be pragmatic instead of idealist about anything regarding proprietary software?
- Negitivefrags 4y ago
  Why is it that people on the modern internet seem unable to grasp the concept of an analogy? Two things don't have to be exactly as bad as each other to be analogous circumstances. You are supposed to apply to same chain of logical reasoning to the two situations. Just expressing faux outrage with a "How dare you compare these two things" isn't actually defeating the argument in any way.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - zach_garwood 4y ago
    Oh no, we all get what analogies are. This is just a shitty one.
thejosh 4y ago
Except there is a difference between software and slavery. Society has moved on in the decades since Stallman started (for better or for worse), and we need to figure out a way to stay true to their vision around software and bringing new people on board with the free software movement. Having such extremist comments when someone is trying to figure out how to make their game opensource without breaking agreements for other parts they rely on isn't going to get anyone anywhere.
Beltalowda 4y ago
What am I supposed to say to that? Proprietary software is not slavery, or even anywhere close to it, even if we accept the argument that it is unethical. I find this entire analogy unhelpful.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  Stallman and the game developer are completely incompatible. To Stallman and the FSF, writing proprietary software may as well be slavery.
- riffraff 4y ago
  Slavery is not the argument, it's an example of something you find reproachable. Try to imagine something that you find unethical but some others do not: burqas, abortion, war, public schools, private schools, eating meat, rolling coal or whatever it may be. If you start from the position that such a thing is unethical, you can't enter an argument with someone who asks you "how should I do X to make you happy?", because you simply won't be happy if this gets done at all.
- tjader 4y ago
  The point is not to compare proprietary software to slavery. The point is that Stallman does not find proprietary software bad for the user, he finds it morally wrong. That means in this case it doesn't make sense to complain and argue about his answer to the developer, as his answer makes perfect sense given his premises. If you want to disagree with his advice, you have to disagree with his moral position on proprietary software and argue about that. Expecting Stallman to help someone make money with proprietary software is like expecting a vegan advocate to help someone kill cows more humanely. Note that I'm not expressing an agreement or disagreement with Stallman's worldview, only that his answer is exactly what follows from his worldview, and you should argue about that and not about the answer.
  - Ensorceled 4y ago
    > The point is not to compare proprietary software to slavery. You did exactly that. > The point is that Stallman does not find proprietary software bad for the user, he finds it morally wrong. I truly hope that you are wrong and Stallman does not believe proprietary software to be an evil on par with slavery.
jraph 4y ago
As someone who, younger, avoided games because they were non-free and who is not into games at all anymore anyway, and as someone who explicitly when out of their way to join a company that develops free software. I hear you. However, in my opinion, this game developer interested in doing the right thing is the kind of person the FSF and Stallman should focus on and work on finding solutions for, because they could make a difference and even move part of the industry to free software. Telling such people they are not doing the right thing without giving any trail is not going to achieve much and could even repel them. That's counter productive. One could say that the concerned developer should instead think themself of a solution. That's partly true. I think they should if they are really concerned. However, the whole goal of the FSF is to move the world to free software. They should work to provide trails to such people, because they have all the incentive to do so, even more than the concerned developer. They should provide a welcoming climate so such developer want to join (even more). I think Stallman should be prepared to give a kind, low effort answer to such a "basic" question. It can be low effort because sometimes the question is low effort too, or even a bit ill-intended and yes, the developer should do their homework. But a nice, positive answer could make things change and engage people. (I say "basic", but that does not mean the problem is easy. I think it's hard.)
viktorcode 4y ago
You are comparing slavery to writing proprietary code. It takes a cult-like devotion to perform that mental leap. Maybe it's obvious in your mind, but good luck spreading this word to wider world.
zichy 4y ago

by tjader 4y ago

starwind 4y ago

Did you just compare Stallman and the FSF to the Abolitionist movement, and paid software to slavery?

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
Would it help if they had rephrased it more generically? What is something that you find unethical? How does the example feel if you slot that in, instead of slavery?
- 83457 4y ago
  Analogies
- Ensorceled 4y ago
  Like a completely different argument. People choose to equivalate bad things to evils like slavery or the holocaust for a reason and all of those reasons are bad.
  - tjader 4y ago
    Sure, tell me the reasons I have for doing something I didn't even do and how they are bad.
tjader 4y ago
No. I made an analogy to another behavior that I hope everyone will agree is unethical. The point is that if you accept Stallman's position that closed source software is unethical his response is not unexpected.
- contrast 4y ago
  Unless you have a low opinion of Stallman, why would you expect him to be so dismissive of the day-to-day concerns of someone who wants to support a family? Using extreme ethical examples to justify a statement is how Godwin’s Law came about, way back in the 90s. It’s a well known tactic to make one’s own position sound reasonable, by implying that anyone is still arguing with you may as well be saying the Nazis weren’t so bad. It’s a good rule of thumb that rather than making a logical argument, you are in fact bringing a rational discussion to an end by invoking slavery, Hitler, or other incontrovertible evil. They are not in any meaningful sense useful analogies for most discussions. The guy wasn’t bringing up anything like slavery. Therefore Stallman’s response is quite likely unexpected to most people.
  - PBondurant 4y ago
    No, this isn't an example of Godwin's law being used as a tactic to end discussion; rather he was using hyperbole - a rhetorical device - to make a point. The slavery reference is not used to suggest that 'non-free software is morally equivalent to slavery/nazism' etc but rather is used as an example of a clear, strongly held moral position in order to emphasise the (possibly more subtle) original point. The point of hyperbole is to further elucidate, not close down. This misunderstanding tends to be caused by (1) treating the rhetorical device literally rather than as an (intentionally exaggerated) analogy, and (2) - as in this case - by assuming that the argument being made is trying to draw some moral equivalence between the analogy and the original example. It isn't.
  - tjader 4y ago
    I wasn't comparing proprietary software to slavery. I was making the point that for Stallman proprietary software is as unethical as slavery is to most people. Maybe I picked the wrong thing to make the analogy, it could have worked just as well with theft, murder, or any other unethical behavior. I wasn't making any point about whether Stallman is right or wrong on that, I was just pointing out that people are attacking the wrong part of his argument. If you disagree with him you should attack his base belief that proprietary software is unethical. > Unless you have a low opinion of Stallman, why would you expect him to be so dismissive of the day-to-day concerns of someone who wants to support a family? When have you ever seen Stallman be pragmatic instead of idealist about anything regarding proprietary software?
Negitivefrags 4y ago
Why is it that people on the modern internet seem unable to grasp the concept of an analogy? Two things don't have to be exactly as bad as each other to be analogous circumstances. You are supposed to apply to same chain of logical reasoning to the two situations. Just expressing faux outrage with a "How dare you compare these two things" isn't actually defeating the argument in any way.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- zach_garwood 4y ago
  Oh no, we all get what analogies are. This is just a shitty one.

thejosh 4y ago

Except there is a difference between software and slavery. Society has moved on in the decades since Stallman started (for better or for worse), and we need to figure out a way to stay true to their vision around software and bringing new people on board with the free software movement. Having such extremist comments when someone is trying to figure out how to make their game opensource without breaking agreements for other parts they rely on isn't going to get anyone anywhere.

Beltalowda 4y ago

What am I supposed to say to that? Proprietary software is not slavery, or even anywhere close to it, even if we accept the argument that it is unethical. I find this entire analogy unhelpful.

Gigachad 4y ago
Stallman and the game developer are completely incompatible. To Stallman and the FSF, writing proprietary software may as well be slavery.
riffraff 4y ago
Slavery is not the argument, it's an example of something you find reproachable. Try to imagine something that you find unethical but some others do not: burqas, abortion, war, public schools, private schools, eating meat, rolling coal or whatever it may be. If you start from the position that such a thing is unethical, you can't enter an argument with someone who asks you "how should I do X to make you happy?", because you simply won't be happy if this gets done at all.
tjader 4y ago
The point is not to compare proprietary software to slavery. The point is that Stallman does not find proprietary software bad for the user, he finds it morally wrong. That means in this case it doesn't make sense to complain and argue about his answer to the developer, as his answer makes perfect sense given his premises. If you want to disagree with his advice, you have to disagree with his moral position on proprietary software and argue about that. Expecting Stallman to help someone make money with proprietary software is like expecting a vegan advocate to help someone kill cows more humanely. Note that I'm not expressing an agreement or disagreement with Stallman's worldview, only that his answer is exactly what follows from his worldview, and you should argue about that and not about the answer.
- Ensorceled 4y ago
  > The point is not to compare proprietary software to slavery. You did exactly that. > The point is that Stallman does not find proprietary software bad for the user, he finds it morally wrong. I truly hope that you are wrong and Stallman does not believe proprietary software to be an evil on par with slavery.

jraph 4y ago

As someone who, younger, avoided games because they were non-free and who is not into games at all anymore anyway, and as someone who explicitly when out of their way to join a company that develops free software. I hear you. However, in my opinion, this game developer interested in doing the right thing is the kind of person the FSF and Stallman should focus on and work on finding solutions for, because they could make a difference and even move part of the industry to free software. Telling such people they are not doing the right thing without giving any trail is not going to achieve much and could even repel them. That's counter productive. One could say that the concerned developer should instead think themself of a solution. That's partly true. I think they should if they are really concerned. However, the whole goal of the FSF is to move the world to free software. They should work to provide trails to such people, because they have all the incentive to do so, even more than the concerned developer. They should provide a welcoming climate so such developer want to join (even more). I think Stallman should be prepared to give a kind, low effort answer to such a "basic" question. It can be low effort because sometimes the question is low effort too, or even a bit ill-intended and yes, the developer should do their homework. But a nice, positive answer could make things change and engage people. (I say "basic", but that does not mean the problem is easy. I think it's hard.)

viktorcode 4y ago

You are comparing slavery to writing proprietary code. It takes a cult-like devotion to perform that mental leap. Maybe it's obvious in your mind, but good luck spreading this word to wider world.

zichy 4y ago