7 ms·

> I don't see how it is immoral at all. Proprietary software is immoral in general, because it takes away the user's freedom to do their computing as they wish

> I don't see how it is immoral at all. Proprietary software is immoral in general, because it takes away the user's freedom to do their computing as they wish. If I cannot turn off a feature of a program I use, then the developers can do whatever the hell they want with my machine, especially if we count in auto-updates. I am not comfortable with that.

rad_gruchalski 4y ago
You know, there are people who consciously select proprietary software because, for example, they don’t want to deal with complexities of managing it. They simply don’t care. They value their relationship with a supplier and care only that it works. Such dogmatic views like “proprietary software is immoral” do not help anyone. You have a choice not to use any of it but don’t cross off people who choose otherwise. Software engineers in vast majority do not live from donations. You are lucky enough to make it from open source? Well, good for you! You are very privileged.
- darkwater 4y ago
  > Such dogmatic views like “proprietary software is immoral” do not help anyone. You have a choice not to use any of it but don’t cross off people who choose otherwise. Saying that proprietary software is moral is just as dogmatic, no?
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    And, on top of that, it's false. Downvoted to -1 for not liking some faux-open-source stuff. So much for the hacker spirit of "hacker" news!
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    No, it's only logical. Immoral is an extreme form of perverse and malevolent morality, or the lack of it. Moral simply means "all the spectrum of things that are not immoral", or not immoral, which is a much larger category with a lot more nuances. Immoral is also a subjective judgment, morality changes according to time, place, culture etc Let's talk about ethics next time So labeling something you don't like immoral is as dogmatic as labeling the abortion immoral just because 3 thousand years ago some guy wrote it in a book of fiction, while thinking that is not immoral means, in the majority of the cases, having no such strong opinion on other people's decisions, which we would consider the "obvious" choice not the dogmatic one.
    - V-2 4y ago
      "Moral simply means "all the spectrum of things that are not immoral", or not immoral, which is a much larger category with a lot more nuances." This is arguing semantics, and we're somewhat straying away from the subject, but I'm not sure if that's actually the case. At least most dictionaries would disagree with your definition, clearly associating moral with "right behavior". "Moral" - in the discussed context - doesn't simply mean non-immoral. Neutral attitudes aren't moral, right attitudes count as moral.
      - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
        > At least most dictionaries would disagree with your definition, what definition? moral comes from Latin moralis, which translates to "manners" or "behavior" in this context software cannot be immoral, only people can, things have no moralis. In this context, again, considering it immoral can be a dogmatic position, NOT considering it immoral it's not Nobody said that proprietary software is virtuous, but simply that it is not immoral. On the other hand, it is perfectly possible (and happened) that people developing free software have little or no morality (see Hans Reiser and Reiserfs) > Moral" - in the discussed context - doesn't simply mean non-immoral The context is: is not considering VS Code immoral dogmatic? The answer is no. Being neutral about it is part of not considering it immoral. Morality includes both good and bad.
  - rad_gruchalski 4y ago
    Have I said that?
- paskozdilar 4y ago
  > they don’t want to deal with complexities of managing it > They value their relationship with a supplier There's nothing inherent about proprietary software that makes it convenient. Convenience is completely orthogonal to freedom. I get reminded of that every time I hear Windows-using friends' stories about their files getting deleted/drivers uninstalled/audio cards burned after Windows Update. Meanwhile, the free software world has been getting better and better as the time goes by. GNU/Linux just works for me nowdays. > Such dogmatic views like “proprietary software is immoral” do not help anyone. Such views are not dogmatic, they are based on very practical arguments - for me the most important argument is "I don't want to run programs whose behavior I cannot change in case I need to". I don't want to let another person, let alone a corporation, run a program on my machine unless I (have a way to) know what it does. And such views they help everybody, because proprietary software gives developers unjust power over their users. Owners of the computing machines ought to have control over what computation their machines do, it's their natural right by being owners of their computing machines. The sooner we get rid of proprietary software, the better it is for everyone, except the poor megacorps that will have to find yet another way to extract money without bringing value. > Software engineers in vast majority do not live from donations. Software engineers can work regular day jobs, and still develop free software. Red Hat for example. Not one of your arguments has convinced me that proprietary software is not completely immoral.
  - rad_gruchalski 4y ago
    > There's nothing inherent about proprietary software that makes it convenient. Convenience is completely orthogonal to freedom. I get reminded of that every time I hear Windows-using friends' stories about their files getting deleted/drivers uninstalled/audio cards burned after Windows Update. Meanwhile, the free software world has been getting better and better as the time goes by. GNU/Linux just works for me nowdays. But they have choice, no? They are free to use any existing alternative. So why do you care? > Such views are not dogmatic, they are based on very practical arguments - for me the most important argument is "I don't want to run programs whose behavior I cannot change in case I need to". I don't want to let another person, let alone a corporation, run a program on my machine unless I (have a way to) know what it does. Great for you. So you made your choice, there's plenty of software you can modify to choose from. Why does it bother you that some people do not care about that, whatever their reason is? > And such views they help everybody, because proprietary software gives developers unjust power over their users. Owners of the computing machines ought to have control over what computation their machines do, it's their natural right by being owners of their computing machines. The sooner we get rid of proprietary software, the better it is for everyone, except the poor megacorps that will have to find yet another way to extract money without bringing value. You know, I do a lot of open source code but I can see the other side of the coin. Which brings me to your last point: > Software engineers can work regular day jobs, and still develop free software. Red Hat for example. Do you? People who can do that are the lucky ones. But there are a lot of jobs out there depending on some proprietary software built by some (mega)corp that is lucky enough to have some paying customers who are happy to pay for it. They maybe don't care about their freedom because it's irrelevant to them. They care that it works the way things are advertised and someone does support for them. > Not one of your arguments has convinced me that proprietary software is not completely immoral. I wasn't even trying.
danielheath 4y ago
> takes away the user's freedom to do their computing as they wish They are free - to not run proprietary software!
MathCodeLove 4y ago
What an absurd statement. Next you'll say private property it "immoral". Open source software is wonderful and I love when companies create and support FOSS. That said, to say it's immoral not to give away the work you produced/paid to produce is ridiculous. You're not taking anyone freedom away by providing proprietary software. As I believe another commenter replied, they're free to not use it or develop the software on their own. If it's too difficult for them to replicate or for a competing FOSS product to exist, then it probably is complex enough to warrant payment.
- paskozdilar 4y ago
  > What an absurd statement. Next you'll say private property it "immoral". No, absolutely not. Private property is a precursor to free software. I own a computing machine, therefore I have a natural right to control what my computing machine will compute. > That said, to say it's immoral not to give away the work you produced/paid to produce is ridiculous. You don't have to give anything away. Free Software means you can share your program with whoever you want, including nobody. > You're not taking anyone freedom away by providing proprietary software. That would be true, if proprietary software meant "no source code available" (that's usually called Freeware). But in reality, there are laws like DCMA that actually do restrict your freedom, in a literal sense.
  - MathCodeLove 4y ago
    What makes software different from any other labor, intellectual property, or physical property? Should a musician not be able to charge for their music? An artist for their art? An architect for their designs? A mason for laying the bricks? You do own your computing machine, which means you have the right not to use proprietary software. That doesn't mean that proprietary software itself isn't moral if the user chooses to run it. You seem to believe that any software which isn't free is also abusive, when that's clearly not the case. Many software companies that develop proprietary software are profitable and are so without abusing their users. DCMA only "restricts your freedom" so far as someone else intellectual property is concerned. If that software had never been created there wouldn't be the "freedoms" surrounding it to restrict. It's also usually illegal to buy a painting and then sell prints of that painting so your freedom is likewise "restricted". While I agree that some parts of DCMA aren't ideal, the broad argument of proprietary software "restricting your freedom" because of it is fallacious.
V-2 4y ago
Software is basically a recipe + the resulting "meal". When I go to a typical restaurant, I also have no freedom to do the cooking as I wish. I'm served with a product whose "source code" I usually don't even know. As long as I agree to this beforehand and I'm not deceived, I can't see how it's inherently immoral. Being uncomfortable with something doesn't necessarily make that thing immoral if it's not forcefully imposed on you.
- paskozdilar 4y ago
  > As long as I agree to this beforehand and I'm not deceived, I can't see how it's inherently immoral. You could use the same argument for voluntary slavery, yet modern laws forbid selling yourself away to a slaver.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - shukantpal 4y ago
    Yes and? Not a remotely fair comparison.
    - paskozdilar 4y ago
      How is it not a fair comparison? In both cases, a person is entering a harmful contract. In both cases, the person's consent doesn't make the contract any less harmful. You can consent to whatever, it doesn't make the thing you're consenting to moral.
      - shukantpal 4y ago
        The reason the latter is immoral is because common sense tells us no rational person would enter a contract to slavery under reasonable circumstances. That is not true for software.
      - diegoperini 4y ago
        You can install a software. Don't like it, then can uninstall. You can be enslaved by your choice. Then ask your freedom back, your master may reject.
rwalle 4y ago
"Proprietary software is immoral in general" LOL. I always wonder what kind of people say that kind of thing? Who are these people on hacker news? Do they live in a real world? Do they ever use Windows/Mac, Office/Google Docs, or maybe just Google? Do they use an iPhone or Android phone? Seriously?
- toastal 4y ago
  > Windows/Mac No. > Office/Google Docs Only when work stuff requires it > Google Nope. > iPhone or Android phone Android is open source and you can run it without Google Play Services just fine. Would I prefer a Linux phone (or maybe no phone), sure? But I live in a society that demands apps sometimes.
- paskozdilar 4y ago
- scbrg 4y ago
  Just because you are forced to interact with immoral things that doesn't mean they suddenly become moral. Libertarians who think taxation is theft still pay taxes. The local restaurant owner will pay the local goons their protection money - shockingly without thinking the protection scheme is a moral one. Many people buy goods manufactured in China, even if they don't support Government oppression (at least not to the extent that's going on there). Humans are complex creatures. You can disapprove of something while still being (more or less) forced into participating in the activity, without imploding in a puff of logic.
pizza234 4y ago
> Proprietary software is immoral in general, because it takes away the user's freedom to do their computing as they wish. Proprietary software happens in the context of a transaction between two willing parties. There's nothing immoral about it. Forcing proprietary software on large scale (companies, governments) could be classified as immoral, but then it's not about proprietary software - the same could be said about forcing pink socks on everybody.

rad_gruchalski 4y ago

You know, there are people who consciously select proprietary software because, for example, they don’t want to deal with complexities of managing it. They simply don’t care. They value their relationship with a supplier and care only that it works. Such dogmatic views like “proprietary software is immoral” do not help anyone. You have a choice not to use any of it but don’t cross off people who choose otherwise. Software engineers in vast majority do not live from donations. You are lucky enough to make it from open source? Well, good for you! You are very privileged.

darkwater 4y ago
> Such dogmatic views like “proprietary software is immoral” do not help anyone. You have a choice not to use any of it but don’t cross off people who choose otherwise. Saying that proprietary software is moral is just as dogmatic, no?
- goodpoint 4y ago
  And, on top of that, it's false. Downvoted to -1 for not liking some faux-open-source stuff. So much for the hacker spirit of "hacker" news!
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  No, it's only logical. Immoral is an extreme form of perverse and malevolent morality, or the lack of it. Moral simply means "all the spectrum of things that are not immoral", or not immoral, which is a much larger category with a lot more nuances. Immoral is also a subjective judgment, morality changes according to time, place, culture etc Let's talk about ethics next time So labeling something you don't like immoral is as dogmatic as labeling the abortion immoral just because 3 thousand years ago some guy wrote it in a book of fiction, while thinking that is not immoral means, in the majority of the cases, having no such strong opinion on other people's decisions, which we would consider the "obvious" choice not the dogmatic one.
  - V-2 4y ago
    "Moral simply means "all the spectrum of things that are not immoral", or not immoral, which is a much larger category with a lot more nuances." This is arguing semantics, and we're somewhat straying away from the subject, but I'm not sure if that's actually the case. At least most dictionaries would disagree with your definition, clearly associating moral with "right behavior". "Moral" - in the discussed context - doesn't simply mean non-immoral. Neutral attitudes aren't moral, right attitudes count as moral.
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      > At least most dictionaries would disagree with your definition, what definition? moral comes from Latin moralis, which translates to "manners" or "behavior" in this context software cannot be immoral, only people can, things have no moralis. In this context, again, considering it immoral can be a dogmatic position, NOT considering it immoral it's not Nobody said that proprietary software is virtuous, but simply that it is not immoral. On the other hand, it is perfectly possible (and happened) that people developing free software have little or no morality (see Hans Reiser and Reiserfs) > Moral" - in the discussed context - doesn't simply mean non-immoral The context is: is not considering VS Code immoral dogmatic? The answer is no. Being neutral about it is part of not considering it immoral. Morality includes both good and bad.
- rad_gruchalski 4y ago
  Have I said that?
paskozdilar 4y ago
> they don’t want to deal with complexities of managing it > They value their relationship with a supplier There's nothing inherent about proprietary software that makes it convenient. Convenience is completely orthogonal to freedom. I get reminded of that every time I hear Windows-using friends' stories about their files getting deleted/drivers uninstalled/audio cards burned after Windows Update. Meanwhile, the free software world has been getting better and better as the time goes by. GNU/Linux just works for me nowdays. > Such dogmatic views like “proprietary software is immoral” do not help anyone. Such views are not dogmatic, they are based on very practical arguments - for me the most important argument is "I don't want to run programs whose behavior I cannot change in case I need to". I don't want to let another person, let alone a corporation, run a program on my machine unless I (have a way to) know what it does. And such views they help everybody, because proprietary software gives developers unjust power over their users. Owners of the computing machines ought to have control over what computation their machines do, it's their natural right by being owners of their computing machines. The sooner we get rid of proprietary software, the better it is for everyone, except the poor megacorps that will have to find yet another way to extract money without bringing value. > Software engineers in vast majority do not live from donations. Software engineers can work regular day jobs, and still develop free software. Red Hat for example. Not one of your arguments has convinced me that proprietary software is not completely immoral.
- rad_gruchalski 4y ago
  > There's nothing inherent about proprietary software that makes it convenient. Convenience is completely orthogonal to freedom. I get reminded of that every time I hear Windows-using friends' stories about their files getting deleted/drivers uninstalled/audio cards burned after Windows Update. Meanwhile, the free software world has been getting better and better as the time goes by. GNU/Linux just works for me nowdays. But they have choice, no? They are free to use any existing alternative. So why do you care? > Such views are not dogmatic, they are based on very practical arguments - for me the most important argument is "I don't want to run programs whose behavior I cannot change in case I need to". I don't want to let another person, let alone a corporation, run a program on my machine unless I (have a way to) know what it does. Great for you. So you made your choice, there's plenty of software you can modify to choose from. Why does it bother you that some people do not care about that, whatever their reason is? > And such views they help everybody, because proprietary software gives developers unjust power over their users. Owners of the computing machines ought to have control over what computation their machines do, it's their natural right by being owners of their computing machines. The sooner we get rid of proprietary software, the better it is for everyone, except the poor megacorps that will have to find yet another way to extract money without bringing value. You know, I do a lot of open source code but I can see the other side of the coin. Which brings me to your last point: > Software engineers can work regular day jobs, and still develop free software. Red Hat for example. Do you? People who can do that are the lucky ones. But there are a lot of jobs out there depending on some proprietary software built by some (mega)corp that is lucky enough to have some paying customers who are happy to pay for it. They maybe don't care about their freedom because it's irrelevant to them. They care that it works the way things are advertised and someone does support for them. > Not one of your arguments has convinced me that proprietary software is not completely immoral. I wasn't even trying.

danielheath 4y ago

> takes away the user's freedom to do their computing as they wish They are free - to not run proprietary software!

MathCodeLove 4y ago

What an absurd statement. Next you'll say private property it "immoral". Open source software is wonderful and I love when companies create and support FOSS. That said, to say it's immoral not to give away the work you produced/paid to produce is ridiculous. You're not taking anyone freedom away by providing proprietary software. As I believe another commenter replied, they're free to not use it or develop the software on their own. If it's too difficult for them to replicate or for a competing FOSS product to exist, then it probably is complex enough to warrant payment.

paskozdilar 4y ago
> What an absurd statement. Next you'll say private property it "immoral". No, absolutely not. Private property is a precursor to free software. I own a computing machine, therefore I have a natural right to control what my computing machine will compute. > That said, to say it's immoral not to give away the work you produced/paid to produce is ridiculous. You don't have to give anything away. Free Software means you can share your program with whoever you want, including nobody. > You're not taking anyone freedom away by providing proprietary software. That would be true, if proprietary software meant "no source code available" (that's usually called Freeware). But in reality, there are laws like DCMA that actually do restrict your freedom, in a literal sense.
- MathCodeLove 4y ago
  What makes software different from any other labor, intellectual property, or physical property? Should a musician not be able to charge for their music? An artist for their art? An architect for their designs? A mason for laying the bricks? You do own your computing machine, which means you have the right not to use proprietary software. That doesn't mean that proprietary software itself isn't moral if the user chooses to run it. You seem to believe that any software which isn't free is also abusive, when that's clearly not the case. Many software companies that develop proprietary software are profitable and are so without abusing their users. DCMA only "restricts your freedom" so far as someone else intellectual property is concerned. If that software had never been created there wouldn't be the "freedoms" surrounding it to restrict. It's also usually illegal to buy a painting and then sell prints of that painting so your freedom is likewise "restricted". While I agree that some parts of DCMA aren't ideal, the broad argument of proprietary software "restricting your freedom" because of it is fallacious.

V-2 4y ago

Software is basically a recipe + the resulting "meal". When I go to a typical restaurant, I also have no freedom to do the cooking as I wish. I'm served with a product whose "source code" I usually don't even know. As long as I agree to this beforehand and I'm not deceived, I can't see how it's inherently immoral. Being uncomfortable with something doesn't necessarily make that thing immoral if it's not forcefully imposed on you.

paskozdilar 4y ago
> As long as I agree to this beforehand and I'm not deceived, I can't see how it's inherently immoral. You could use the same argument for voluntary slavery, yet modern laws forbid selling yourself away to a slaver.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- shukantpal 4y ago
  Yes and? Not a remotely fair comparison.
  - paskozdilar 4y ago
    How is it not a fair comparison? In both cases, a person is entering a harmful contract. In both cases, the person's consent doesn't make the contract any less harmful. You can consent to whatever, it doesn't make the thing you're consenting to moral.
    - shukantpal 4y ago
      The reason the latter is immoral is because common sense tells us no rational person would enter a contract to slavery under reasonable circumstances. That is not true for software.
    - diegoperini 4y ago
      You can install a software. Don't like it, then can uninstall. You can be enslaved by your choice. Then ask your freedom back, your master may reject.

rwalle 4y ago

"Proprietary software is immoral in general" LOL. I always wonder what kind of people say that kind of thing? Who are these people on hacker news? Do they live in a real world? Do they ever use Windows/Mac, Office/Google Docs, or maybe just Google? Do they use an iPhone or Android phone? Seriously?

toastal 4y ago
> Windows/Mac No. > Office/Google Docs Only when work stuff requires it > Google Nope. > iPhone or Android phone Android is open source and you can run it without Google Play Services just fine. Would I prefer a Linux phone (or maybe no phone), sure? But I live in a society that demands apps sometimes.
paskozdilar 4y ago
scbrg 4y ago
Just because you are forced to interact with immoral things that doesn't mean they suddenly become moral. Libertarians who think taxation is theft still pay taxes. The local restaurant owner will pay the local goons their protection money - shockingly without thinking the protection scheme is a moral one. Many people buy goods manufactured in China, even if they don't support Government oppression (at least not to the extent that's going on there). Humans are complex creatures. You can disapprove of something while still being (more or less) forced into participating in the activity, without imploding in a puff of logic.

pizza234 4y ago

> Proprietary software is immoral in general, because it takes away the user's freedom to do their computing as they wish. Proprietary software happens in the context of a transaction between two willing parties. There's nothing immoral about it. Forcing proprietary software on large scale (companies, governments) could be classified as immoral, but then it's not about proprietary software - the same could be said about forcing pink socks on everybody.