3 ms·

> Most programmers work for a wage. They don't own the software they write - their employer does. Whether or not their employer is rent-seeking does not affect

> Most programmers work for a wage. They don't own the software they write - their employer does. Whether or not their employer is rent-seeking does not affect a programmer's income. Their wage is paid from the income made by the employer. If the employer doesn't have a business, these people have no work to do. Hence, no salary. We can go and discuss that, sure, they can have another job. But as it stands today, if the employer has no business, they would have no job. > What if my friend paid a person or two (not 50) to write the software for him? He's free to do so and there are people who will happily take this up and write the software for your friend. There are people on GitHub who will do this for sponsorship. > There are many alternatives to common proprietary software, and the number of alternatives gets higher with each day. Indeed. Which is great. So why are there so many people out there who still prefer paying for proprietary software and are happy to do so? > You seem to be stuck on the argument that "without proprietary software, programmers will not get paid". No, it's exactly the opposite. I'm saying: there's free software and proprietary software. Some people select free. Other, for whatever reason, select proprietary. It's cool, both sides make sense. What's wrong with that? Let the people choose what they want as long as they're happy with their choice. That's exactly why I pointed out the dogmatic approach to "Proprietary software is immoral in general", especially the "in general". What I'd find okay to be immoral, is forcing people onto proprietary software. But as long as people have the choice? Let them be.

paskozdilar 4y ago
> No, it's exactly the opposite. I'm saying: there's free software and proprietary software. Some people select free. Other, for whatever reason, select proprietary. It's cool, both sides make sense. What's wrong with that? Nothing is wrong with the fact that humans can choose to use proprietary software. I think we have repeated this argument several times already. What is wrong is proprietary software itself. > That's exactly why I pointed out the dogmatic approach to "Proprietary software is immoral in general", especially the "in general". What I'd find okay to be immoral, is forcing people onto proprietary software. But as long as people have the choice? Let them be. Proprietary software is immoral, because it takes away user's freedom. Whether or not it is forced upon is not relevant for its immorality, because once a person starts using proprietary software, they lose control over their computing. That's what makes it immoral. What happens before and after that is completely irrelevant to the argument. Just as selling addictive drugs like heroin is immoral, because it enslaves people, through psychological/physical dependency. Of course, people should have the choice to put whatever they want into their own bodies. But that does not make heroin dealers any less immoral - their profit is derived directly from their users' enslavement. Whether people should have freedom to enslave themselves in general is a completely different discussion that has nothing to do with software.

paskozdilar 4y ago

> No, it's exactly the opposite. I'm saying: there's free software and proprietary software. Some people select free. Other, for whatever reason, select proprietary. It's cool, both sides make sense. What's wrong with that? Nothing is wrong with the fact that humans can choose to use proprietary software. I think we have repeated this argument several times already. What is wrong is proprietary software itself. > That's exactly why I pointed out the dogmatic approach to "Proprietary software is immoral in general", especially the "in general". What I'd find okay to be immoral, is forcing people onto proprietary software. But as long as people have the choice? Let them be. Proprietary software is immoral, because it takes away user's freedom. Whether or not it is forced upon is not relevant for its immorality, because once a person starts using proprietary software, they lose control over their computing. That's what makes it immoral. What happens before and after that is completely irrelevant to the argument. Just as selling addictive drugs like heroin is immoral, because it enslaves people, through psychological/physical dependency. Of course, people should have the choice to put whatever they want into their own bodies. But that does not make heroin dealers any less immoral - their profit is derived directly from their users' enslavement. Whether people should have freedom to enslave themselves in general is a completely different discussion that has nothing to do with software.