3 ms·

To answer your questions, despite what some governments say, corporations are not people. We should strive to allow the people to be in control. By definition,

by jhuni 15y ago

To answer your questions, despite what some governments say, corporations are not people. We should strive to allow the people to be in control. By definition, proprietary software grants exclusive control to a private group such as a corporation. People who are using the software have essentially no control over it, they don't know if the program has malicious features, and they can't fix them if they are put there by accident. No external source is in control of your free software. For this reason governments should always use completely free software. As the software is free they don't have to worry about the whims of Linus or anyone else, most governments actually have their own OS forks like Red Flag Linux in the people's republic of China, Red Star OS in the DPRK, Nova in Cuba, Canaima in Venezuela, etc.

billpatrianakos 15y ago
I would argue that there is an external force in control. Case in point: OpenJDK. There's a group of people who have decided for you what is allowed to run on your system. It was okay for the FSF to decide for us that we're not allowed to run Java on our system because why? Because their cause is righteous? There's a whole host of proprietary software we can't run on Linux because someone else is in control. Luckily a bunch of smart people gave us open source alternatives but what happens when a new technology comes out, becomes widely adopted and arguably necessary for day to day computing but we can't get a GPL compliant alternative? I'm playng devil's advocate again because I'm all for free software but we can't ignore the problems it has just because we're blinded by some allegiance we have to either Stallmam or the greater FSF. So while we may have a lot more freedom than the alternatives doesn't the requirement to be GPL compliant actually restrict some of our freedoms? Specifically, shouldnt we be free to choose a proprietary technology and not be treated like children?
- jhuni 15y ago
  Users already are free to choose proprietary technologies if they want to. The FSF isn't going to change that, nor are they are trying. It is developers that ought to use completely free software, rejecting all proprietary programs in the process.

by jhuni 15y ago

billpatrianakos 15y ago

I would argue that there is an external force in control. Case in point: OpenJDK. There's a group of people who have decided for you what is allowed to run on your system. It was okay for the FSF to decide for us that we're not allowed to run Java on our system because why? Because their cause is righteous? There's a whole host of proprietary software we can't run on Linux because someone else is in control. Luckily a bunch of smart people gave us open source alternatives but what happens when a new technology comes out, becomes widely adopted and arguably necessary for day to day computing but we can't get a GPL compliant alternative? I'm playng devil's advocate again because I'm all for free software but we can't ignore the problems it has just because we're blinded by some allegiance we have to either Stallmam or the greater FSF. So while we may have a lot more freedom than the alternatives doesn't the requirement to be GPL compliant actually restrict some of our freedoms? Specifically, shouldnt we be free to choose a proprietary technology and not be treated like children?

jhuni 15y ago
Users already are free to choose proprietary technologies if they want to. The FSF isn't going to change that, nor are they are trying. It is developers that ought to use completely free software, rejecting all proprietary programs in the process.