2 ms·
> A company should not force anyone to use non-free software: it's unethical. Why is it unethical? Would it be unethical to be required to use an entirely mec
by paulryanrogers 4y ago
> A company should not force anyone to use non-free software: it's unethical.
Why is it unethical?
Would it be unethical to be required to use an entirely mechanical machine that was still covered by patents or trade secrets?
- School-Cotton 4y agoYou’re replying to someone named “fsflover”. This is a bit like trying to convince someone named “maolover” that capitalism has some advantages. The idea that non-free software is unethical and should be abolished is the bedrock of all of the FSF’s philosophy, and is held almost as a religious view for RMS and his adherents.
- paulryanrogers 4y agoNot sure what their nick is supposed to mean. And I'm more interested in understanding why they feel so strongly, and whether their view extends elsewhere, than trying to change their mind.
- fsflover 4y agoReligion is completely unnecessary here. It can be purely practical. By relying on nonfree software you loose your possibility to escape walled gardens (Apple), could be forced to pay more for support, or can't get any support at all (some Android phones, old Apple phones) and so on.
- fsflover 4y agoIt's unethical, because the developers of nonfree software have too much power over the user. They create an artificial monopoly, where nobody except them can provide support in case something goes wrong. Thanks to this monopoly, for example, you have to buy a new Android phone every two years. All these questions are answered in book "Free Software, Free Society" (with better explanations than I can give). > mechanical machine that was still covered by patents or trade secrets I would say, yes, it would be unethical, too.