4 ms·

RMS was right IMHO when he said that software that runs without the permission of its users, doing things to or preventing use of the hardware owned by the user

RMS was right IMHO when he said that software that runs without the permission of its users, doing things to or preventing use of the hardware owned by the user, is an infringement of freedom. But he goes too far in demanding that all software source be open, scrutinizable, and subject to modification. As a software dev, that's my work product, my trade secret, my value add. Not the end user's. He's free to turn it off and uninstall it if he doesn't like or trust what it does.

c4mpute 3y ago
I see two alternatives: The RMS approach, where all software needs to be open, scrutinizable, subject to modification. Ensuring quality and responsibility through openness. Or the liability approach: Make closed-source developers liable for what they produce, legislate standards for safety and security and have them be responsible for their creations. Because the current state of closed source software got us into the mess of Windows, Stuxnet, self-murdering cars, etc. A combination of both approaches is possible. But if you want to hide your code, thats fine. If you then take full responsibility for your code.
BlackFly 3y ago
As a society, we have learned to forbid manufacturers from selling for mass consumption products without divulging what those products generally contain. As a society, why would we allow people to sell for mass execution software without divulging what those products generally do when we historically know (and are currently seeing) how this will end up? The consumer is free to not consume if they don't trust the manufacturer? No, we generally require a little bit more declaration from the manufacturer on the product. I don't see why we would change this arrangement from physical products to software products. But certainly that doesn't dictate that the source code is available... we require a list of ingredients but not the recipe. Appliances are required to have power ratings. Other products have emissions ratings, fuel consumption, etc. Such products are also generally certified to certain standards. Open source is actually easier than figuring out how to regulate telemetry, energy consumption, data processing, repair, continuance of service and the host of other things society might want (and is currently beginning to regulate) to be declared by software manufacturers.
- zelphirkalt 3y ago
  I think the difficulty is then shifted though: What if it turns out, that the manufacturer of the code lied to us and the software did something in addition to what they told us? (Which undoubtedly would happen.) Do we as a society revoke their license to ship software or something? Do we let them pay in millions and billions, depending on how many people were affected and how badly? Or do meakly wag a finger? In short: What are the consequences you propose in that system, which will stop the perpetrator from doing it again?
  - BlackFly 3y ago
    The same thing: you fine them. That's what happens when you find melamine in baby formula, so I don't see why it would be different for software? Even with physical products there are open questions on whether the impact of the fine or punishment is enough.
prmoustache 3y ago
I don't know, I think that any proprietary software (and I include firmwares in that) should be prohibited by law. Same for hardware, all the schematics and specs should be provided.

c4mpute 3y ago

I see two alternatives: The RMS approach, where all software needs to be open, scrutinizable, subject to modification. Ensuring quality and responsibility through openness. Or the liability approach: Make closed-source developers liable for what they produce, legislate standards for safety and security and have them be responsible for their creations. Because the current state of closed source software got us into the mess of Windows, Stuxnet, self-murdering cars, etc. A combination of both approaches is possible. But if you want to hide your code, thats fine. If you then take full responsibility for your code.

BlackFly 3y ago

As a society, we have learned to forbid manufacturers from selling for mass consumption products without divulging what those products generally contain. As a society, why would we allow people to sell for mass execution software without divulging what those products generally do when we historically know (and are currently seeing) how this will end up? The consumer is free to not consume if they don't trust the manufacturer? No, we generally require a little bit more declaration from the manufacturer on the product. I don't see why we would change this arrangement from physical products to software products. But certainly that doesn't dictate that the source code is available... we require a list of ingredients but not the recipe. Appliances are required to have power ratings. Other products have emissions ratings, fuel consumption, etc. Such products are also generally certified to certain standards. Open source is actually easier than figuring out how to regulate telemetry, energy consumption, data processing, repair, continuance of service and the host of other things society might want (and is currently beginning to regulate) to be declared by software manufacturers.

zelphirkalt 3y ago
I think the difficulty is then shifted though: What if it turns out, that the manufacturer of the code lied to us and the software did something in addition to what they told us? (Which undoubtedly would happen.) Do we as a society revoke their license to ship software or something? Do we let them pay in millions and billions, depending on how many people were affected and how badly? Or do meakly wag a finger? In short: What are the consequences you propose in that system, which will stop the perpetrator from doing it again?
- BlackFly 3y ago
  The same thing: you fine them. That's what happens when you find melamine in baby formula, so I don't see why it would be different for software? Even with physical products there are open questions on whether the impact of the fine or punishment is enough.

prmoustache 3y ago

I don't know, I think that any proprietary software (and I include firmwares in that) should be prohibited by law. Same for hardware, all the schematics and specs should be provided.