5 ms·

I do not agree with his "unethical" claim at all.

by sigzero 14y ago

mike-cardwell 14y ago
Many people don't. One of his core opinions is that the production/distribution of any non-free software is unethical. You can agree or disagree with him, but at least he explains and backs up his arguments with logic. Do you know his arguments for this?
- bunderbunder 14y ago
  His logic is perfectly valid for justifying is own feelings about it. But his reason for getting up in arms about other people doing things differently seems to just be that he's a nosy noser who can't keep his nose out of what goes on among consenting adults in situations that don't really involve him. (edit: Well, that and if he changed his tack his career would be over. Having chosen to make his living on the lecture circuit rather than getting paid to write software, he's essentially relinquished his freedom to re-examine or temper his own opinions. At least not publicly.)
  - fffggg 14y ago
    Reading your post I'm lead to believe that you haven't read (or properly understood) his philosophical stance. You say: "he's a nosy noser who can't keep his nose out of what goes on among consenting adults in situations that don't really involve him" Yet, proprietary software development and the accompanying restrictions on related freedoms impacts us all. Any time someone creates a proprietary computer program it restricts everyone's ability to freely interact with it. You may disagree with his conclusion; you may believe it is OK to claim property-like control over intangible, intellectual constructs. But you cannot say that this control does not affect others. You cannot say that it does not affect him. The very nature of copyright is to limit the freedom of all other persons with respect to a particular work.
    - bunderbunder 14y ago
      Any time someone creates a proprietary computer program it restricts everyone's ability to freely interact with it. This is exactly the point that I don't think can be justified unless you're nosy. Before the proprietary app was created, it didn't exist. By any practical measure, the distinction between a software developer not creating an app at all, and creating it but only being willing to share it under terms that are unacceptable to a given person is nil. Regardless of how you get there, not having the app is not having the app. Proprietary software licensing is just a type of contract. And like any other contract, it only applies to people who voluntarily choose to enter into it. And the ability of individuals to freely enter into agreements whereby they exchange goods and services, perhaps subject to additional conditions, is an essential feature of free society. If nobody's forcing you to enter into the contract, then your freedom is intact. On the other hand, pressuring those to whom the contract is acceptable to avoid entering it suggests a lack of respect for the freedoms of those who disagree with oneself. Just as assuming that someone who doesn't agree with you just doesn't understand your position suggests a more general lack of respect for those who disagree with oneself.
      - fffggg 14y ago
        "Regardless of how you get there, not having the app is not having the app." This sentiment is a great example of how you're missing the point. It isn't about having an app. It isn't about getting things. It's about freedom of expression. Intellectual control laws - Patents and Copyright - both work by preventing individuals from creating or sharing their own intellectual work, or sharing a work they have observed. That is quite literally their only function. Without Copyright I am free to create and share anything I can imagine. With Copyright, I am forbidden from creating certain kinds of works, and I am forbidden from sharing certain kinds of communications regarding works I have observed. If, in the absence of Copyright, you simply neglect to create a work then my freedom of expression remains unencumbered. This is the nature of the freedom Stallman seeks to defend. Your mention of contracts again indicates you do not understand the essence of this issue. Contracts are entered into willingly, between consenting participants. Copyright however, does not come in the form of a contract. It is an intellectual shackle which restricts the freedom of every person to create works based on what they observe, whether they like it or not. The licensing you refer to is a merely a mechanism to loosen the already-existing shackle of Copyright -- for a price.
  - prodigal_erik 14y ago
    To learn from and improve our tools is the heart of our species. They've consented to not behaving as adults, and it's grossly hindered progress in a field of growing importance.

I do not agree with his "unethical" claim at all.

by sigzero 14y ago

I do not agree with his "unethical" claim at all.

Many people don't. One of his core opinions is that the production/distribution of any non-free software is unethical. You can agree or disagree with him, but at least he explains and backs up his arguments with logic. Do you know his arguments for this?

bunderbunder 14y ago
His logic is perfectly valid for justifying is own feelings about it. But his reason for getting up in arms about other people doing things differently seems to just be that he's a nosy noser who can't keep his nose out of what goes on among consenting adults in situations that don't really involve him. (edit: Well, that and if he changed his tack his career would be over. Having chosen to make his living on the lecture circuit rather than getting paid to write software, he's essentially relinquished his freedom to re-examine or temper his own opinions. At least not publicly.)
- fffggg 14y ago
  Reading your post I'm lead to believe that you haven't read (or properly understood) his philosophical stance. You say: "he's a nosy noser who can't keep his nose out of what goes on among consenting adults in situations that don't really involve him" Yet, proprietary software development and the accompanying restrictions on related freedoms impacts us all. Any time someone creates a proprietary computer program it restricts everyone's ability to freely interact with it. You may disagree with his conclusion; you may believe it is OK to claim property-like control over intangible, intellectual constructs. But you cannot say that this control does not affect others. You cannot say that it does not affect him. The very nature of copyright is to limit the freedom of all other persons with respect to a particular work.
  - bunderbunder 14y ago
    Any time someone creates a proprietary computer program it restricts everyone's ability to freely interact with it. This is exactly the point that I don't think can be justified unless you're nosy. Before the proprietary app was created, it didn't exist. By any practical measure, the distinction between a software developer not creating an app at all, and creating it but only being willing to share it under terms that are unacceptable to a given person is nil. Regardless of how you get there, not having the app is not having the app. Proprietary software licensing is just a type of contract. And like any other contract, it only applies to people who voluntarily choose to enter into it. And the ability of individuals to freely enter into agreements whereby they exchange goods and services, perhaps subject to additional conditions, is an essential feature of free society. If nobody's forcing you to enter into the contract, then your freedom is intact. On the other hand, pressuring those to whom the contract is acceptable to avoid entering it suggests a lack of respect for the freedoms of those who disagree with oneself. Just as assuming that someone who doesn't agree with you just doesn't understand your position suggests a more general lack of respect for those who disagree with oneself.
    - fffggg 14y ago
      "Regardless of how you get there, not having the app is not having the app." This sentiment is a great example of how you're missing the point. It isn't about having an app. It isn't about getting things. It's about freedom of expression. Intellectual control laws - Patents and Copyright - both work by preventing individuals from creating or sharing their own intellectual work, or sharing a work they have observed. That is quite literally their only function. Without Copyright I am free to create and share anything I can imagine. With Copyright, I am forbidden from creating certain kinds of works, and I am forbidden from sharing certain kinds of communications regarding works I have observed. If, in the absence of Copyright, you simply neglect to create a work then my freedom of expression remains unencumbered. This is the nature of the freedom Stallman seeks to defend. Your mention of contracts again indicates you do not understand the essence of this issue. Contracts are entered into willingly, between consenting participants. Copyright however, does not come in the form of a contract. It is an intellectual shackle which restricts the freedom of every person to create works based on what they observe, whether they like it or not. The licensing you refer to is a merely a mechanism to loosen the already-existing shackle of Copyright -- for a price.
- prodigal_erik 14y ago
  To learn from and improve our tools is the heart of our species. They've consented to not behaving as adults, and it's grossly hindered progress in a field of growing importance.