4 ms·

Closed-source software is unethical regardless of any of your unsubstantiated claims on its or open-source software's security.

iamsaitam 1y ago
Why do you think it's unethical?
- phoronixrly 1y ago
  I will assume you're not trolling but that just don't know what FOSS is about. Check this out https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
  - sanswork 1y ago
    You don't have to be ignorant of FOSS to disagree with the statement that closed source software is unethical.
  - general1465 1y ago
    If you don't know recipe for food, it is automatically unethical food?
    - ruszki 1y ago
      Not disclosing the ingredients is illegal large part of the world, and people can die if you don’t do that, so the answer is clearly yes in some sense. This is also true for some cooking techniques, like heat treatment of raw meat. I think your analogy is not the best.
      - general1465 1y ago
        Not disclosing ingredients is more like not disclosing dependencies because I am very confident that you can't go into a shop, buy a random food and then construct recipe from list of ingredients.
        ruszki 1y ago
        There are parts of the code which don't use dependencies, because you wrote it. Which part of any food is not created from ingredients?
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - coldtea 1y ago
      If the recipe is hidden, yes. It's probably illegal too, as in many jurisdiction the public, or at least a health/food regulatory body should know the process and ingredients. Take into account allergens, and on top of a matter of public knowledge and health, it can also be a matter of life and death.
      - theshrike79 1y ago
        List of ingredients does not a recipe make. It's like saying "Linux uses C" and now you instantly can copy Linux =)
        coldtea 1y ago
        > List of ingredients does not a recipe make. It does however play a hugely important role in a recipe, in a way than the choice of language doesn't play in a program (especially considering turing completeness). So the analogy is broken. Besides nobody made the point that list of ingredients makes a recipe. Just that it's important to know the list of ingredients for a food you're gonna eat, and that it's even illegal to not disclose them (either to the public or a regulatory body) if you sell food.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        > List of ingredients does not a recipe make. Apologies if the parent comment was edited after you wrote yours but a "process and ingredients" does a recipe make.
  - perching_aix 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - sampullman 1y ago
      You don't have to agree with it, but I think it's fair to parrot a take from people who have invested a lot of time and effort into considering why free software is good. The linked page has a clear explanation for why one might consider nonfree software to be unethical.
    - exe34 1y ago
      Sometimes people take the time to read and understand something and conclude that this is the best way to express it, better than they themselves can paraphrase.
      - perching_aix 1y ago
        And sometimes they just collect opinions and follow suit, instead of forming their own ones. How do you know which one happened here, are you a mind reader?
        coldtea 1y ago
        Do you have any opinions of your own instead of berating people with meta arguments and rudeness?
        perching_aix 1y ago
        Yes.
        exe34 1y ago
        If you cared to find out, you could try asking questions about the views, instead of poisoning the well.
        perching_aix 1y ago
  - Aefiam 1y ago
    this page gives no arguments why nonfree software is unethical
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
      This is the first paragraph after the initial quote defining "free software". > We campaign for these freedoms because everyone deserves them. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them. When users don't control the program, we call it a “nonfree” or “proprietary” program. The nonfree program controls the users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the program an instrument of unjust power. It seems safe to say the author thinks that one creating "an instrument of unjust power" for oneself is unethical. Though, perhaps if the commenter in question pulled that quote out of the article, it could have helped their point.
  - freedomben 1y ago
    As someone who also believes closed source software is unethical (though full of nuance), I don't appreciate the abrasive and combative (and frankly rude) way you are engaging on this. You're so epitomizing the rabid stereotype that part of me thinks you are just trolling and don't actually believe what you are saying. If you actually care about this, stop alienating potential allies, and ideally start making arguments to support your case instead of telling people to RTFM (which in this case is even worse because "the manual" isn't as much of an authoritative mic drop as you seem to think it is).
- tuyiown 1y ago
  Depends on people, but for most it's mainly because Stallman says so. You still have ethics ground if you think it the same way as repairability, actively blocking ways to repairs things you bought yourself is questionable, and keeping things closed source can be seen as a way to artificially prolonge a strict dependance on your vendor by impairing your ability to resolve issues by yourself.
  - coldtea 1y ago
    >Depends on people, but for most it's mainly because Stallman says so No, for most it's because they evaluated a number of ethical, social, and technical concerns, and think so.
pjmlp 1y ago
I am quite thankfull that thanks to unethical software I am able to pay my bills, instead of being like a street art performer hoping to get enough coins at the end of the day. I was also a dreamer once upon a time, with M$ on my email signature and all that zealot attitude, then I had to support myself and face the reality that most supermarkets don't take pull requests.
- exe34 1y ago
  Many open source projects are written by people who are paid to do so. Just because you couldn't do it doesn't mean it's not possible.
  - pjmlp 1y ago
    From companies whose main business is selling unethical software. Naturally I am not counting those, given that they are paid in tainted money as per OP's complaint.
    - exe34 1y ago
      I don't think GPL cares where the money is coming from - we're talking about closed/open source, not ethical business models. If we did, we'd have to also go over unfettered free markets and capital flow.
      - pjmlp 1y ago
        FOSS and GPL aren't exactly the same thing. We are surely talking about ethics, > Closed-source software is unethical regardless of any of your unsubstantiated claims on its or open-source software's security. And in that regard, there is also something to talk about regarding some prominent figures in open-source world.
        phoronixrly 1y ago
        Oh, DHH? Not sure how his xenophobic ramblings have anything to do with this...
slightwinder 1y ago
I hope you understand that ethic is not absolute. It's unethical for you, according to your ethical rules. Doesn't mean that this applies to other people rules too.
- phoronixrly 1y ago
  Yeah, we're on a site where a large majority of users shamelessly work at adtech companies, and threads regularly pop-up where people defend working at companies actively developing and selling exploits. I am well aware of that, this is why I remind people that proprietary software is bad actually.
  - slightwinder 1y ago
    You wrote that "Closed-source software" is unethical, not "harmful software & services" is unethical. There is a significant difference. Don't shift your goal as you like. Not all closed-source software is harmful; Obsidian here is a prime example of one which is not harmful and could be even considered as beneficial, despite being closed source, because of how open and supportive it's designed in everything else.
    - phoronixrly 1y ago
      > Don't shift your goal as you like. I was just confirming the point you made -- the definition of ethical is not absolute, and there are people that consider questionable things ethical. > Obsidian here is a prime example of one which is not harmful and could be even considered as beneficial, despite being closed source All proprietary software is unethical. It's as simple as that. No matter whether it's free or paid, no matter whether it's useful or harmful. If you have a right to use it but are deprived of the right to alter it, it is not ethical.
linhns 1y ago
Try to get by with just open source software, I guarantee you won’t.
- phoronixrly 1y ago
  First of all, I do get by with just FOSS. Second -- whether you can or cannot get by without proprietary software has no relation to it being objectively unethical.

iamsaitam 1y ago

Why do you think it's unethical?

phoronixrly 1y ago
I will assume you're not trolling but that just don't know what FOSS is about. Check this out https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
- sanswork 1y ago
  You don't have to be ignorant of FOSS to disagree with the statement that closed source software is unethical.
- general1465 1y ago
  If you don't know recipe for food, it is automatically unethical food?
  - ruszki 1y ago
    Not disclosing the ingredients is illegal large part of the world, and people can die if you don’t do that, so the answer is clearly yes in some sense. This is also true for some cooking techniques, like heat treatment of raw meat. I think your analogy is not the best.
    - general1465 1y ago
      Not disclosing ingredients is more like not disclosing dependencies because I am very confident that you can't go into a shop, buy a random food and then construct recipe from list of ingredients.
      - ruszki 1y ago
        There are parts of the code which don't use dependencies, because you wrote it. Which part of any food is not created from ingredients?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - coldtea 1y ago
    If the recipe is hidden, yes. It's probably illegal too, as in many jurisdiction the public, or at least a health/food regulatory body should know the process and ingredients. Take into account allergens, and on top of a matter of public knowledge and health, it can also be a matter of life and death.
    - theshrike79 1y ago
      List of ingredients does not a recipe make. It's like saying "Linux uses C" and now you instantly can copy Linux =)
      - coldtea 1y ago
        > List of ingredients does not a recipe make. It does however play a hugely important role in a recipe, in a way than the choice of language doesn't play in a program (especially considering turing completeness). So the analogy is broken. Besides nobody made the point that list of ingredients makes a recipe. Just that it's important to know the list of ingredients for a food you're gonna eat, and that it's even illegal to not disclose them (either to the public or a regulatory body) if you sell food.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        > List of ingredients does not a recipe make. Apologies if the parent comment was edited after you wrote yours but a "process and ingredients" does a recipe make.
- perching_aix 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - sampullman 1y ago
    You don't have to agree with it, but I think it's fair to parrot a take from people who have invested a lot of time and effort into considering why free software is good. The linked page has a clear explanation for why one might consider nonfree software to be unethical.
  - exe34 1y ago
    Sometimes people take the time to read and understand something and conclude that this is the best way to express it, better than they themselves can paraphrase.
    - perching_aix 1y ago
      And sometimes they just collect opinions and follow suit, instead of forming their own ones. How do you know which one happened here, are you a mind reader?
      - coldtea 1y ago
        Do you have any opinions of your own instead of berating people with meta arguments and rudeness?
        perching_aix 1y ago
        Yes.
      - exe34 1y ago
        If you cared to find out, you could try asking questions about the views, instead of poisoning the well.
        perching_aix 1y ago
- Aefiam 1y ago
  this page gives no arguments why nonfree software is unethical
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
    This is the first paragraph after the initial quote defining "free software". > We campaign for these freedoms because everyone deserves them. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them. When users don't control the program, we call it a “nonfree” or “proprietary” program. The nonfree program controls the users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the program an instrument of unjust power. It seems safe to say the author thinks that one creating "an instrument of unjust power" for oneself is unethical. Though, perhaps if the commenter in question pulled that quote out of the article, it could have helped their point.
- freedomben 1y ago
  As someone who also believes closed source software is unethical (though full of nuance), I don't appreciate the abrasive and combative (and frankly rude) way you are engaging on this. You're so epitomizing the rabid stereotype that part of me thinks you are just trolling and don't actually believe what you are saying. If you actually care about this, stop alienating potential allies, and ideally start making arguments to support your case instead of telling people to RTFM (which in this case is even worse because "the manual" isn't as much of an authoritative mic drop as you seem to think it is).
tuyiown 1y ago
Depends on people, but for most it's mainly because Stallman says so. You still have ethics ground if you think it the same way as repairability, actively blocking ways to repairs things you bought yourself is questionable, and keeping things closed source can be seen as a way to artificially prolonge a strict dependance on your vendor by impairing your ability to resolve issues by yourself.
- coldtea 1y ago
  >Depends on people, but for most it's mainly because Stallman says so No, for most it's because they evaluated a number of ethical, social, and technical concerns, and think so.

pjmlp 1y ago

I am quite thankfull that thanks to unethical software I am able to pay my bills, instead of being like a street art performer hoping to get enough coins at the end of the day. I was also a dreamer once upon a time, with M$ on my email signature and all that zealot attitude, then I had to support myself and face the reality that most supermarkets don't take pull requests.

exe34 1y ago
Many open source projects are written by people who are paid to do so. Just because you couldn't do it doesn't mean it's not possible.
- pjmlp 1y ago
  From companies whose main business is selling unethical software. Naturally I am not counting those, given that they are paid in tainted money as per OP's complaint.
  - exe34 1y ago
    I don't think GPL cares where the money is coming from - we're talking about closed/open source, not ethical business models. If we did, we'd have to also go over unfettered free markets and capital flow.
    - pjmlp 1y ago
      FOSS and GPL aren't exactly the same thing. We are surely talking about ethics, > Closed-source software is unethical regardless of any of your unsubstantiated claims on its or open-source software's security. And in that regard, there is also something to talk about regarding some prominent figures in open-source world.
      - phoronixrly 1y ago
        Oh, DHH? Not sure how his xenophobic ramblings have anything to do with this...

slightwinder 1y ago

I hope you understand that ethic is not absolute. It's unethical for you, according to your ethical rules. Doesn't mean that this applies to other people rules too.

phoronixrly 1y ago
Yeah, we're on a site where a large majority of users shamelessly work at adtech companies, and threads regularly pop-up where people defend working at companies actively developing and selling exploits. I am well aware of that, this is why I remind people that proprietary software is bad actually.
- slightwinder 1y ago
  You wrote that "Closed-source software" is unethical, not "harmful software & services" is unethical. There is a significant difference. Don't shift your goal as you like. Not all closed-source software is harmful; Obsidian here is a prime example of one which is not harmful and could be even considered as beneficial, despite being closed source, because of how open and supportive it's designed in everything else.
  - phoronixrly 1y ago
    > Don't shift your goal as you like. I was just confirming the point you made -- the definition of ethical is not absolute, and there are people that consider questionable things ethical. > Obsidian here is a prime example of one which is not harmful and could be even considered as beneficial, despite being closed source All proprietary software is unethical. It's as simple as that. No matter whether it's free or paid, no matter whether it's useful or harmful. If you have a right to use it but are deprived of the right to alter it, it is not ethical.

linhns 1y ago

Try to get by with just open source software, I guarantee you won’t.

phoronixrly 1y ago
First of all, I do get by with just FOSS. Second -- whether you can or cannot get by without proprietary software has no relation to it being objectively unethical.