5 ms·

The FSF would have good points, but then they ruin them with things like "or the issues that inevitably arise when proprietary software is installed on a user's

The FSF would have good points, but then they ruin them with things like "or the issues that inevitably arise when proprietary software is installed on a user's computer.". Yes, DRM is bad, but not everything has or needs to be open source to treat its users ethically, and some people do need to make a living from their software. Not everything needs to be GPL to respect people's rights to do what they want with something they bought, not everything needs to be open source just because they like it that way, and above all, people should have a right to choose to install whatever they want, and distros should have the same right to choose to tell the user about closed source software when it would be helpful to them. If the end user didn't want to hear that, they can either ignore it, or use a FSF-endorsed linux distro like Trisquel. The fact that so few people do shows to me how most people are completely fine with having the ability to install what they want. Freedom may include giving others freedom to do things you personally don't like, but the FSF tends to think a single, ironically restricted set of freedoms to match their philosophy are all that everyone needs.

jordigh 12y ago
The FSF doesn't fight for open source. They're not the "open source foundation". That's someone else. Proprietary software is obviously not a requirement to make a living off software, unless you think Mozilla had been starving until now and that's why they have to put proprietary software in Firefox.
- blueskin_ 12y ago
  So every random small developer or indie game studio can get a multibillion dollar partnership with google? As it is, Mozilla's relationship with Google is looking shakier every day, as from Google's perspective it's undercutting their own business with Chrome, while from Mozilla's perspective, they promote firefox as being a browser that respects privacy, and partnering with an organisation as fundamentally anti-privacy as Google undermines that. Yes, Mozilla needs funding, but I'd rather pay a one off fee to purchase firefox if it really became necessary. Firefox could then come with no bundled search engines[1], and by default direct the user to the mozilla addons page to select which they would like to add, perhaps with a predefined list of popular choices given prominence similarly to the microsoft browser choice screen that gave prominence to Firefox, Chrome, Opera, IE and Safari, then had others listed if you cared to look further. I guess that whole argument is getting into the question of whether firefox is for power users or the drooling masses who wouldn't want to configure their search engines though. [1] I'd like to see it bundled with duckduckgo included, but I know that even if it came without any, many users would want to add google themselves. I respect their choice to in that case.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - blueskin_ 12y ago
      >Chrome isn't a business, so much as another way to search the web. But instead of automated crawlers it has people who will do the searching, do the crawling. Kind of ingenious if you think about it. Google will make more (indirect) money off the average chrome user than the average firefox user, simply because they get far more metrics, analytics and data from them to make a profile for advertising. Obviously, the average firefox user is likely to have higher technical skill so possibly go to some lengths to confound tracking attempts, but that is beside the point, especially since comparable privacy addons are generally available for chrome too, with the primary exception of NoScript. (Edit: NoScript itself for chrome may not exist, but there are still comparable addons). Back when google signed the Mozilla deal, they didn't have a browser, and the stream of data they get from directing firefox users' searches through google was and still is more profitable to them than letting mozilla pick another default and denying them that data.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        blueskin_ 12y ago
        Isn't that exactly my point? Maintaining their (that is, Google's) majority is more important to them than a small financial loss as they make more money off those firefox users indirectly. If they didn't, they would probably write them off as a loss and let mozilla direct them somewhere else, especially since a majority would likely add google to their search engine list anyway.
  - vezzy-fnord 12y ago
    Yes, Mozilla needs funding, but I'd rather pay a one off fee to purchase firefox if it really became necessary. Note that this alone would not make Firefox proprietary software. It'd still be free, just not gratis, provided redistribution and modification rights are still present.
- sz4kerto 12y ago
  Well, you're right, but still: Mozilla is funded mostly by companies that make money out of proprietary software.
- blueskin_ 12y ago
  Yes, I was using open source as a catch all term for free, both because free is far easier to misunderstand, and because free tends to create negative connotations for many people, especially at the large scale end. I know the FSF disapproves of that usage, but it seems convenient to me, it's one of the most common descriptions I see, and the alternatives are primarily acronym-based like FOSS, FLOSS, etc. and don't roll off the tongue as easily. None of that invalidates the point; namely that the FSF thinks that only free software should be allowed to be promoted to users (and possibly other software outright discouraged), which I find identical to DRM mindsets, just in the opposite direction
  - vezzy-fnord 12y ago
    Yes, I was using open source as a catch all term for free, both because free is far easier to misunderstand, and because free tends to create negative connotations for many people, especially at the large scale end. Open source is very easy to misunderstand, as well. A lot of companies have been abusing the term by giving (limited) source code access without any actual rights to the code itself, and then calling their products "open source". I know the FSF disapproves of that usage, but it seems convenient to me, it's one of the most common descriptions I see, and the alternatives are primarily acronym-based like FOSS, FLOSS, etc. and don't roll off the tongue as easily. It's funny, because "convenience over ethics" is one of the major points that the FSF opposes. And there is a smooth and unequivocal alternative: libre.
    - blueskin_ 12y ago
      Libre suffers from the same problem as 'free' perception-wise, and has the bonus issue of being hard to know if you're pronouncing it right. Libre means free, so any word association issues around free will apply by default. Also, not all open source software is free in price terms, which free/libre creates confusion around.
      - phaemon 12y ago
        No, libre does not mean "free as in zero-cost" it means "free as in freedom". The word for zero-cost is gratis.
chriswarbo 12y ago
> and distros should have the sameright to choose to tell the user about closed osurce[sic] software when it would be helpful to them. Of course they should. That's why they have that right, and are using it. The FSF isn't stopping them; in fact, by supporting development of GNU, they're indirectly helping such distros. What point are you trying to make, that the Free Software Foundation should not complain about encroachments on Software Freedom?
belorn 12y ago
I think you do not understand how the free software movement work. Let me shine some light by rewriting your comment as if it was about a more commonly understood environmental issue. "Yes, pollution is bad, but not everything has or needs to be pollution-free to treat the environment fairly, and some products need be cheap enough to produce revenue. Not everything needs to be green to treat the environment fairly with stuff people have bought, not everything needs to be pollution-free just because they like it that way, and above all, people should have a right to choose to run whatever car they want! The fact that so few people do run pollution-free cars shows to me how most people are completely fine with driving the car they want." (btw, the FSF philosophy is the freedom to do anything except restricting other people freedom. If you want to define freedom as the right to restrict others then go ahead, but I don't).
- blueskin_ 12y ago
  Nice strawman. The clear indicator of a desperate "I don't like your point but can't directly refute it".
  - teddyh 12y ago
    As opposed to your comment, which contains an eloquent refutation of belorn’s comment? Don’t simply call people trolls or strawman-slayers, use good arguments to counter bad ones. Otherwise we get bad arguments countering bad arguments, followed by meta-arguments, tone arguments, etc – don’t let it happen. See this comment for example; Is this comment not better with the second paragraph than without it?
dTal 12y ago
It's not like they said "proprietary software is evil". They say "[issues] inevitably arise when proprietary software is installed on a user's computer." That's a very mild statement that's hard to argue with. >not everything has or needs to be open source to treat its users ethically The FSF's entire raison d'etre is to disagree with that statement, and they do so eloquently. If you have a different view, that's fine, but you need to engage with their arguments a bit more deeply than just contradicting the premise. >some people do need to make a living from their software People make a living selling all sorts of things. This has no bearing on the ethics of doing so. >most people are completely fine with having the ability to install what they want ...which is typically the first thing to go in closed ecosystems. >a single, ironically restricted set of freedoms Freedom of the sort we're talking about here is zero-sum. Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my face. Would you call that "ironically restricted"? The FSF argues not unreasonably that your freedom to run private software ends at other people's computers.
- blueskin_ 12y ago
  If I choose to run Windows as well as Linux, if I choose to install software I purchased, it doesn't harm RMS. In fact, it doesn't harm anyone as long as I'm aware of any potential direct personal impact, which goes for any software including open source.

jordigh 12y ago

The FSF doesn't fight for open source. They're not the "open source foundation". That's someone else. Proprietary software is obviously not a requirement to make a living off software, unless you think Mozilla had been starving until now and that's why they have to put proprietary software in Firefox.

blueskin_ 12y ago
So every random small developer or indie game studio can get a multibillion dollar partnership with google? As it is, Mozilla's relationship with Google is looking shakier every day, as from Google's perspective it's undercutting their own business with Chrome, while from Mozilla's perspective, they promote firefox as being a browser that respects privacy, and partnering with an organisation as fundamentally anti-privacy as Google undermines that. Yes, Mozilla needs funding, but I'd rather pay a one off fee to purchase firefox if it really became necessary. Firefox could then come with no bundled search engines[1], and by default direct the user to the mozilla addons page to select which they would like to add, perhaps with a predefined list of popular choices given prominence similarly to the microsoft browser choice screen that gave prominence to Firefox, Chrome, Opera, IE and Safari, then had others listed if you cared to look further. I guess that whole argument is getting into the question of whether firefox is for power users or the drooling masses who wouldn't want to configure their search engines though. [1] I'd like to see it bundled with duckduckgo included, but I know that even if it came without any, many users would want to add google themselves. I respect their choice to in that case.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - blueskin_ 12y ago
    >Chrome isn't a business, so much as another way to search the web. But instead of automated crawlers it has people who will do the searching, do the crawling. Kind of ingenious if you think about it. Google will make more (indirect) money off the average chrome user than the average firefox user, simply because they get far more metrics, analytics and data from them to make a profile for advertising. Obviously, the average firefox user is likely to have higher technical skill so possibly go to some lengths to confound tracking attempts, but that is beside the point, especially since comparable privacy addons are generally available for chrome too, with the primary exception of NoScript. (Edit: NoScript itself for chrome may not exist, but there are still comparable addons). Back when google signed the Mozilla deal, they didn't have a browser, and the stream of data they get from directing firefox users' searches through google was and still is more profitable to them than letting mozilla pick another default and denying them that data.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
      - blueskin_ 12y ago
        Isn't that exactly my point? Maintaining their (that is, Google's) majority is more important to them than a small financial loss as they make more money off those firefox users indirectly. If they didn't, they would probably write them off as a loss and let mozilla direct them somewhere else, especially since a majority would likely add google to their search engine list anyway.
- vezzy-fnord 12y ago
  Yes, Mozilla needs funding, but I'd rather pay a one off fee to purchase firefox if it really became necessary. Note that this alone would not make Firefox proprietary software. It'd still be free, just not gratis, provided redistribution and modification rights are still present.
sz4kerto 12y ago
Well, you're right, but still: Mozilla is funded mostly by companies that make money out of proprietary software.
blueskin_ 12y ago
Yes, I was using open source as a catch all term for free, both because free is far easier to misunderstand, and because free tends to create negative connotations for many people, especially at the large scale end. I know the FSF disapproves of that usage, but it seems convenient to me, it's one of the most common descriptions I see, and the alternatives are primarily acronym-based like FOSS, FLOSS, etc. and don't roll off the tongue as easily. None of that invalidates the point; namely that the FSF thinks that only free software should be allowed to be promoted to users (and possibly other software outright discouraged), which I find identical to DRM mindsets, just in the opposite direction
- vezzy-fnord 12y ago
  Yes, I was using open source as a catch all term for free, both because free is far easier to misunderstand, and because free tends to create negative connotations for many people, especially at the large scale end. Open source is very easy to misunderstand, as well. A lot of companies have been abusing the term by giving (limited) source code access without any actual rights to the code itself, and then calling their products "open source". I know the FSF disapproves of that usage, but it seems convenient to me, it's one of the most common descriptions I see, and the alternatives are primarily acronym-based like FOSS, FLOSS, etc. and don't roll off the tongue as easily. It's funny, because "convenience over ethics" is one of the major points that the FSF opposes. And there is a smooth and unequivocal alternative: libre.
  - blueskin_ 12y ago
    Libre suffers from the same problem as 'free' perception-wise, and has the bonus issue of being hard to know if you're pronouncing it right. Libre means free, so any word association issues around free will apply by default. Also, not all open source software is free in price terms, which free/libre creates confusion around.
    - phaemon 12y ago
      No, libre does not mean "free as in zero-cost" it means "free as in freedom". The word for zero-cost is gratis.

chriswarbo 12y ago

> and distros should have the sameright to choose to tell the user about closed osurce[sic] software when it would be helpful to them. Of course they should. That's why they have that right, and are using it. The FSF isn't stopping them; in fact, by supporting development of GNU, they're indirectly helping such distros. What point are you trying to make, that the Free Software Foundation should not complain about encroachments on Software Freedom?

belorn 12y ago

I think you do not understand how the free software movement work. Let me shine some light by rewriting your comment as if it was about a more commonly understood environmental issue. "Yes, pollution is bad, but not everything has or needs to be pollution-free to treat the environment fairly, and some products need be cheap enough to produce revenue. Not everything needs to be green to treat the environment fairly with stuff people have bought, not everything needs to be pollution-free just because they like it that way, and above all, people should have a right to choose to run whatever car they want! The fact that so few people do run pollution-free cars shows to me how most people are completely fine with driving the car they want." (btw, the FSF philosophy is the freedom to do anything except restricting other people freedom. If you want to define freedom as the right to restrict others then go ahead, but I don't).

blueskin_ 12y ago
Nice strawman. The clear indicator of a desperate "I don't like your point but can't directly refute it".
- teddyh 12y ago
  As opposed to your comment, which contains an eloquent refutation of belorn’s comment? Don’t simply call people trolls or strawman-slayers, use good arguments to counter bad ones. Otherwise we get bad arguments countering bad arguments, followed by meta-arguments, tone arguments, etc – don’t let it happen. See this comment for example; Is this comment not better with the second paragraph than without it?

dTal 12y ago

It's not like they said "proprietary software is evil". They say "[issues] inevitably arise when proprietary software is installed on a user's computer." That's a very mild statement that's hard to argue with. >not everything has or needs to be open source to treat its users ethically The FSF's entire raison d'etre is to disagree with that statement, and they do so eloquently. If you have a different view, that's fine, but you need to engage with their arguments a bit more deeply than just contradicting the premise. >some people do need to make a living from their software People make a living selling all sorts of things. This has no bearing on the ethics of doing so. >most people are completely fine with having the ability to install what they want ...which is typically the first thing to go in closed ecosystems. >a single, ironically restricted set of freedoms Freedom of the sort we're talking about here is zero-sum. Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my face. Would you call that "ironically restricted"? The FSF argues not unreasonably that your freedom to run private software ends at other people's computers.

blueskin_ 12y ago
If I choose to run Windows as well as Linux, if I choose to install software I purchased, it doesn't harm RMS. In fact, it doesn't harm anyone as long as I'm aware of any potential direct personal impact, which goes for any software including open source.