5 ms·

> Proprietary software is immoral It's one thing to laud the common benefits of FOSS, or the ethical gains of charity. These things resonate with me. But I f

> Proprietary software is immoral It's one thing to laud the common benefits of FOSS, or the ethical gains of charity. These things resonate with me. But I fundamentally disagree with - and as a proprietary software developer, am alienated by - your statement. Is that actually what you mean? My day job - making games - is immoral? A daily dose of evil? If so, this is the kind of attitude that puts me off contributing to anything even remotely related to "free software". Perhaps you're fine with that, but I feel it leaves us all poorer. (edit: minor improvements to clarity.)

teddyh 12y ago
Maybe a car analogy will help: If you are selling cars with the hoods welded shut and all systems permeated with DRM, are you making the world better, because, hey, cars are good? Or are you in effect making your customers helpless, teaching them that they are not, and should not even want to be, in control of their own cars?
- fsloth 12y ago
  DRM and closed source software are not the same thing. Closed source software is commonly used to manipulate open data. Free software facilitates the openness of data and is absolutely essential but it does not make in any way closed source software evil.
  - teddyh 12y ago
    > DRM and closed source software are not the same thing. True, but in this situation they have the same effect which I wanted to highlight, i.e. loss of control on the part of the owner/user. > Closed source software is commonly used to manipulate open data. True, but I can’t see the relevance. > Free software facilitates the openness of data and is absolutely essential but it does not make in any way closed source software evil. I don’t see how that follows.
    - fsloth 12y ago
      > True, but in this situation they have the same effect which I wanted to highlight, i.e. loss of control on the part of the owner/user. Analogies are a bit awkward. With cars, DRM would equal to each car manufacturer having their own road barred to other car manufacturers. If the welded-shut-bonnet bothers you just switch cars. This is what I meant with open data - it's what one does with the product that matters, and can one practically choose another. As to the "evilness" of the situation, I cannot think I could work professionally in software as a field - which I love - if there were no established large companies with closed source products. If my analysis is flawed I would value pointers why. As my employer is a closed source software vendor, to me the economics situation looks as follows: vendor provides software, end user uses it to add value to their work. End user reports bugs, vendor fixes the bugs. There is an efficient responsibility interface to the whole thing. And the area is well competed in, if vendor a screws up customers will move to vendor b, c, or d... With an established product there is an established revenue stream which enables stable income for all employees. The way I choose to work on my profession, I will take stable revenue stream with specific work hours over some 24/7 freelancer role to fix bugs here and there. This simply would not be compatible with a family, with small kids I'm barely able to cope with the stresses at home and work as they are. If I had to worry after the next mortgage payment I would probably go nuts, and that is no exaggeration. Open source simply does not work that well as a revenue model in general. It works as an enabler for all sorts of practical interactions, and is absolutely essential, but people need to eat and feed their families. Open source provides value, but few people are able to capture that value. That's why there are non-profits to organize critical work in this area. If the product of my company was open sourced, several enterprising individuals would simply copy the product, relabel it, and sell it. Thus eating to the market share, thus probably leaving me to find another job. Thus, to me, closed source software provides housing, food and security to me and my family.
- MaulingMonkey 12y ago
  > If you are selling cars with the hoods welded shut and all systems permeated with DRM, are you making the world better, because, hey, cars are good? My cellphone might as well be welded shut - because of system-on-a-chip design. I can't replace the GPU, the CPU, the memory, or any number of things I've repeatedly replaced on my desktops with my current lack of soldering skills or equipment. Is SOC design also immoral? Even as it enables access to the internet to an ever growing number of people, something some have been calling a human right? But let us return to your analogy instead of playing analogy ping pong. > If you are selling cars with the hoods welded shut and all systems permeated with DRM Assuming the price remains around the same, I'd simply not buy that car because it's stupidly designed, and going to be a pain to maintain. I'd also not buy a car where I had to replace the engine block to replace the front headlights, no matter what percentage of it's software is GPLed, or how many of it's parts have 3D printer schematics available for me to replace them in my own basement. Neither choice is based on ethics. I also think it's good we have government laws forcing car companies to make their maintenance documentation etc. available to 3rd party mechanics. Cars are expensive enough to maintain that society is well served by competition. And while proprietary systems aren't inherently immoral, unexpected predatory pricing based on vendor lock-in certainly can be a problem. I've seen the short end of that stick enough times to know it sucks. I think it's worth limiting what a car company can do to help avoid the circumstances that can even lead to that, even if some of the things we're prohibiting them from doing were perfectly ethical for them to do on their own. But you'll be hard pressed to convince me it's a problem for your $3 copy of Canabalt. It doesn't need an oil change. With several games, I complain if 3rd parties figure out how it works - when multiplayer suddenly becomes plagued with aimhacks, wallhacks, maphacks, and other unfair competition.
  - teddyh 12y ago
    If I owned a car, it might as well have been welded shut – I am not a mechanic. Does this fact make it ethically OK for someone else to sell a “closed” car to me? > […] I'd simply not buy that car […] That was not the question. The question was if would be ethically OK to sell that car, not if you (or anyone else) would buy it or not. > But you'll be hard pressed to convince me it's a problem for your $3 copy of Canabalt. It also wouldn’t really be a large issue with a simple enough car or car-like conveyance, like maybe a bicycle, or a Segway. Does this make it OK? > It doesn't need an oil change. Software needs updating. Static software is dead code.

teddyh 12y ago

Maybe a car analogy will help: If you are selling cars with the hoods welded shut and all systems permeated with DRM, are you making the world better, because, hey, cars are good? Or are you in effect making your customers helpless, teaching them that they are not, and should not even want to be, in control of their own cars?

fsloth 12y ago
DRM and closed source software are not the same thing. Closed source software is commonly used to manipulate open data. Free software facilitates the openness of data and is absolutely essential but it does not make in any way closed source software evil.
- teddyh 12y ago
  > DRM and closed source software are not the same thing. True, but in this situation they have the same effect which I wanted to highlight, i.e. loss of control on the part of the owner/user. > Closed source software is commonly used to manipulate open data. True, but I can’t see the relevance. > Free software facilitates the openness of data and is absolutely essential but it does not make in any way closed source software evil. I don’t see how that follows.
  - fsloth 12y ago
    > True, but in this situation they have the same effect which I wanted to highlight, i.e. loss of control on the part of the owner/user. Analogies are a bit awkward. With cars, DRM would equal to each car manufacturer having their own road barred to other car manufacturers. If the welded-shut-bonnet bothers you just switch cars. This is what I meant with open data - it's what one does with the product that matters, and can one practically choose another. As to the "evilness" of the situation, I cannot think I could work professionally in software as a field - which I love - if there were no established large companies with closed source products. If my analysis is flawed I would value pointers why. As my employer is a closed source software vendor, to me the economics situation looks as follows: vendor provides software, end user uses it to add value to their work. End user reports bugs, vendor fixes the bugs. There is an efficient responsibility interface to the whole thing. And the area is well competed in, if vendor a screws up customers will move to vendor b, c, or d... With an established product there is an established revenue stream which enables stable income for all employees. The way I choose to work on my profession, I will take stable revenue stream with specific work hours over some 24/7 freelancer role to fix bugs here and there. This simply would not be compatible with a family, with small kids I'm barely able to cope with the stresses at home and work as they are. If I had to worry after the next mortgage payment I would probably go nuts, and that is no exaggeration. Open source simply does not work that well as a revenue model in general. It works as an enabler for all sorts of practical interactions, and is absolutely essential, but people need to eat and feed their families. Open source provides value, but few people are able to capture that value. That's why there are non-profits to organize critical work in this area. If the product of my company was open sourced, several enterprising individuals would simply copy the product, relabel it, and sell it. Thus eating to the market share, thus probably leaving me to find another job. Thus, to me, closed source software provides housing, food and security to me and my family.
MaulingMonkey 12y ago
> If you are selling cars with the hoods welded shut and all systems permeated with DRM, are you making the world better, because, hey, cars are good? My cellphone might as well be welded shut - because of system-on-a-chip design. I can't replace the GPU, the CPU, the memory, or any number of things I've repeatedly replaced on my desktops with my current lack of soldering skills or equipment. Is SOC design also immoral? Even as it enables access to the internet to an ever growing number of people, something some have been calling a human right? But let us return to your analogy instead of playing analogy ping pong. > If you are selling cars with the hoods welded shut and all systems permeated with DRM Assuming the price remains around the same, I'd simply not buy that car because it's stupidly designed, and going to be a pain to maintain. I'd also not buy a car where I had to replace the engine block to replace the front headlights, no matter what percentage of it's software is GPLed, or how many of it's parts have 3D printer schematics available for me to replace them in my own basement. Neither choice is based on ethics. I also think it's good we have government laws forcing car companies to make their maintenance documentation etc. available to 3rd party mechanics. Cars are expensive enough to maintain that society is well served by competition. And while proprietary systems aren't inherently immoral, unexpected predatory pricing based on vendor lock-in certainly can be a problem. I've seen the short end of that stick enough times to know it sucks. I think it's worth limiting what a car company can do to help avoid the circumstances that can even lead to that, even if some of the things we're prohibiting them from doing were perfectly ethical for them to do on their own. But you'll be hard pressed to convince me it's a problem for your $3 copy of Canabalt. It doesn't need an oil change. With several games, I complain if 3rd parties figure out how it works - when multiplayer suddenly becomes plagued with aimhacks, wallhacks, maphacks, and other unfair competition.
- teddyh 12y ago
  If I owned a car, it might as well have been welded shut – I am not a mechanic. Does this fact make it ethically OK for someone else to sell a “closed” car to me? > […] I'd simply not buy that car […] That was not the question. The question was if would be ethically OK to sell that car, not if you (or anyone else) would buy it or not. > But you'll be hard pressed to convince me it's a problem for your $3 copy of Canabalt. It also wouldn’t really be a large issue with a simple enough car or car-like conveyance, like maybe a bicycle, or a Segway. Does this make it OK? > It doesn't need an oil change. Software needs updating. Static software is dead code.