Stallman seems a little over zealous

What's wrong with proprietary software? Also, I'm not fond of his philosophy when it comes to programming. Not minimalist enough. Everything is bloated.

>>80
The problem with proprietary software is that it's normally illegal (through licenses or EULA/ToS) for you to check if it really is doing what it's supposed to do.

>>80
You also missed this bit
Proprietary software is evil because users are not permitted to control the software

The point is that users can't say for sure if a proprietary program does what it claims without any user hostile feature. The fact is, it's completely impractical to audit what a program does without access to the source. When users have access to the source code one can thoroughly audit the program's function.

The source code is a critical part of being able to control a program. The source code to proprietary software is normally withheld from the user. Users are normally forbidden to study the functioning of a proprietary program (even without the source code). The effect of withholding the source and forbidding users to study the software is: users become helpless and can only rely on the goodwill of the owner. How much control does a user have when one requires explicit permission to get changes made to a program?

Users are normally forbidden to share knowledge about the functioning of the software. Users are normally forbidden from sharing the software itself without the explicit approval of the owner. The effect of this control of knowledge means that communities are divided from helping one another. Software is a tool designed to process information and the software owners want to control the users' ability to share with one another.

When users don't control the program, the program controls the users. The developer controls the program, and through it controls the users. This nonfree or “proprietary” program is therefore an instrument of unjust power.

>>81,82
Business is based on trust. If you really need to verify what something does yourself, do you inspect all ingredients and cooking method of everything you eat?

>>37
But i do

>>83
I could choose to only buy things from people/companies who prove that their processes aren't shitty.

YEAR OF THE PROPRIETARY LINUX GAMING!!
http://nvidianews.nvidia.com/Releases/NVIDIA-Delivers-Massive-Performance-Boost-to-Linux-Gaming-8ac.aspx
http://media.steampowered.com/client/installer/steam.deb

Intel GET

>>85
prove
in what way? the buck stops somewhere; it's called trust. and in business trust is all that matters.

>>83
This unconvincing if you are trying to defend proprietary software by analogy of trusting food companies. The ones that fight all the way against labeling anything at all on their products and the myriad of tainted outbreaks every year that goes through the food system. Learning to cook from basic ingredients is an important life skill.

Trust is bullshit, business is based on laws only and contracts that are backed by those laws. Anybody peddling trust as currency of any kind should be looked at with suspicion.

>>88
And why would it be any different from software then? Put a description of what the software does, the extent of guarantee the makers provide, and make it a law so that it's a binding contract.

>>63
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119769638425153
Why does Theo get a bad rap anyway? It looks to me he's speaking whats on everyone's mind on that list.

>>89
If you want your computer security to depend on the trustworthiness of a dozen companies (as well as all of their employees), as well as the non-intrusiveness of the secret agencies in their local governments (which might include the USA or China), then sure, go ahead, trust proprietary software.

>>83
I don't think the food company analogy holds, using proprietary software would then be (in your analogy) akin to eating food that it's illegal to try to find out the contents of.

I would never eat food that someone said "hey if you try to figure out what's in this we're gonna sue you", it would just make me wonder what kind of horrible things are in there.

>>89
If you had them making guarantees and those guarantees being controlled by a government entity to see that they were doing what they're supposed to be doing would be a major step up from the situation of today, but only if we are in a position where we can always trust the government and the company.

>>87
If you have purchased some free software from a company then you can prove it's doing what it's supposed to be doing all by yourself, without any dependency on the company.

>>92
but only if we are in a position where we can always trust the government and the company.
which is exactly what my point was. we already put a great deal of blind trust in our governments and corporations daily for things that directly affect our bodies.

>>93
I don't trust people who make it illegal for me to see what they are doing to my computer or my body. I do for instance not purchase food that I can't see the contents of, luckily it's illegal to sell food like that in my country.

>>94
what about patented drugs? do you also not buy them?

>>92
free software
Please note that your argument holds for open source software as well as long as you have the freedom to share the code with others (for independent auditing).

>>93,94
In case I have to be explicit, as a special case of what I have already said, I do not buy food that makes it illegal for me check what is in it.

>>95
It doesn't say on the bottle I can't take it to a lab and analyze the contents.

>>98
Hmm true. I wonder why is that?

>>95
I have not been in a position where this has been necessary or even an option so I don't know. If they are made so that it's illegal to find out what's inside then I wouldn't use them.

>>100
Then I admire your principles good sir.

>>98,101
But keep in mind that the issue of medicine is typically not the same as it is in software, therefore one should be so eager to use software ideals and apply it on medicine.

Knowing the chemical makeup a substance is one thing (I presume the patents regard the chemical makeup, I might be wrong), but do you necessarily know what effects it will have upon your body?

I would not use any drug that it's illegal to find the chemical structure of it, but I would also not use any drug that makes it illegal to research what effects it has upon the human body.

>>102
therefore one should be so eager ...
This was a mistake of course, I meant to write "therefore one should not be so eager".

Just have to point out this gem:
>>79
RMS started the GNU project because all software was historically free by default.
I hope you don't actually believe this. The reason you got the source code with programs like UNIX was because it was part of the product you bought. It wasn't because the AT&T guys were kind people who wanted to share out of the goodness of their hearts.

>>83
The issue of free software isn't solely an issue of trust, the issue is about self-sovereignty (freedom) and good community relations (sharing the software).

When users don't control the program, the program controls the users. The developer controls the program, and through it controls the users.
A user that must ask permission to control the program (study the functions and change it when necessary) means the user cannot be sovereign. A user that must ask permission to control the program means the software owner controls the user. The only way for the user to regain sovereignty is to reject the software.

Rejecting proprietary software often leads to the issue that there is no adequate free alternative to the proprietary one. There are two ways to fix this shortfall. One is to petition to the owner of the software to liberate it. The Blender3D modelling software is an example of software that was once proprietary with the community coming together to pay the former owner to liberate it. The other way is to sponsor the development of a free alternative. The Cinepaint photo editing software and the KDE system is an example of this.

>>104
You're misunderstanding the point. Historically speaking, all software respected the users' freedom. “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. “Free software” is a matter of liberty, not price.

Paying money for a computer with software is legitimate when the software respects the user's freedom. A modern example of this would be the Linksys WRT54G, Linux is installed and the development costs of changing modifying Linux would be included in the cost of purchasing this machine. Paying money for software apart from hardware is legitimate as long as the software respects the user's freedom.

Paying money for a computer with software is legitimate when the software respects the user's freedom. A modern example of this would be the Linksys WRT54G, Linux is installed and the development costs of changing modifying Linux would be included in the cost of purchasing this machine.
It's a bit silly when most people are just going to install DD-WRT or OpenWrt instead of using the distribution that comes with the router, though.

>>106
I can see why you wouldn't want to give people ``the freedom to share the software.''

>>106
Cool. Now go back to the 70s and try to redistribute the copy of UNIX you paid thousands of dollars for.

>>107
It's fine to install new software over the default one. This is what freedom

>>108
I'm not sure I understand. Are you implying that freedom respecting developers cannot control their users and so, they cannot have a business model based on artificial scarcity?

>>109
Unix had some history of being free. Unix had some history of being proprietary. Users should always have the freedom to redistribute their software; users should have the implied right to choose to charge money or distribute the software gratis.

It's fine to install new software over the default one. This is what freedom
Yes, but it's silly to have to pay for software that you're not going to use.

>>110
Artificial scarcity is fine. If I write a book, it's trivial to make a copy of that book. There are print-on-demand services that charge you a few dollars. With electronic books, it's no more than the cost of bandwidth, like software. But if you want my book, you're going to buy it through my publisher or I'll hunt you down and end you.

The idea that we have one rule for ``artwork'' and another rule for ordinary ``work'' is just dumb. Even Stallman respects copyright for artistic or literary works and doesn't think it has to meet his definition of ``free''. Sticking your feet in milk is considered art now, so I think my program that took a lot more effort should give me all the same rights to do as I like with it that some hipster with a cheap Nikon camera has.

Sorry for committing the sin of wanting money. Yes, I know there are ways to make money with free software, but if I wanted to create content I'd be some sort of content creator, and if I wanted to sell support or write books I'd be a support worker or an author. Not all of us can get a million dollars from the MacArthur Foundation plus one hundred million yen from the Takeda Foundation, on top of free equipment from MIT.

>>112
Fuck off, freedom hater.

>>112
Software is a tool. Like any other tool, users should be free to share tools with their friends. Software is information that is used to process data. Since software is information, nobody has to lose anything when it is shared. Artwork and other works of expression are generally not tools (such as software, design blueprints or food recipes). Users should always have the right to study, improve and share their information tools. Published artistic works do not need the right to change and improve, only the right to share.

Making money is not a sin. Restricting users of their essential freedoms is a sin. If you want to make money, you need to figure out a way that doesn't harm people. I know how to do this. I do this by selling something that isn't easily copied: I sell my expertise as a system designer. I charge a lot of money to study a business and design a software solution that works well for them. If they want to redistribute any of my solutions, they already have my implicit approval.

>>114

So many subjective assumptions...

>If you want to make money, you need to figure out a way that doesn't harm people.

iShiggyDiggy Pro

>>1,112
http://boards.4chan.org/g/

>>116
you missed >>115

Propriety software are better than open source one. Long time open source contributors will tell you that it's only free software in that the time you spend on it is worthless.

People working on propriety software have incentive to work on it. Namely, money. And they can afford to have many people working on it.

As always, capitalism beats communism.

>>118
Cool story bro. We'd like to hear more cool stories here: http://boards.4chan.org/g/

>>118
capitalism is fundamentally flawed when the product can be distributed at no cost. The current model fragments intellectual property and cripples innovation as a whole. Assuming a communist country would be able to confine its innovations to its borders but share them with all of its citizens, it's researchers would be in a better position than a capitalist country because of the increase in collaboration and the number of collaborators.