Post 9mLQX1lVCZgqvGNmPA by chozron@linuxrocks.online
(DIR) More posts by chozron@linuxrocks.online
(DIR) Post #9mLOqo5bYeAAOK5aaW by codesections@fosstodon.org
2019-08-28T12:00:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I'm a big proponent of #FOSS software. But I still don't *get* some of the arguments for free software.From the GNU: > If you write a program and use it privately, that does no wrong to others. (You [only] miss an opportunity to do good)> Distributing a program to users without freedom mistreats those usershttps://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.htmlSo, if you write a budgeting app and use it personally, you've done me no harm, but if you offer me the executable for $1, then you have?Can anyone explain?
(DIR) Post #9mLP7e5M0QHyHs088m by afontaine@mastodon.social
2019-08-28T12:03:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@codesectionsThis is more about "free as in freedom" (rights) vs "free as in beer" (price).Charging for the app isn't a harm, but keep the source closed or disallowing users to do what they want with the app is.
(DIR) Post #9mLPAz9m7ToyVWf5Gq by ZikZak@oc.todon.fr
2019-08-28T12:03:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@codesections I do not get your point here.The second part is about freedom not about price.And the hyperlink you provide explains the point:"We also sometimes call it “libre software” to emphasize that we're talking about liberty, not price. Some proprietary (nonfree) programs, such as Photoshop, are very expensive; others, such as Flash Player, are available gratis—but that's a minor detail. Either way, they give the program's developer power over the users, power that no one should have."
(DIR) Post #9mLPr8DKpoGelFQK5w by codesections@fosstodon.org
2019-08-28T12:11:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ZikZak @afontaine Yeah, I get the distinction between freedom vs price.But my confusion remains: in the world where you write the budgeting app and keep it private, I have X options for budgeting. In the world where you offer it as proprietary software, I have X + 1 options. How am I harmed?If I take that 1 option, it seems like it may have made me better off. *Some* transactions are misleading/coercive, but are all?Their claim seems to be that *all* proprietary software harms users.
(DIR) Post #9mLQKXWrnE5NfjaA8O by ZikZak@oc.todon.fr
2019-08-28T12:17:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@codesections @afontaine I suppose in their case "harm" means that the user is tied to the proprietary tools. This tool can evolve and remove the feature you use without you having any choice as the source code is closed. The developper could even vanish without anyone being able to maintain the program any longer. When you are the only one developing and using it their is no harm to others, obviously. When you are the only developper and many rely on you then you can harm them severly.
(DIR) Post #9mLQOuyuXWXfZBmsyG by Aerdan@pleroma.apkfission.net
2019-08-28T12:12:00.317457Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@codesections Executables are limited to what they're already able to do, which means that users will never be able to adapt them to their own needs. It does not matter what the executable actually is; if the user doesn't have the source to it, the user cannot modify it and cannot be sure it's not going to engage in nefarious activity.
(DIR) Post #9mLQOvEraDIoMfFcps by codesections@fosstodon.org
2019-08-28T12:17:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Aerdan> Executables are limited Agreed. So I'm definitely on-board with the claim that distributing proprietary software does less good that distributing FOSS. But how is it worse that keeping the software for private use?> the user cannot … be sure it's not going to engage in nefarious activity.Agreed, and that's a reason for me to not install the budgeting app. But—assuming the app *doesn't* have malware—how am I harmed by you giving me the option to run it? (maybe I trust you)
(DIR) Post #9mLQX1lVCZgqvGNmPA by chozron@linuxrocks.online
2019-08-28T12:19:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@codesections @ZikZak @afontaine To continue on your example, you rely on this budgeting program, and one day you find a severe bug. You seek the developer but they are gone, or don't care anymore. You can't do anything about it. Maybe you also lose all your data.You are tied to something else, and thus are not free.
(DIR) Post #9mLQwkFkvx188gnRrc by trwnh@mastodon.social
2019-08-28T12:24:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@codesections you do harm by not allowing your friend to make changes to the program or inspect the source code for educational purposes.but this is all ideals and hypotheticals. personally i find rights-based analyses too idealist as a general rule.
(DIR) Post #9mLR7LRrUu4wOUVtRo by codesections@fosstodon.org
2019-08-28T12:26:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@chozron @ZikZak @afontaine @Aerdan > I suppose in their case "harm" means that the user is tied to the proprietary toolsHmm, maybe some of this is just me being confused about words. Everything y'all are saying seems correct to me—on a *practical* level. Indeed, issues about control, portability, data loss, and trust are why I personally strongly prefer FOSS tools.But I still don't quite see how offering someone that choice harms them (if the alternative is keeping the code private)
(DIR) Post #9mLRRyYpmucDUUc1Nw by codesections@fosstodon.org
2019-08-28T12:29:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@trwnh > you do harm by not allowing your friend to make changes to the program or inspect the source code for educational purposes.But if the code is kept private, then they can't do those things either. I understand how I'm harming them (/helping them less) compared to if I'd distributed FOSS, but how am I harming them compared to keeping the code private> personally i find rights-based analyses too idealist as a general rule.Agreed, but I still want to understand the arguments :)
(DIR) Post #9mLRyvZ9wXn3l7Td20 by Aerdan@pleroma.apkfission.net
2019-08-28T12:29:54.084260Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@codesections @chozron @ZikZak @afontaine By not giving them the full freedom of the source code, you're asserting a form of power over them. If they need a change made to the program, they *have* to come to you and ask you to make that change.
(DIR) Post #9mLRyvpowb7ManGw08 by codesections@fosstodon.org
2019-08-28T12:35:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Aerdan @chozron @afontaine @ZikZak > By not giving them the full freedom of the source code, you're asserting a form of power over them.(How did I switch from being the user to being the developer in these hypotheticals? :D )Yeah, I think the issue of power is the heart of what I don't quite get. From the same post:> If the users don't control the program, the program controls the users.Why? We don't say that about other tools ("if you don't control the screwdriver, it controls you")
(DIR) Post #9mLSGdISbgqSJI6nRY by judgedread@freespeechextremist.com
2019-08-28T12:39:02.440023Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@codesections @Aerdan Your screwdriver doesn't have the power to take the initiative and screw you.
(DIR) Post #9mLSOyEmdM61ZbMezQ by trwnh@mastodon.social
2019-08-28T12:40:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@codesections it's not private bc you shared the software with someone else. when doing so, you ought to make the source code freely available as well. the harm is in using the software while not having the freedom to do anything but *use* the software. "software is not merely something to be used", goes the argument.
(DIR) Post #9mLSX3L9XtsPiRCJyS by chozron@linuxrocks.online
2019-08-28T12:41:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@codesections @Aerdan @afontaine @ZikZak You can hire developers as well :)I think we do say for other tools. At least I do :) An example for this is smartphones with non-user replaceable batteries. These harm the user and also the environment if people are forced to change phones every time their battery dies.Smartphones have much deeper issues with repair.
(DIR) Post #9mLT83tAT88k8EksTo by cathal@octodon.social
2019-08-28T12:48:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@codesections If you used the budgeting app I wrote, then you would become in some measure dependent upon it, if only because of switching costs. And if I kept the source code secret from you, I could only being doing so in order to have some power over you. And to do so would be harmful: I'm giving you a trojan horse of dependency or uncontrollable deprecation. Without the code you don't full own it, it's just a shitty sort of lease.
(DIR) Post #9mLd4gvAPAvjZUintA by pcrock@fosstodon.org
2019-08-28T14:39:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@codesectionsA real world example: In the early days, Windows was helpful to people. All my clients used it, so I use it as well for compatibility reasons at work.However Windows is now really bad for user privacy. But I can't stop using it, because I'd be out of a job. And I can't fork it because I don't have the code.In other words, MS made some decisions that are bad for me, that I have to live with. And it all started with helpful popular proprietary software.
(DIR) Post #9mM409kkTje2J4uWWW by neildarlow@fosstodon.org
2019-08-28T19:41:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@codesections When they talk about using it privately they mean not sharing your efforts with others.This too implies offering to share the source code of your program.
(DIR) Post #9mM4AeJHitUNyQ4Hb6 by alcinnz@floss.social
2019-08-28T19:43:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@codesections Charging money for the program is not the issue.Withholding the source code or suing them for making it suit their purposes is.
(DIR) Post #9mNEmeZyMdQyVoatjU by crowbyte@fosstodon.org
2019-08-29T09:17:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@codesections In no way it's about paying for the program. "free software is a matter of liberty, not price" as is stated on wikipedia for instance.Or a good sentence to illustrate the idea is: "Free like in free speech not like in free beer".Means, it's perfectly fine to sell the program for even much more than 1$. IF you let me the freedom to read or even change the code and therefore the programs behaviour, granting the user full control, freedom to use it the way he wants and needs to.
(DIR) Post #9mNEx267mGDCLja9cO by crowbyte@fosstodon.org
2019-08-29T09:19:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@codesections In no way it's about paying for the program. "free software is a matter of liberty, not price" as is stated on wikipedia for instance.Or a good sentence to illustrate the idea is: "Free like in free speech not like in free beer".Means, it's perfectly fine to sell the program for even much more than 1$. IF you leave me free to read or even change the code and therefore the programs behaviour, granting the user full control, freedom to use it the way he wants and needs to.
(DIR) Post #9mNFMvpfh7JARmEgwS by crowbyte@fosstodon.org
2019-08-29T09:23:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@codesections You don't switch from user to developer automatically as nothing is forced on you but you are free to switch from user to developer in case you need or want to. 🙂 That's the important part. You got the freedom and control, not the initial developer. And as you, too, need to give back with GNU licensed software the original developer is free to pick up your changes upstream, giving both the benefit of the freedom.
(DIR) Post #9mNFQSNZ8vx6G1lq2S by crowbyte@fosstodon.org
2019-08-29T09:24:33Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@judgedread 😂 Epic