Can someone give me a compelling case why I should use only free-software?
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
This isn't meant as troll bait or to start a flame war, it's a serious question. I want to used Arch Linux but I seen it doesn't comply with FSF. Is there a way to make it free? Also... if you guys can give me a compelling reason to go free-software only, also tell me what FSF qualified distro I can use that has KDE. I love KDE, I must have it, lol.
On 07/20/2013 04:33 AM, name at domain wrote:
> This isn't meant as troll bait or to start a flame war, it's a serious
> question. I want to used Arch Linux but I seen it doesn't comply with
> FSF. Is there a way to make it free? Also... if you guys can give me a
> compelling reason to go free-software only, also tell me what FSF
> qualified distro I can use that has KDE. I love KDE, I must have it, lol.
Parabola is a completely free distro based on Arch Linux. I believe you
can use KDE on Parabola, but if you are just looking for KDE, Trisquel
is also compatible with it.
As for a compelling reason to go free-software only, proprietary
software is known to have malicious features that are well-hidden from
the users. With free-software, anyone can edit, monitor, and review
source code to make sure there are no invasions of privacy, tracking
features, or any other terrible features that spy on the user. Even if
you don't know how to read the code, free-software lets you distribute
the software to anyone so that they can review code so that you can be
sure. For reasons like this you pretty much never have to worry about
viruses either.
Parabola GNU/Linux-libre
RMS and the FSF can give you a lot of reasons.
http://shop.fsf.org/product/book_bundle/
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/
You'll have no problem switching to Parabola, there's a way to change your Arch installation to a Parabola installation.
Here is "Proprietary Software Common Arguments", written by onpon4.
It was one thing that helped convince me to use free software, as well as looking at some of the threads in "The Troll Hole."
| Pièce jointe | Taille |
|---|---|
| proprietary_software_common_arguments.txt | 5.94 Ko |
I can give you the reasons that brought me here.
Security, Privacy, Freedom, Usability. In that order.
Usablitiy shouldn't be the first concern when you are using a computer. Because, windows is very convinient, it does a lot of things out of the box that we like it to do.... But it has thousand of viruses, it has backdoors, it's closed source so EVEN if they were to now stop mistreating their users, we wouldn't know for sure, because we couldn't verify it by ourselves....
Java, Flash, Skype, whatever, there are many softwares that RUN on GNU/Linux, they are developed to be used in GNU/Linux, but they are not respecting you as a user. And let's be honest, it's wrong to write a software that has back doors. Completely wrong. BUT, it is not wrong to write software and don't give the source code away. It's your right as a creator to do as you wish. Just don't expect people to trust you (or at least people who like to think with their own brain, nowadays a lot of people don't do that, lol).
So... it's not WRONG to use proprietary software, it just PLAN STUPID.
What do you treasure the most, having your little baby's photos syncronised in DropBox and Facebook so that all family and friends can see him, or making sure that no one is taking those photos and using them for advertisement, selling them to pedophiles, preparing a kidnap... ? Answer that question and you will have your answer =)
This is my reason, I am not trying to convince you, I am only saying what motivates ME!
Users deserve the control of their computing because... it is *their* computing! With proprietary software, the program controls the user (she cannot know what it does, maybe malware; she cannot modify it, e.g., to correct a bug; she cannot share the program with her friends; she falls under a monopoly of support; etc).
Developing proprietary software is evil. The better a proprietary program is, on a technical point of view, the more users feel their right to control their computing it is not worth the use of a less effective but free program. We must fight for freedoms or we will lose them.
I know you are a teacher of some sort in France and obviously use the software provided by the school and your own. Is the software you use provided and required by the school free software or is it proprietary and therefore "evil" and unjust?
Of course if the software is "evil" and you use it, then you are a hypocrite. I'm guessing you take it up the pooper because you like having that paycheck and in the end that is all that matters to you. Of course when you come on these boards to "correct" everyone about how they should only use free software no matter what and without comprimise, you aren't being truely honest with yourself and the others you start arguments with.
First of all, you know wrong: I am a university professor in Brazil. Then, all the code I develop is distributed under the GNU GPLv3 and every machine under my control (such as the desktop and the laptop computers in my office and at home) runs Trisquel and no additional proprietary software (despite "pressures" to install stuffs like the Dropbox client that many other professors use). Finally, who are you to pretend I am an hypocrite with no clue whatsoever?
In fact, I know the answer to that question (because you wrote it on this forum): you are a developer taking permissively licensed code and sell extensions of it under proprietary licenses. What I call an unethical activity.
May I ask where you learned your good french being in brazil?
Sorry about that personal question, don't have to answer of course.
I missed this response earlier, but I wanted to know that you are generalizing. My intentions aren't to just take permissive code and make proprietary extensions with that code or extensions of it. I've always weighed in the strengths of using permissive code when necessary and the needs of having the option to create and link potentially non-free code with it and have that option.
I think it's not wrong to decide not to share, but it's wrong to prohibit others from doing so. To me, writing a proprietary software is a tradeoff between profit (be it money, power or whatever) and trust. I can't trust someone who tries to give me a software which i may not inspect, so I cannot give that profit to this person either. Let me know how it works (check for myself) and I may want to use it.
The GPL is a big bait and switch for the following reasons:
1.) The copyright holder can change the license at any point to a proprietary one if he or she chooses while someone who uses the GPL code (non copyright holder and average user) is bound to the GPL.
2.) The copyright holder forces contributors to use GPL compatible licenses, but can take your contributed code (after it has been converted to the GPL if you use MIT for example), and change it to proprietary if necessary. Recent example is the Mir project that is GPL, but has intentions to make the code proprietary if a phone carrier requires it.
3.) The copyright holder who wants to make money from offering GPL code generally comes with a paid support contract tied to it since paying for the actual code is not required with the full source code available.
4.) The copyright holder can also make money by dual licensing between the GPL and a paid for commercial license to take away the copyleft. In the case of the Affero GPL licensed MongoDB, they lure you in with the free code but if you want to make custom modifications to the code for your company, you are forced to release the code since the AGPL requires code for it run as a service.
Of course 10gen offers you a way out with a paid commercial license so you can have actual freedom to modify the software and at the same time they can make money and keep their company afloat. http://blog.mongodb.org/post/103832439/the-agpl
There are trade-offs and benefits from using a free software license, but do your research and be 100% sure in which one you want to use if you are looking to develop under one. Many companies have opted for the non-copyleft permissive licenses because they may choose to integrate it with proprietary software or just don't care what people do with it as long as they use it.
I've said this before in my endorsement of the Mozilla Public License 2.0 in that I see it as a great bridge between the GPL and permissive licenses. I feel that free software projects can gain traction with this license in preserving the copyright and not scaring away commercial entities by forcing the non-copyleft code to be copyleft like the AGPL and GPL.
With the MPL 2.0 being a file level copyleft, why do I care if it is used with or linked to proprietary software as long as my MPL 2.0 licensed file is kept pure? If I used Apache 2.0 or the MIT license, they could still link with proprietary code but at the same time have the option to make my work proprietary without my consent. That is not an ideal situation for me as a developer and I feel more should give the MPL 2.0 a chance before licensing under a pure permissive license.
What's the alternative to a free software licence? CC0?
Eben Moglen can give you further reasons if the above are not enough.
First things first:
I am first a USER. And as a USER, the software must respect me as a USER! Not every USER wants or needs or even knows HOW TO CHANGE A SOFTWARE. But the USER knows that he does not want malicious features on the software that he is running. The USER knows that he does not want to break the law by using illegally shared (pirated) software. The USER knows he wants to be secure from attacks from hackers. The USER wants to be respected as a USER! Not as a programmer. So, the FIRST thing that I believe is necessary for a software to be truly Free Software, is that it has NO MALICIOUS FEATURES IMPLEMENTED. Of course the only way to make sure there are no such things, is to make the code available so the USER can have a trusted PROGRAMMER analyze the code and tell him if there are or are not malicious features. Of course, the PROGRAMMER wants to be able to correct a bug/malicious feature, if he finds one. And so, for the software to be respectufl for the PROGRAMMER, it must allow him to CHANGE the code, and even fork the project if he wants to. That is the point here, we have two different types of persons, USERS and PROGRAMMERS. That is why I say that PRODUCING PROPIRETARY SOFTWARE is not evil, nor unethical. It's way more evil and unethical to produce free software that has some malicious feature, hoping no one will notice (adblock plus was an example, what they did with "acceptable ads" was a violation of the trust and freedom of their USERS).
Now, as a USER it is my choice to use free or proprietary software. And if I am against using proprietary software (and believe, I get into enormous arguments with friends and family over it...), is because I try to keep myself informed in what happens around the world and know that many companies are using the closed source proprietary software to do malicious things! I think it's STUPID to use proprietary software, but I don't think that it is WRONG. And honestly, if I was to start a bussiness producing proprietary software, with no malicious feature, it would be my right, to make money by producing high quality software that I decided to keep private. It's a right of me as a person, and everyone around should respect that (by not trying to illegally share (pirate) my software) and decide if they wanted to trust me.
Honestly, I don't know if there is any license in the world that says:
"Software X is property of person A, and it comes with the source code. Everyone is free to use it, share it and study the source code, but any changes must be suggested to person A, and he will decide if he will include it or not. Sharing any kind of modified version is a violation."
Now, is it such a wrong thing? I admit it would not be the best, since many bugs would go unpatched, but let's be honest.......... I disagre with Trisquel not having ufw installed by default. I mentioned this and other people have done so too. Did Trisquel changed its decision because of me? No. So, in the end, free software STILL impacts the USER (again, USER, not PROGRAMMER) freedom. I am not saying that it is bad, and I am NOT ATACKING TRISQUEL OR THE TEAM BEHIND IT! I am just saying, that anyone who is running a project (commercial or not) needs and wants to have some kind of control over the project. And we must respect that. Of course, being this a community driven software, Trsiquel team should take in consideration peoples suggestions and ideas, and they do! Many times, problem with proprietary software is that companies don't take those in consideration.
Having said that, I love the GPL license and I encourage everyone who wants to do some good in the world, to use it. GPL licenses protect everyones freedom and rights. But I don't think that being GPL is enough to make software, free software. Software must be free, first in the code, after that in the license. Also, if a person wants to make a living out of writing software, I believe we (and the FSF!!!!) should work on making that a possibility. Giving the person who created a software, RIGHTS, while still protecting the USERS security and freedom.
Treverend, to you I will say this: use free software only, or you will lose your security privacy and freedom. But don't think that by only using free software you have already achieved those... YOu have just taken a step on their direction =)
Proprietary drivers, flash, java, skype... Have been proven to be dangerous. So, by using Trisquel (which has a free software only passion) you are protecting yourself in some ways. But as I said, that would require that you were a PROGRAMMER to be able to check the code line after line. If you are not, you should still be vigilant, because a free license must have some bug or malicious feature that noone has noticed, and it might affect your Trisquel operating system.
I'm in the same boat with you as a USER that prefers open software for my daily activities and if it is an office or programming type of software, saving in standards is a plus for me.
My primary development is for the web and I have actually have my site's JavaScript under a MPL 2.0 license with the minified JavaScript linking to a sourcemap. The sourcemap links to my unminified source file which can be used with Chrome/Chromium's developer tools and in future versions of Abrowser/Firefox.
Intro to SourceMaps here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xJl22Kvgjg
I'm currently revamping my homepage design and layout this week and actually writing an article along the lines of "It's ok to open your JavaScript" which talks about free and non-free JavaScript. I'll keep you posted.
At first, using capitals in the web implies that you're shouting; I hope you didn't want to shout all the time.
> "Software X is property of person A, and it comes with the source code. Everyone is free to use it, share it and study the source code, but any changes must be suggested to person A, and he will decide if he will include it or not. Sharing any kind of modified version is a violation."
>
>Now, is it such a wrong thing?
Yes, it is.
You are using the word "property" in a very misleading way.
Of course person a is free to write a program and keep it private.
No one forces him to release the program. He can just keep it for himself.
But releasing it as software, other people will install it on their own pc's. They have a copy of it, it's their own copy and they run the copy on machines which are their property.
Whenever you want other people to execute your code on their machines, it is not longer "your property".
They deserve the freedom to modify it and release their own version, as long as they give credit to you.
> That is why I say that PRODUCING PROPIRETARY SOFTWARE is not evil, nor unethical
I disagree. It is extremly unethical.
Proprietary software just can do one thing: getting executed by someone.
Everytime this happens, someone gets harmed and his freedom gets taken away.
So proprietary software only does bad.
The best thing which could happen is nobody uses the software.
Though, creating the software is the act of creating the danger of someone using this software.
It's like setting up a trap (hope this expression exists) and waiting for someone to get caught.
> The USER knows that he does not want to break the law by using illegally shared (pirated) software.
Some laws don't deserve to be accepted.
And piracy is the attacking of ships, nothing else. Sharing of proprietary software is a desperate attempt of some persons to fight back a bit of their freedom though using proprietary software.
It's better than using proprietary software without sharing, but it's not good.
Piracy (as in software or media) is just a smear term, originally used on publishers who legally found ways to publish books without paying a royalty to the author.
Let me tell you a story....
Its about a man, a young man, full of potential, one of the most intelligent men in the world. He is a part of a small group of programmers, people who like to create programs and share them with each other. They use a system called UNIX. UNIX is a free system, they have lots of joy using and changing it. Until one day, UNIX is closed sourced, and a big bad company tries to take over the world by controling every computer in the world, and charging ENORMOUS amounts of money from poor students who need to run UNIX.
OH, the terror!! Students won't be able to learn anymore! Computers will become less fun, and only rich people will have access to them!
But wait.... our man is still there! And he has a choice to make....
He is very intelligent. He can easily take a binary of the closed sourced system and decompile back to the source! He can change what he doesn't like and even share it with his friends without the big bad company knowing! Students won't have to pay, they will just have to be secretive and deceitful and use a "borrowed" version of UNIX, that "is not working right, because does things other UNIX systems don't do" and "not remember who they borrowed it from". He is very inteligent he can make it happen!
But our man, makes a diferent decision.
He decides to respect the will of the big bad company of closing the system, and he decides to create a new system!
"You want UNIX all for yourselves and want to make piles of money? Do so! I will help my neighboor by creating something new!"
And so, the man started creating GNU. Gnu is not Unix. It's compatible with UNIX ("we are not trying to force people to choose between UNIX or GNU, they can use both, we want to make them compatible, so people are free to interact!", the man says) but it's something NEW and TRULY FREE!
Students can now, thanks to the man choice, learn at low cost again, and the man actually made some new friends! New programmers who also wanted to create something new, joined him and they all share software again, just like before! =)
Through his work, the man made a MAJOR social impact! Worldwide, people are no longer slaves of UNIX, new bussinesses can now be started without being stopped by money issues to buy software. Students can learn at low cost. And programmers can still be friends, by sharing. And because UNIX and GNU are compatible, people who work on UNIX stations can now make a living with UNIX, and on their free time create new programs to add to GNU. Until we have enough free software...
BUT WAIT! That's not the end of the story.
The man, did something even more important. He had already decided to respect the big bad company and not steal their software. But now, he wanted to make sure that GOOD laws would prevent anyone from stopping and destroying GNU. So he created a license, that protects free software forever! What, a license that doesn't restrict you, but frees you? Who would have thought! Really, only a man who was determined enough to make a BETTER WORLD, instead of being a corrupt among the others, could have had such vision!
So, now, thanks to the fact that the man did not choose the easy way (the wrong way) but decided that he would create a better world (a new world) we can sing
"WE HAVE ENOUGH FREE SOFTWARE, AND WE REJECT THOSE DIRTY LICENSES"
You are running Trisquel, because 30 years ago Richard Stallman decided NOT to "illegally share" UNIX, but to create something new, GNU. And you have licenses to argue over, because he respected copyrights laws, and created a license that protects free software. And because he didn't share UNIX, but created GNU, UNIX is no more! Really, who uses UNIX and pays AT&T a fee??? No one! And that's because he didn't kept on using somehting that he felt was wrong. He created something new, free, something better, something... right. Microsoft and Windows are still outthere because people are still giving them power by using their product (even if they don't pay for it). Hollywood still rules, because people keep on giving them credit by going the extra mile to steal their movies and watch it. The list could go on...
So don't try to make me believe that pirate software or music or books or whatever, is good. It's not only wrong, but it's also DANGEROUS for us. Because everytime someone illegally shares a music, he prevents himself from creating a new one. Everytime someone pirates a software, he prevents himself from writing a new free one. Everytime someone shares something illegally, somehting that will never be truly free to use, he prevents the creation of something new, good, free. Everytime you share an illegal copy of UNIX, you destroy all copies of GNU. Would have happened in the 80s. And can (is) happening right now.
Do you think the law is wrong? Change it! Do something like RMS did, instead of living your life eating crumbs from the floor of those who create things!
Truth is, that everytime we treat the newer hollywood blockbuster like somehting we could never life without, even if we have to steal in order to have it, we say to the government that we no longer care about things like Public Domain, Creative Commons, fan creations, etc. So we kill those things, and we enforce the idea that DRM are a necessary evil.
Look, I know I only replied to your last statments, but the truth is.... that this is the opinion very different very personal that I have been talking about. I know noone will probably agree with me, that watching a pirate movie is a step towards destroying Public DOmain and Creative Commons... But it's the truth, and I know I am right on this one. And just like RMS, I intend to live in the way that I feel is the only ethical way to live. Don't expect me to support piracy. And don't expect me to support the idea that attacking those who create proprietary software is the answer. Rejecting it and not using is the answer, but that is a choice of the USER, and we as users should be free to choose. And if someone wants to use Windows... it's his own right and choice. JUst don't expect me to chat with him in Skype ;)
Microsoft and Apple are evil, not because they make proprietary software, but because they put malicious features in their products. Don't give them more power by attacking them. Just ignore them and follow your own path. The path of someone who wants to be free, and who knows that his freedom came from creating new things, instead of "sharing old shits".
I don't do what some may call 'piracy', I follow copyright law, but copyright is a bad law, and should be drastically reformed, or abolished altogether.
I noticed that you have called unauthorized copying 'stealing', though it is not. See Copying Is Not Theft, from Question Copyright. (Torrent link below, License is CC-BY-SA.)
I understand what you mean, though; unauthorized copying is bad in a different way, as it prevents one from making a free version.
| Pièce jointe | Taille |
|---|---|
| CINT_Nik_Theora_720.ogv_.torrent | 30.04 Ko |
I am a member!
GNUser nicely said. I have many arguments with my friends regarding music and films. frankly creative commons films are difficult to come by (i would like to see more if anybody knows where) but with music I would say Jamendo and Magnatune are doing really well.
I hope you don't mind but I am linking you to my humble blog.
Did you know the articles on the gnu.org page are under the CC BY-ND 3.0 US license which is not considered a "free culture license" due to the "No Derivative Works" clause?
They are political opinions. Not Art. Political opinions should never be altered by anybody but their authors. As for Art, I do not think it harms the spectator's freedoms to not be able to modify the work... but, contrary to political opinions, it sure is nice to have the right to do so.
Thanks man ;)
No problem with the linking, but, where is the link? I don't see it, so I can't go to your blog. Sorry.
Also, as for films and music... Let me be clear, I don't see it as a "wrong" or "bad" thing, to go to the cinema or rent a movie in DVD. But given my poor financial situation, I don't do it very often. Which is sad, because I love films. Not believing that piracy is the answer I found a "solution" of sorts.
LIke I have said in another topic, there is a difference between me as a USER and me as a PROGRAMMER. The way I must be respected in each one is different. With movies it is the same. If I am a person who only WATCHES movies, I have different needs than a person who also MAKES movies. With that in mind, I have discovered that there are many good movies that one can WATCH for free, for the simple reason that they were not made with commercial purposes in mind, they were made for one or more of the following reasons:
1. Students of drama, cinema, special effects, etc, make movies to try and learn new things.
2. People make movies because they want to show an idea or a concept to the world (let it be religion, politics, sciences, whatever).
3. Some people actually make a movie to pay tribute to a pre-existent character or story they like. These used to be on the border of the law (people wouldn't ask for permission from copyrights holders) but now thanks to the fan base actually praising them are in a much more "legal state" (companies like DC and Lucasfilms actually changed their policies and now accept, encourage and even at times give some credit, to people who make movies based on their characters, as long as they follow some basic rules).
4. Some people make movies they want to sell, and decide the best way to sell a HD 3D Bluray, is by allowing everyone to watch their movie in SD for free and if they like, they buy the bluray, if they don't no one is harmed =)
I can give you some examples:
http://www.decayfilm.com/
http://www.thehuntforgollum.com/
http://vimeo.com/maddkau49 (this guy has been doing college films since the 70s!!!)
http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/
http://whitestonemp.com/ (they have some good films, one is based on wizard of oz characters which I believe is Public Domain)
http://www.godboutentertainment.com/ (great horror movies, some original, some based on previous works)
I have hundreds more in my collection, but these are just to give you an idea. As you can see, some are CC licensed, others are copyrighted originals distributed for free by the creator, others are tributes to exiting characters (with even the copyrights owners contributing to the making!) and others are.... Well, there is great diversity xD
Also, you have a lot of good quality movies in Public Domain already (even if Mickey Mouse Law has prevented some other good ones from entering Public Domain already), and a search on internet archive will give some results.
I don't know much about musics, but for movies, you have lots of good movies to watch, and there are also quite some that under CC can be changed. Both respect your freedom depending which needs you have.
Anyway, I support CC, as does him ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-Ddumty4mk
watch it. eheh
Hello friend. Sorry to ask again, but I would like to have the link you mentioned, for your blog.... I would love to read what you write on piracy and CC.
Unfortunately you were one of the few persons who understood the concepts I was trying to convey. Some people actually have the guts to come here and support piracy. What does Freedom and Piracy (illegal sharing....) have to do with each other? Nonsense if you ask me.
I still wait for your link. Thanks for the kind words and support.
On 24/07/13 07:06, gnuser wrote:
> What does Freedom and Piracy (illegal sharing....) have to do with
> each other? Nonsense if you ask me.
Who should dictate what files you have on your computer, and how you
share them with others? It has everything to do with freedom.
Interesting that you bring up the law, because sometimes the law does
things the free software community doesn't agree with. Prohibition on
breaking digital handcuffs is illegal (isn't VLC illegal then?), but
that doesn't make it wrong.
Andrew.
I am a member!
hi here is the link. i only pop through the forum frime time to time.
http://andresinmp.blogspot.co.uk/
it is an embarrassment and i started it when i knew little about free software. to do list is to migrate away from blogger.
thank you for the links to drm free films and similar I will take a look.
i would like for a favour: please try not contribute to miniflamewars. if you feel you have been attacked do not atack back or use curse words. some people are OK with it but I would like this to be a child friendly environment. gnu/linux users are younger and younger these days. of course i cannot make you and you are within your right.
Thanks for the link. I didn't understood that you had published the text on the blog, now I got it :P
I feel honored that you did this. THANKS =')
As for your the favor.... I agree with you. Flamewars will never help anyone. But the truth is, if I can barely take that people support piracy (they don't respect the license of the content!) I can even less take that people ALWAYS ahve a negative attitude towards me. A certain member as been doing so and I admit I got....a little bit nervous, which usually leds me to do some pretty nasty things ;)
But you are right, I will try to avoid the wars. But I will keep fighting for people to distance themselves from piracy and support free open projects. Hope you will help that effort =)
Thanks.
On 24/07/13 08:30, gnuser wrote:
> But you are right, I will try to avoid the wars. But I will keep
> fighting for people to distance themselves from piracy and support
> free open projects. Hope you will help that effort =)
Even if people in our community don't agree with each other on these
issues, we can still work together and push free culture.
Andrew.
I hope you are right, but I am afraid that people who only respect licenses and freedoms when they are using software, totally disrespecting it when it comes to music books and movies, might not be very helpful. But again, I hope you are right (even if hard to believe), because free culture really is the way forward. And yes, I will keep spreading what I believe to be right.
For me, I despise copyright, but have yet to share music, movies, or books.
I am a member!
the problem is that GPL is a copyright. It just is a clever hack to the copyright. Something like breaking the system from within.
Exactly! If we don't care about copyright and disobey it, we will do more harm than good, because we will break the power of GPL and CC and other free licenses.
We want changes in copyright laws and Public Domain laws, and we want more freedom to share.... We have to fight for those changes, we have to encourage producers to use free licenses, we have to create even NEW licenses that allow people to make profit with free content. Piracy will never be the answer, and it will bring about BAD things, like DRM and Copyright extended periods.
I believe I have already suggested a different, new type of license that would make community be able to access the source code and make changes, while still making the money go to the person who created the software in the first place. It was an iddea, I don't say it's perfect, but it could be worked into something better. But if we are unwilling to make any changes in our behavior and in our way of thinking, we will never get any gain out of this whole thing.
Also, let's be honest, why would we want to use proprietary software, when the best software available is the free one?
VLC, GIMP, Firefox, Tor, LibreOffice, MediaCoder, etc.
When the law is wrong, it sometimes has to be disobeyed. Have you read "Civil Disobedience" by the abolitionist "Henry David Thoreau"?
It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.
As for your financing system: if the user of a program needs to pay to modify it, then this program is proprietary software.
As for the quality of free software: that is a secondary argument. One that will not bring users to 100% free software because many of them would tell you Photoshop is better than GIMP, MS Office is better than LibreOffice, etc. Even if, at some point in time, free software is technically better than proprietary software, that may change later and the users, who were convinced by that argument, would go back to proprietary software. People must be made aware of the essential freedoms they deserve as computer users. That is the only way I know to never lose those freedoms once got.
You say that everyone should do as they think is right? Well, I agree to a certain extent, if I think something is right I should be free to express my idea and maybe even fight to change the law so that what I believe to be right becomes legal.
But we must also accept that we can't let everyone do what they think is right. In Netherlands right now, and as of some years now, there is a political party trying to make pedophilia legal. That would mean you couldn't do a thing if a old 60 years old guy aproached your daughter of 14 in the street.
So, no.... We must be conscious of our decisions, and question our motives. Just because I think something is right it does not mean it is. I must question myself and see if it has a solid ground. And decisions should be made to achieve a better world for everyone, a true utopian community. Not a society where dog eats dog.
As for your reply concerning my suggested financing system (which is just an idea, it probably needs work to be made into something usable) you already support that same idea with free software: If I use free software and want to change it, I can pay a programmer to do that for me. So, free software supposedly is not about "non commercial software", but you are against the creator retaining that right? That makes no sense.
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/how-do-you-get-your-music#comment-39413
read this comment and my reply (sorry, I was a little emotional after reading that :P)
That is the world I want to live in. And I don't want to take away people's freedom to make a living out of it in the process. Freedom and justice and balance don't need to come with enforced rules on people. If the people choose to accept only open/free rules/standards, the question won't even arise.
To fight the law and make it right, it sometimes is necessary to not comply with the current and wrong law. I gave you the example of the HADOPI in France, of scientific publications and of the fight for racial equality in the USA. I could write about Mahatma Gandhi, about hackers such as Phil Zimmermann, or, to take more recent examples, about Julian Assange or Edward Snowden. There so many examples of civil disobedience that, you would not deny, made the world a better place. Sure, in an Utopian world, nobody would have to disobey the law because the law would be good. The sad thing is: we are not living in an Utopian world.
Until now, good things can still be done even in the framework of bad laws. The free software movement is an excellent example of it. But the ever growing quantity of free software/culture does not seem to make the law better: we had the Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act, the DMCA (and the EUCD), etc. We almost had ACTA, SOPA, PIPA, etc. We are now fighting TAFTA, TPP, CETA, etc.
Where are the laws in favor of sharing? There only are laws or proposals of laws that are against it! The truth is: the legislation does not follow the people's will. The laws are made by the large corporations with a huge political power and interests that are against that of the people. Those corporations only want to protect their wrong businesses. Even at the expense of the people's freedoms.
However, the law cannot stand forever against most of the people's usages. If most of the people do something illegal, this thing will turn legal at some point.
As for "commercial software", you misunderstood me. I am all in favor of free software businesses! What you were suggesting is not a free software business: users should not have to pay to have the right to modify the software that achieves their computing. But sure, that user can pay a programmer, the authors of the program can sell support of any kind, they can crowd-source new features, they can sell custom improvements, etc. There are many ethical ways to make money with free software. It actually is the most thriving segment of the IT industry. If the society thinks that it is not enough, a tax on Internet connections could provide additional revenues.
I am a member!
If DRM and other restrictions to sharing were made illegal this wouldn't be a problem. The GPL exists the way it does because it is the only way right now to ensure that the software will remain Free Software.
We brought DRMs on ourselves when we thought we could keep pirating stuff. Lucky me, I quit that line of thought years and years ago. You should too. Next time DRM and laws like SOPA and PIPA might not be so easily destroyed.
I disagree with DRMs, but if I was in their position, I would probably have invented them too.
They have been asking for years for people to stop pirating stuff. What, are you surprised they tried it at the technical level? It's called escalation.
the whole idea of piracy is ridiculous. My opinion on this is as
follows, dismiss it if you like. I came from a windows world where
software often came at the cost of money. I don't usually have much
money to spare. If I want a piece of software bad enough, I torrent it.
End of story. I'm blind, so this situation becomes even worse.
Accessibility software used to (it doesn't now as much) cost upwards of
$800. I wanted it, i torrented it, cracked, it, whatever you want to
call it. NOw there is a free software screen reader for windows but I'm
rambling. The point is, some people pirate stuff because they can. Some
do because they cannot afford to purchase it. Would you have everyone do
without because they can't afford books/software? Audio books are not
cheap. I think the cd is deprecated, but for some reason the industry
still uses it. In the gnu/linux world the atmosphere is vastly
different. Payware is the exception rather than the rule. And of those
that are, usually I don't mind paying because the quality is good
enough, I don't mind supporting the developers. Being forced to pay
before I can decide whether or not I want the program is definitely not ok.
Just my two cents.
On 07/24/13 17:09, name at domain wrote:
> We brought DRMs on ourselves when we thought we could keep pirating
> stuff. Lucky me, I quit that line of thought years and years ago. You
> should too. Next time DRM and laws like SOPA and PIPA might not be so
> easily destroyed.
> I disagree with DRMs, but if I was in their position, I would probably
> have invented them too.
> They have been asking for years for people to stop pirating stuff.
> What, are you surprised they tried it at the technical level? It's
> called escalation.
You also must note that copying is not theft, otherwise that argument would justify stealing physical objects.
If someone spends the money to produce something and makes it available on a website or other digital medium for only people that paid for it, then it is a slap in the face to the artist if you copy it and distribute without authorization. Especially if it is not a huge media corporation and just some guy who sells a stand-up video that he edited himself.
No artist, but superstars, make a dime on the renting/selling of physical (CDs, DVDs, etc.) or numerical (iTunes, NetFlix, etc.) copies of their works. Superstars already are too rich.
And, again, there exists ways to finance (hopefully more equally) the Arts without denying the fundamental freedom to share your culture with your friends. A tax on Internet connections for instance.
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires