Proprietary software as result of psychological problems
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
I am a member!
În 2013-12-22 00:07, name at domain a scris:
> First, I think you should better provide arguments which show that I'm
> wrong instead of pointing towards the rule not to talk about certain
> things.
You are right. It might not be obvious for everybody you are not
following the Trisquel Community Guidelines.
> I was talking about *developing* proprietary software and
> make a living from it.
Nobody should do that.
Trying to justify it (family starving) means trying to justify non-free,
proprietary software which then makes this software seam less evil and
its developers less anti-social. Doing this wrong (developing
proprietary software) to the users and justifying it, is a common
practice in the "open source" camp. This is a free software community
forum of an FSF-endorsed free distribution.
Please respect that and do these exercises of logic with your friends on
your blog or live in your group of friends, not on this forum. The
message on this forum should be clear for all its members and any
newcomer: developing proprietary software is wrong and there is no
excuse for it.
> You don't put yourself under any risk if you choose not to endorse
> proprietary software. In contrast, the developer of proprietary
> software does since he has to quit his job and find another one.
I am a computer scientist and I am writing software. Nobody forces the
developer to take a job which enslaves other users. No matter why she
took the job, it's a mistake and she is the sole responsible for taking
it, so if she has a conscience she will quit that job and work on free
software. If she doesn't find free software job opportunities (FSF lists
some) or doesn't do well at the interview, then she would have to learn
to develop free software on a volunteer basis and try again later;
meanwhile, doing something else for a living, like pizza delivery, taxi
driving, etc. The risk of quitting her job of developing proprietary
software might be small or big, but again nobody forced her to take the
unethical job.
So please, respect the guidelines and don't try to justify proprietary
software (or developing proprietary software) on this forum. If you
don't do it because you understand the danger, do it out of respect for
GNU and Trisquel.
--
Tiberiu C. Turbureanu
Președinte, Fundația Ceata
Telefon: +40-761-810-100
GPG: 8B51 53CB 354E 3049 FAE9 3260 F033 8452 4154 1967
Susții libertatea artelor și tehnologiilor?
Înscrie-te ca membru! (http://ceata.org/%C3%AEnscrieri)
>Trying to justify it (family starving) means trying to justify non-free, proprietary software
Excuse me, but did you ever heard of so-called "situational ethics"?
There aren't absolute unethical actions. Because ethics depend on context. For example, I consider meat is unethical in my current situation. But if I would need meat for my survival, then I will eat it. Even if it will be a human meat.
>The risk of quitting her job of developing proprietary software might >be small or big, but again nobody forced her to take the
>unethical job.
And nobody can force anybody to take so-called "ethical job". That is her/his personal decision. And it is why pure ethics fail. Because ethics are subjective. I wish I could forbid you to eat meat, but I can't. Beside, meat is ethical in YOUR opinioun. I have only one choice. I must convince you that giving up meat will fit your egotistical interests. For example, "You know, in average vegetarians have longer lifespan than meat-eaters, blah-blah-blah". That is also true for FSF-lovers movement. If you want to change the world, then you must swallow your pride and try to convince developers of proprietary software that FLOSS more profitable for them.
I am a member!
În 2013-12-22 12:09, name at domain a scris:
> Excuse me, but did you ever heard of so-called "situational ethics"?
> There aren't absolute unethical actions.
There are a lot of examples of absolute unethical actions. Human slavery
is one of them and it's forbidden by international human rights treaties
and it's fought against it all over the world.
> For example, I consider meat is unethical in my current
> situation.
I don't care what you do in your personal life, nor should you about
what I do in mine. If I use public software libraries to develop a piece
of software to fit my needs and I am its sole user because I don't
release it to the public (nor I give it to acquaintances), it's no
business of yours. It doesn't affect you that I write and use my
not-released software. Free or nonfree labels don't apply for this piece
of software.
> But if I would need meat for my survival, then I will
> eat it. Even if it will be a human meat.
This will not justify cannibalism, which is an unethical practice by all
standards.
> And nobody can force anybody to take so-called "ethical job".
No individual can, but a law can. Many states consider prostitution to
be unethical and the forbid it by laws. Regardless of what you think
(that is ethical or not), it is forbidden by law. And the policemen are
enforcing the law. The same goes with drug trafficking.
However, because there is no such a law and proprietary software
distribution is legal, nobody can ask policemen to give fines to
software companies for restricting users and to take into custody
proprietary software managers and developers.
But what we in the free software community is to blame people who help
enslaving users. We need to condemn all proprietary software practices.
And we should never take proprietary software developers' side, like
they are some poor computer scientists who only follow orders because
otherwise they (and their family) would starve and die of hunger.
> That is her/his personal decision.
Her/his personal decision affects other people, because (s)he is working
on user subjugating software. It can be the personal decision of a
President or a Prime Minister to declare war on a neighbouring country
and the law can allow this, because it's her/his right by Constitution.
But this doesn't mean it doesn't affect tens, hundreds of millions of
people and that is ethical, instead of negotiating and peacefully
settling any differences between the two countries.
> Beside, meat is ethical in YOUR opinion.
I raise a sheep and sacrifice it and eat it. It doesn't affect you.
Whether what I am doing is ethical or not for you, it doesn't hurt you I
eat my sheep.
I write a piece of software for myself and I use it all my life without
releasing it. It doesn't affect you. Whether what I am doing is ethical
or not for you, it doesn't hurt you I use my software only for myself.
In contrast, if I write a piece of software and I make it public (I
release it) under a proprietary license and you use my software, it
affects you. I am unethical and you can clearly see that, because I
don't allow you to install it on multiple machines and to modify it to
better serve your needs. My personal decision is affecting you, me being
an unethical software developer hurts you as a my software user. I have
control over you and we are both humans. You depend only on me and
that's wrong. I am anti-social with you and you can see that.
> I have only one
> choice. I must convince you that giving up meat will fit your
> egotistical interests. For example, "You know, in average vegetarians
> have longer lifespan than meat-eaters, blah-blah-blah".
Right. And if that's why I would avoid meat, it doesn't mean I would
never eat meat again. I can let go to 10 additional minutes of my life
for a special occasion, like at a dinner with my parents whom I didn't
see for a whole year or a reunion with my former colleagues from
university whom I didn't see for 10 years. The same goes with alcohol,
tobacco and so on.
Practical reasons (even if they are true) are not enough for a human
being to not do something, like eating meat or using/developing
proprietary software. It's not a strong enough reason, because we humans
don't always follow doctors' orders. But we certainly don't want to live
with the guilt of doing something unethical which will haunt us for the
rest of our lives, like eating human meat. That is because we have
conscience.
> That is also
> true for FSF-lovers movement.
Don't forget you are using one of free software movement's forums of a
FSF-endorsed free distribution of GNU+Linux. You are using this forum to
attack the reason while Trisquel is developed, to challenge the free
software philosophy and to turn our users' interest away from the free
software movement to the "open source" camp.
You are directly and shamelessly working publicly against the free
software movement using it's own communication channels. I am sure you
are aware of that.
> If you want to change the world, then
> you must swallow your pride and try to convince developers of
> proprietary software that FLOSS more profitable for them.
That might not be true and not even generally true, and you have no way
of proving such a statement. And like in the case of eating meat, this
might convince proprietary software developers to prefer developing free
software rather than continue developing proprietary software, but it
doesn't mean they will stop restricting users and never look back. What
usually happens (and you can see this in many if not most of projects
that call themselves "open source"), they distribute proprietary
software along with free software. It is actually the reason why
Trisquel was forked from Debian and later from Ubuntu and the reason why
this forum you are using against the movement even exist.
So it doesn't mean they will stop what they did in the past. Especially
when your doctor discovers you have cancer which has developed in the
last 5 years, although half of your life you have been a vegetarian
(let's say, for 20 years). Or especially when you are forced to declare
bankruptcy after trying for 5 years to make a profit with free software.
--
Tiberiu C. Turbureanu
Președinte, Fundația Ceata
Telefon: +40-761-810-100
GPG: 8B51 53CB 354E 3049 FAE9 3260 F033 8452 4154 1967
Susții libertatea artelor și tehnologiilor?
Înscrie-te ca membru! (http://ceata.org/%C3%AEnscrieri)
>There are a lot of examples of absolute unethical actions. >Human slavery is one of them
Did you mean "absolute unethical action ONLY in my book"?
>I don't care what you do in your personal life, nor should >you about what I do in mine.
That's depends who are you and who is me. Because your behavior in your private life may somehow affect me/my family/my country.
>This will not justify cannibalism, which is an unethical >practice by all standards.
I can understand your position, but cannibalism doesn't necessarily require murder. If the person already dead and it is not my fault, then my conscience will be absolute clear. On other hand, if somebody have to kill an other human, because s/he hasn't got better options, then this behaviour can be considered as ethical from my viewpoint. Thus, you was wrong about "all standards".
>No individual can, but a law can.
Ruling class use laws to dictate it's will. Nowadays epoch of capitalism, thus the ruling class is capitalists. Proprietary software is very profitable business. Thus, it might be banned only in case of serious crisis caused by proprietary software industry.
>I raise a sheep and sacrifice it and eat it. It doesn't >affect you.
It hurts my feelings.
>I write a piece of software for myself and I use it all my >life without releasing it. It doesn't affect you.
I may need that piece of software, thus your "greedy" can affect me.
>I am unethical and you can clearly see that, because I
>don't allow you to install it on multiple machines and to >modify it to better serve your needs. My personal decision >is affecting you, me being an unethical software developer >hurts you as a my software user.
It is how capitalism works. Everybody must thinks only about own profit. Thus, in your terms capitalism is "anti-social".
>Practical reasons (even if they are true) are not enough for >a human being to not do something
On other hand, more rational businessmen have huge advantage. Therefore, if you would convince them to use FLOSS only, then it will be the greatest success of FLOSS.
> You are using this forum to attack the reason while >Trisquel is developed, to challenge the free software >philosophy and to turn our users' interest away from the >free software movement to the "open source" camp.
Why do you treat "open source" movement like foes?
It reminds me of distinction in vegetarian camp. "Meat is unhealthy!" VS "Meat is unethical!". Let's pretend that you think "Meat is unethical and healthy" and I think "Meat is ethical and unhealthy". We have opposite opinions about meat, but the result is same! It is like 2+5=6+1=7. We have different input and equal output. Hence, we should help each other. The same goes for "open source" movement.
>That might not be true and not even generally true, and you >have no way of proving such a statement.
I'm sorry, but I can't understand your logic!
> they distribute proprietarysoftware along with free >software.
It is because pure FLOSS doesn't profitable enough, that is all.
You can't make money just from selling free software. You will sell a few copies, then free (as in money) downloads will be all over the internet. The best thing to do would be to free it after a decent amount of money has been made, or to do free software development as a part time job.
I am a member!
În 2013-12-19 12:36, name at domain a scris:
> You can't make money just from selling free software.
You can.
> You will sell a
> few copies, then free (as in money) downloads will be all over the
> internet.
Let them be, nobody should people from sharing software and improve it.
What is important in a free software commercial distribution is to build
the *trust* by continuously developing and innovating that free software
and by investing in its stability and security. Then users will much
prefer buying copies (in binary form and along with it in full source
code form) from your distribution, because you are a driving force for
that free software so an meritocratic authority for its user base.
> The best thing to do would be to free it after a decent
> amount of money has been made,
I consider liberation funds to be unethical. A software developer should
never restrict its users, not in the beginning (until she rises the
amount of money she requests) not ever.
> or to do free software development as
> a part time job.
If the part time job involves proprietary software development, then
it's wrong. It's wrong to be anti-social. If you are making a living
from being anti-social, then you should think to change your ways or at
least change your area of activity. Don't help corporations gain more
power over computer users.
--
Tiberiu C. Turbureanu
Președinte, Fundația Ceata
Telefon: +40-761-810-100
GPG: 8B51 53CB 354E 3049 FAE9 3260 F033 8452 4154 1967
Susții libertatea artelor și tehnologiilor?
Înscrie-te ca membru! (http://ceata.org/%C3%AEnscrieri)
"I consider liberation funds to be unethical."
Are you talking about crowdfunding?
"I have written a program but have never released it. I will release it under the GNU GPL if you (the crowd) can raise $100,000."
Is this what you mean? Nothing seems wrong about it to me.
EDIT: That doesn't seem to be what you are talking about. I didn't read the rest of the paragraph.
I'm sorry, but this is not a psychological problem. =)
By the way, I think you need read this article.
edit
I've seen one guy who insisted that he could absolutely not release the source code to a program (a game, to be more specific) because he felt like it was his "baby", and he couldn't stand the thought of not having a monopoly on manufacturing copies of the program and improving its design. So not only did he not release the source code, he also implemented digital restriction mechanisms to make it impossible to change the graphics, because he didn't want his precious "baby" "tampered with".
That would be one example of a psychological problem, lol. But the same could be said about some free software projects out there :P
This is case number #2, IMHO.
If you play video games on a game console or PC, you may have noticed that the games are running on licensed engines like the Unreal Engine, CryTech, Frostbite, ID Tech, or Havok.
Those are the "babies" of the company and how they stay afloat. They pay their employees, make improvements on a deadline, and provide developer tools and support to companies that license their code.
I am a member!
..Wow, I thought the DSM V was full of bullshit conditions, but this thread really takes the cake.
DSM V?
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, abbreviated as DSM-5, is the 2013 update to the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) classification and diagnostic tool. In the United States the DSM serves as a universal authority for psychiatric diagnosis. Treatment recommendations, as well as payment by health care providers, are often determined by DSM classifications, so the appearance of a new version has significant practical importance.
I do not have the time to argue these days... :-)
Anyway, onpon4 and lembas (mainly) wrote what I think probably more eloquently than I would!
I just wanted to mention this white paper entitled "Economic models of Free Software": http://www.april.org/files/economic-models_en.pdf
It is six years old but, even if some of the 45 studied companies (of various kinds and sizes) disappeared, it remains an interesting read. Especially for people who still think you cannot earn an honest living working with free software.
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires