[OT] Why is a program being nonfree reason enough to avoid it?

Proprietary programs don't respect your freedom. Many of them prevent you from sharing copies of the program with others. Plus, without access to the source code, there's no way to verify that such programs are in fact doing what they claim to be doing.

This topic has been addressed quite a few times even here, but to remind you.

The first thing is, when most people hear the word "Free", they interpret it as "gratis". How ever, we the free software movement fellows interpret and use the word to mean "Freedom respecting". It's the language. If you say "Logicie Libre" in spain, people tie it somehow with some kind of liberities.

It's just a common property of Free(Libre) Software that it's often available as "no payment required", but many people buy, sell and pay for freedom.

You might have your reasons to or not to avoid proprietary software and I think you have every right for that.

My reasoning to avoid proprietary software are that I want to be able to use, share, study and contribute to the programs or projects how ever I might want. I try to avoid any discrinitation for any kind of statuses, and have yet not found other acceptable means than free software movement, in the software / computing field.

Le 2013-10-25 13:36, name at domain a écrit :
> Many people think of a program being free a plus, but don't mind using
> proprietary software.
>
> Why should proprietary software be avoided?

John Sullivan, Executive director of the FSF recently spoke at a keynote
at the Open World Forum, I think it's a good way to answer your question:
https://archive.org/details/20131003JohnSullivanKeynoteOpenWorldForum2013

F.

--
Fabián Rodríguez
http://fsf.magicfab.ca

Why do people keep adding messages in brackets to the subject line? [OT] or [Support] etc. It's silly. It's not really necessary to mark things as being offtopic.

"Many people think of a program being free a plus, but don't mind using proprietary software."

Why do those people tolerate proprietary softare? Perhaps they're just used to being mistreated by proprietary software developers and think they don't deserve any better? They should raise their standards so that being free isn't a "plus" but the minimum requirement. Consider this: http://www.jxself.org/free-firmware.shtml

Well, there *is* a practical reason, though it might seem paranoid to some people: Proprietary software often contains malicious features, such as spyware which records your activities in secret, backdoors which can change your system at any time, and Digital Restrictions Management, which artificially restrict what you can do.

Other than that, it's more or less just principle.

But I've found that people understand the merits of freedom in computing: that everyone deserves the right to control what their computer does, and that if the users don't control the software, the software will control the users. (Actually, once, when I was telling some of my second-cousins about this, they finished what I was saying, word-for-word.) Obviously, most people will continue to use proprietary software, but convincing people to use only proprietary software is nowhere near as important as convincing people to pay attention to the freedom issue.

I don't really see the idea of forcing people to Free(libre) Software. Just stand at your cause and in your community. if you're asked about FS, tell them why it matters to you. They either take it or ignore it, but you can't change them unless they want to.

and when it comes to privacy, I like Jacob Appelbaum's analogy. People don't care about privacy, but they still have courtains on their window. Why? They still seem to have something to hide.

Do people yell out their votes? Some do, but many people don't. I wouldn't, and neither would my close friends and relatives - and I'm the geek of my neighbourhood.

It seems to me that privacy is sacred to those who remember pre-internet days, curious to those who remember pre-facebook days and meaningless to those who have known nothing but both.

In 1984 Orwell predicted screens that you couldn't turn off. We have been given screens we don't want to turn off.

(If you're talking to someone who's not even sensitive enough to have - or worry about - philosophical principles...)

You can always point to the fact that proprietary software - and operating systems - can always contain *spyware*... (And that, there's no way of ever knowing that...)

But, if the person you're talking to doesn't even mind that... Then, forget about her/him, and move to another... It's a lost case.

(More reasons here: https://trisquel.info/en/forum/why-did-you-switch-or-use-free-software-0#comment-36227)

Nonfree software pisses me of!
They have malicious feature all the time like drm, backdoor and spyware.
And they always try to make you use specific software, or services. Like Iphone wants to make you use Itunes. And android try to make you use google services like google play and gmail. They are trying to control what you do, and take away your choice to use the services you want.

Software, whether free or closed, can have vulnerabilities. If the software is closed, the buyer of the software has no recourse other than to wait on the vendor to issue a fix for the vulnerability, assuming the vendor has any intention to fix such vulnerabilities.

A recent example is the closed firmware included with certain models of Netgear routers. There are several vulnerabilites, one of the worse being a remote exploit which allows an attacker to take over/hijack the LAN:

"Vulnerabilities in the management interfaces of some wireless router and network-attached storage products from Netgear expose the devices to remote attacks that could result in their --->complete compromise<---, researchers warn....

“If you browse to http:///BRS_02_genieHelp.html, you are allowed to bypass authentication for all pages in the entire administrative interface,” Cutlip said Tuesday in a blog post. “But not only that, authentication remains disabled across reboots. And, of course, if remote administration is turned on, this works from the frickin’ Internet....

That opens the door to many attack possibilities. For example, an attacker could configure the router to use a malicious DNS (Domain Name System) server, which would allow the attacker to redirect users to malicious websites or set up port forwarding rules to expose internal network services to the Internet....

Netgear patched the vulnerability in the WNDR4700 1.0.0.52 firmware version that was released in July. However, it seems the company failed to check if other router models are also vulnerable.

The latest firmware version for WNDR3700v4 is 1.0.1.42; Cutlip performed his tests on the older 1.0.1.32 version. However, static code analysis of the 1.0.1.42 firmware indicates that it is also vulnerable, the researcher said Thursday...."

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2057260/vulnerabilities-in-some-netgear-router-and-nas-products-open-door-to-remote-attacks.html

Now, imagine if the firmware in the router were free, so that the owner of the router could patch the firmware and reinstall it the day these vulnerabilites were announced.

Of course, some may not mind the fact the router on their home LAN can redirect web requests to their banks/financial institutions and place their accounts at risk.

"Using the term "closed" or "closed source" implies the term "open source", which should be avoided."

Bullshit. You could just as easily have assumed an implied synonym for my use of the word 'closed,' such as 'locked,' rather than assume the antonym for the word 'closed,' such as 'open'. There's no need to insert words into my posts which I neither implied nor intended. Read my post again, and CHOOSE to assume a synonym for the word 'closed,' instead of CHOOSING to assume an antonym for the word 'closed' and your issue with my post will disappear.

The following claim:

"I am white"

does not imply that I am black, unless the listener is irrational.

Netgear firmware is closed. That's a fact. Case closed.