>https://audio-video.gnu.org/video/2014-11-07--rms--copyright-vs-community--part-1.webm
>54:40
>Freedom sometimes demands a sacrifice... when people say: "Yeah, I wish I could use Free Software but it's inconvenient in a certain way". What they're saying is: "I don't value my Freedom enough to make any sacrifice." and you're not gonna get Freedom if you do that.
Do you agree, /g/?
Fair enough, I suppose. I do use some proprietary software and it backfires every once in a while.
>>53434724
What do you mean by it backfires?
>Psu- the marijuana capitol of portland OR.
>Stallman once every four years
>kekCM
You go to psu dont you anon
>>53434674
>Do you agree, /g/?
No reason to disagree.
Same can be applied to any and all freedoms, not just the ideology of free software.
yeah nah
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOjCJXHJhPg
>>53435168
>posting a confirmed cuck
lel
Pretty much. That's why I get a bit angry when people say "why bother with X if you're still gonna be spied on by NSA/whatever". Freedom and privacy are not a zero-one things, you can choose how much you want to preserve and how much you're willing to sacrifice/give away.
Richard always says that software controls the user and that's why it infringes on your freedom, but that statement is almost completely wrong IMO. When purchasing a piece of (proprietary) software, the user most likely knows what it does and is buying it for a reason. The software doesn't work against you just because you can't see the source code. Software is designed to perform a certain task and you shouldn't expect it to do anything else.
I'm not against the free software movement (it has its uses), but I don't think it is unethical to withhold certain aspects of your intellectual property. I do think certain pieces of software should be open to the public, like certain network security technologies so a whole slew of people and companies can contribute.
What about my freedom to use proprietary software?
>>53435208
>The software doesn't work against you just because you can't see the source code. Software is designed to perform a certain task and you shouldn't expect it to do anything else.
You've really drunk the corporate swill, haven't you?
>>53435279
>implying Gimp isn't used only for image editing
>implying Libre Office isn't used only for creation of documents
>implying Firefox isn't only used as a web browser
>implying VLC isn't just for playing media
>implying Hexchat is not just for IRC
>>53434674
No, and copyleft and GPL is about as much anticipated freedom as proprietary software is.
>oh you didn't tfollow my rules??? I'm gonna sue the shit out of you now
>>53435208
a piece of software can do so much more than what is advertised without telling you
>>53435372
elaborate on one of my examples
>inb4 opening a PDF with Firefox
>>53435168
But he just confirmed the statement posted in the OP?
Anon if you want to argue post counter-arguments instead of arguments
>>53435025
Sometimes it refuses to work without checking for updates, or nags about something. I've seen some proprietary software secretly download ads and "show" them somewhere off screen.
>>53434674
>agreeing with pedo
yeah no
>>53435602
kill yourself
>>53435208
The user only knows some of the things it does.
>The software doesn't work against you just because you can't see the source code.
Not necessarily, but nowadays it is typical for software to do work against the user, because there is an economic incentive for the developer, and the user should be able to defend themselves from this, other than getting rid of the program altogether (you do develop a dependence on certain software and shouldn't be stuck with malicious features if you still want to use it)
>>53434674
>not having all of your software as public property means you don't value freedom
freetards everybody
>>53435626
pedo detected
>>53435341
>implying people can afford the propriety alternatives
>get a job at McDonald's
Why don't we slow down productivity with mandatory mercury injections at birth while we're at it.
>>53435660
>implying I ever said those were bad programs
I use all of those faggot, stop projecting.
>>53435193
Can relate. It's called nuance and simpletons lack it.
>>53435647
What the fuck does public property have to do with this? Are you retarded?
>>53435820
Stallman wants all software to essentially be public property. The only real right that Stallman thinks a programmer should have over their program is to say "Hey, I wrote this." It can technically be sold, but when people can make minor changes and redistribute it as their own product for free, it's pointless in practice.
>>53435951
If it was public property, then it would be owned by a appointed group or government. The program writer still retains a copyright of the program and it must be retained, even in modified versions.
>>53435687
But you were implying that those programs were only used as prescribed. Im sure they have been modded to be used elsewhere.
Code isn't allways one purpose. Why reinvent the wheel when ctrl c is a thing.
And how far do you think you could go in life without import.java.something
>>53436008
In practice, it is owned by everyone. Although the author has a copyright, anyone can grab the source and redistribute their own copies of it. Which is perfectly fine for certain use cases, but it's silly to suggest that this gives you some kind of moral superiority over someone who actually wants to make money off of their work.
>>53436116
No, each copy is owned by the person that was given a copy. It's not one single object that the public controls.
>>53436185
What? I fail to see how making source code public and redistributable doesn't give the public control over that source code.
>>53436116
Contributing to the public good by allowing others to audit and build off of your work rather than wasting time duplicating efforts and hiding the inner working of your software really does give you moral superiority.
>>53436114
If you implement one feature from program A to program B that doesn't mean program A gained any addition use or that program B is now more like program A. And yes, I agree reusing code is the better thing to do, I never said it wasn't.
You seem to be implying that because someone reused a piece of code found in Firefox and implemented it somewhere different means that Firefox gained a use that most users wouldn't know about.
>>53436217
If your public repo granted write access to anyone and everyone, that could be analogous to public property. But that's not how it works. Each person only controls their own copy/copies.
>>53436255
Kid stop fishing. I'm not going to teach you how to make those programs into encryption software.
>>53436260
I suppose I see your point. However, everyone has the right to fork that project and create their own clone of the repo. This effectively give the community the ultimate power over the source.
>>53436327
>>53436375
If it take input and gives an output you can throw in a random number generator and make seeds your key.
IN FREEWARE EVERYTHING IS ENCRYPTION DEVICE
>>53435208
>Richard always says that software controls the user and that's why it infringes on your freedom, but that statement is almost completely wrong IMO.
I'm with you on that one.
"freedom" here is used incorrectly as it used only to describe price and or your privacy on the software. Should be privacy and not freedom.
Free software takes more away of your freedom than proprietary in this aspect.
I am not free while using a software that requires compiling, debuging or constantly managing it in the hopes that it doesn't fuck up anything or even works at all instead of having a piece of software that works as intended full stop.
I am free though on using what I want while being full aware that I can be exchanging privacy or money on buying software that will work and not take my time or patience.
Proprietary or free software have their cons and pros, meeting half-way in some aspects but in the long run if you know what the fuck you are doing, you might as well go for what works without demanding your time and patience.
I know there are alot of neets or cave dwellers with nothing better to do for now, but the time will come in which you simply do not have the luxury of time for such tasks.
Or I can only hope that for you guys, really.
>>53436876
>"freedom" here is used incorrectly as it used only to describe price
........
When did I not have the freedom to have a copyrighted sector on my hard drive?
>>53436876
The free software movement has nothing to do with privacy. The two issues are often conflated by people who are informed only through memes, like you
>>53439184
What? That makes no sense.
