View Single Post
Old 5th June 2014
censored censored is offline
Swen Tnavelerri
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 45
Default

Quote:
"If the users don't control the program, the program controls the users. With proprietary software, there is always some entity, the “owner” of the program, that controls the program—and through it, exercises power over its users. A nonfree program is a yoke, an instrument of unjust power."
IMO - it's the aggregate result that RJS worries about, not necessarily the individual instances. Of course I can't read his mind, and could be wrong.

Yet - there should be nothing "wrong" or "immoral" about selling a bicycle, but not the detailed drawings that would make reproductions easier. Why be forced to help your competition? It's pretty much the same deal with software, so long as there are alternatives. IMO - the problem RJS was trying to head off, and has tentatively thwarted, is a situation developing in the world where all vendors of software are proprietary, and act as an aggregate entity to exercise unjust power over users. That's my opinion of his opinion. Some large companies act with the force of an aggregate - all by themselves (Microsoft, Apple). So, there is a difference between a hardware driver vendor who is one among many in a vibrant, competing ecosystem, and an overly dominated area, such as is the case with MS. Again, I can't read RJS's mind, and I know that his statements sometimes read as very strong ideological concepts. But, any business man knows that you bargain for more than you know you will get, and figure the realistic figure into the books.

This is another way of saying that monopolies are immoral, but business in general is not. One article I read in support of Free software gave the example of all (proprietary) vendors being forced to install back doors for you know who - and there being no Free Software alternative.

Last edited by censored; 5th June 2014 at 06:43 PM.
Reply With Quote