Quote:
Originally Posted by censored
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?
|
Argument by analogy seldom works well. You can mod a bicycle with a blow torch. Not so much in software. A common analogy is selling a car with the hood welded down. A closer analogy might be selling cars with computers so integrated that to fix them you need the specs of those computers. See the debate over Right to Repair laws for very similar arguments to the free software arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by censored
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.
|
That seems a stretch given his condemnation of any and all proprietary software whatever the context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by censored
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.
|
I don't see monopolies being discussed in any rms essays. In fact, recently he seems quite alarmed that people now have the extra choice of clang, his concern seeming to be that existing gcc users might be drawn to clang, build on it with extensions such that the combined free + proprietary suite is more compelling than the free alone.