Dave Crossland wrote: > On 05 Feb 2007 11:07:22 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Dave Crossland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Please explain how a lack of sourcecode is immoral. > > > > Without source code, you can't see what the software [...] > > I am proposing that this is a practical problem, not an ethical one. > Please explain the ethical dimension of this.
Sharing is only one aspect of software freedom, with crucial importance, of course. But the other aspects are equally important and all stem from an ethical stance. This has always been the case and will always will be -- the "practical problem" is something that the Open Source campaign accents. For the Free Software movement it was always an ethical problem. You can share the so called "freeware" too, but I bet that none on this list will confuse it with free software. Also, pay attention that freedom 2 is "The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor" -- distributing software without corresponding source code is not about helping your neighbor at all, it is about keeping her helpless. Free software is only indirectly related to "practical benefits" -- this is often the case, but it's a consequence, that's not the essential thing. Using free software is a matter of dignity. Everyone deserves free software, like every human being deserves to control their destiny. _______________________________________________ gNewSense-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
