"it's ethically a no-no (from a free software perspective)" -- I was hoping to better understand _why_ it's unethical to even inform at least FSF-literate users about a non-free program.
Also, why it's ethical not to write the program at all (giving users _no_ freedom to do anything), but unethical to write it and then not GPL it. I understand this about programs that trap users into _unwittingly_ giving up freedoms they may later want, but will find costly to regain (iOS, Facebook). But if I'm _knowingly_ giving up only freedoms I am _certain_ I don't need, how am I harmed? E.g. my lease forbids pets. If it forbade pets in small print or unreadable legalese, so that I could discover the prohibition only after I'm too invested in the apartment to find another, that would be unethical. But if I _know_ I don't want pets, why is it unethical to offer me this lease (but ethical not to offer the apartment at all)? Is it unethical to release a free program which in practice is hard to change because it's not written in a modular way? On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 3:39 PM, Francesco Ariis <fa...@ariis.it> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 02:52:00PM -0500, Ilya Shlyakhter wrote: >> "Of the many things you can accuse the FSF of, this is not one >> of them" -- It's a direct quote from >> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html . > > Touché. You left out: > >> Those who benefit from the current system where programs are property >> offer two arguments in support of their claims to own programs: the >> emotional argument and the economic argument. > > the "emotional argument" being applicable here (at the risk of > being wrong again, I did not find that specific beOrg quote via > a customary search; I am ready to concede he will licence it under > a free-software licence once users start to flock in numbers). > I think it is unfair quote to the FSF, as they worked very hard to > dismantle the `libre == gratis` equivalence. :) > > I am not going to be embroiled in this any further; *some* of the > arguments you made in this and the orgmode ML threads seems to come > from an open-source perspective. > Again, nothing wrong with it, but when it's ethically a no-no (from > a free software perspective) and practically dubious (i.e. is there > any evidence people are turned away from Org because because of it?), > I can see how the developers aren't impressed much by the pitch. > > > > _______________________________________________ > gnu-misc-discuss mailing list > firstname.lastname@example.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list email@example.com https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss