dick wrote:
Can nonfree refrain from failing to respect user's freedoms?

You present this as an unattributed quote. If this is intended to represent my previous response, it is a dishonest paraphrase. As a direct question, it is a tautology: nonfree software is "nonfree" *because* it does not respect user's freedoms. I asked whether nonfree can refrain from *further* abuses of users, beyond that basic lack of respect, and noted that the track record highlighted at <URL:http://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary.html> suggests otherwise.

I sell magic paint with the insidious feature that if you try mixing it with
another color, it turns black.  But otherwise the paint performs great.

Mix enough paints together and you will get black. This is a characteristic of subtractive color spaces. There is no magic here.

Under most interpretations of consumer commonlaw, so long as I make it clear
before sale that the paint admits this fatal characteristic, you are, to use
your politicized word, "free" to buy paint from another supplier.

This analogy seems to be a response to a second question I asked on the topic: Further, can nonfree refrain from attacking libre's right to exist with tyrant devices [...]?

There are fatal flaws with your analogy.
First, few tyrant devices are advertised as such prior to sale, and the trend has been towards introducing such antifeatures in devices that are traditionally expected to be open, with marketing that carefully implies that they *are* open devices to deceive as many users as possible as long as possible. Second, your analogy assumes that there is no collusion among paint suppliers to all produce the "magic" paint, and that there are practical alternatives available to customers, while we are seeing efforts to flood the market with tyrant devices and squeeze their non-tyrant equivalents out. For a specific example, consider Microsoft and their demands for "secure boot" which, when I last checked, specifically required that ARM devices be tyrants. There are serious ethical, moral, (and quite possibly legal) deficiencies here. The probable antitrust violations are probably why Microsoft did not attempt to impose a similar requirement on x86 machines shipped with their product; that would have been far too obvious as a violation. However, x86 is generally expected to become a legacy platform at some point, and the overall effect of a move to ARM with these policies in effect will be an attack on Free Software's right to exist.

Why should we accept a claim of a moral right for nonfree software to exist when nonfree vendors do not accept our right to exist, or do so only when under threat of serious legal penalties for abusive monopolistic practices and still seek to chip away at our right to exist whenever they can?

-- Jacob

Reply via email to