On 02/29/2016 08:08 PM, Paul M wrote: > > Its important to realize that this is not actually an argument against > the GPL, even if its presented as one. > > As an example there are some proprietary programs I rely upon as > disability aids. There is no reasonable argument so say that I shouldn't > use them (if there is no suitable alternative) -- because to do so is to > say I should accept a form of discrimination (that, effectively, I > should accept a reduced ability to function in the world). > > However this should be seen as an argument for Free Software not against > this -- in order to deal with my disability I have to give up some > freedoms in a way that could also be argued is discriminatory.
If you ask me, it should be _illegal_ to make any software that has medical purpose proprietary. > This is not a theoretical concern. One of the programs I most rely on > makes frequent network check-ins when it has no reason to do so and I > have no way of finding out what its doing (fortunately there is GPL'd > software I can use to block it). Have you tried Wireshark? > If it was GPL'd I would be able to find it out as well as better modify > to suit my needs vis a vis my disability, ensure it remains functional > if the developer abandons or changes it in a way that makes it no longer > functional etc. > > These are very important freedoms -- I rely on this software to be able > to hold down a job -- so my ability to deal with my disability is > effectively held ransom. I think your case is very important. Too often proprietary software creates B-class citizens and with free software, it's the users themselves who can decide the target audience, regardless of the intentions of the original developers. > People don't need to play video games in the way that I need disability > but there are similar arguments that can be made -- the problem of > abandonware comes immediately to mind, as well as perhaps developers > making unpopular changes that ignore players wishes. It's not that proprietary gaming isn't problematic - it has a lot of widely recognized issues, from the ones you mentioned to DRM and bugs that are never fixed - it's just that people want to play them regardless of it. > The argument that software developers needs to make money is an argument > about how society is organized economically. (As a side note an argument > about the need for a free market is very difficult to sustain when it > comes to disability: If I am unable to function fully because I am > denied access to software I need to hold a job it's no longer a free > market as I am being denied access to it). The biggest hypocrisy is that there are laws against discrimination in the workplace. I think that nobody at this point can argue that ours is a free market. Aside from the issue you mentioned, the monopolies are so big it is literally impossible to break into some fields, technology above all.