Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
The fact that there are so many developers who do one of the three things I mentioned ... most of software is proprietary Congratulations! Now you finally understand why propaganda of FSF is ineffective. By tricking them, giving them immediate benefits and then enslaving them. So-called tricking isn't only part of domestication. Other part is selection. Obedient animals have better survival rate than too freedom-loving (i.e. wild) animals. The same goes for beehives, wolf packs, flocks of sheep and colonies of phytoplankton. And of course, humans aren't exception. It's why Stanford prison experiment and Milgram experiment were successful. Humans are domestic animals. We domesticated by ourselves. For thousand years human societies had strict hierarchy. Thereafter, era of capitalism began and hierarchy became more flexible. But no-one can just throw away thousand years. It's why Third Reich and the USSR were created. And maybe it's why I have orgasm-like feeling when I imagine myself as small cogwheel in cruel and heartless the military machine of Third Reich(or USSR sometimes). Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtht2QeeZYo Slavery is a subset of hierarchy, that doesn't make hierarchy a bad thing. I'm not an anarchist or even a democrat, so hierarchy is OK for me. I just wanted to point out your strange definition of hierarchy. Slavery is the most extreme case of hierarchy. Slavery reduces so-called freedom of a slave very much. Other hierarchies also reduce freedom of individual. Of course, sometimes you can leave your hierarchy. But if you need/want to stay, then you must sacrifice your freedom. For example, if you want to use a forum/chat, then you must follow the rules of one. Otherwise, you will be banned. no single big hierarchical tree with a central root (leadership), but that doesn't mean there are not a lot of smaller hierarchical trees instead. My logic is flawless, I just have other definition of anarchy. If so-called anarchistic society has any hierarchical trees, then it's not anarchy in my opinion. If there isn't any hierarchical trees, then any form of exploitation of man by man (e.g. slavery) is impossible. you aren't make a good long-term decision when you value benefits over freedom So-called freedom isn't thing-in-itself. Nobody can fight for pure abstract freedom. In fact, people fight for their needs and desires. Freedom is a important instrument, but it isn't end in itself. Freedom is like money. If you don't spend/sacrifice it from time to time, then it's worthless trash. For example, Joe is a slave. The Master told him: Joe, you must learn classical music!. And Joe wants the same thing! He hasn't freedom of choice, but is OK, because Joe's desire and master's desire coincide. He is a slave, but he is happy. Other example: Noah is a inveterate bachelor. He wants to have a sweetheart, but he doesn't want to sacrifice his freedom. Thus, he doomed to suffer from loneliness for rest of his life He is a perverse person who wants freedom just for himself Okay, maybe Bill is bad example. But how about other money bags? If freedom is so important, then why it's not always good for business plan of company? If you're right, then freedom-loving companies must have huge competitive advantage. Of course, it can be selfish love, like I want freedom only for myself, but not for others. And by the way, you dodged slavery or death! question. What would you prefer and why? freedom is the highest value User Magic Banana thinks Freedom does not have to be the highest value for a user to only accept free software.(Prooflink: https://trisquel.info/en/forum/ethic-really-good-argument-floss?page=1#comment-48028). How can you comment on that?
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
I will respond just to these two because they are essential in this debate and I am tired of arguing with you, quantumgravity and gnuser. În 2014-01-05 11:32, aaz...@mail.ru a scris: My logic is flawless, I just have other definition of anarchy. If so-called anarchistic society has any hierarchical trees, then it's not anarchy in my opinion. Nobody can fight for pure abstract freedom. In fact, people fight for their needs and desires. Just like with free software, you have your own definitions of freedom and anarchy. I don't. I use mainstream definitions which are the result of long (years, tens of years, centuries or even millennia of) complex analytical processes and make human communication easy. These mainstream definitions are the Free Software Definition of the GNU project (which Trisquel project uses according to its guidelines), and freedom and anarchy meanings from dictionary, Wiktionary, and Wikipedia. As I already stated, it's not freedom if you are free to hurt others. That is power over others. Freedom is about balance in community, equal rights in society. In Romanian there is a saying, your freedom ends when my freedom begins („libertatea ta se termină acolo unde începe libertatea mea”). Also, anarchy doesn't mean lack of hierarchies, just lack of central hierarchy spanning over all community. An anarchy without smaller hierarchical groups cannot exist because a group needs to organize itself, meaning some members of the group have to take leadership, and tell others what to do in order to survive/prevail in their mission. -- Tiberiu C. Turbureanu Președinte, Fundația Ceata Telefon: +40-761-810-100 GPG: 8B51 53CB 354E 3049 FAE9 3260 F033 8452 4154 1967 Susții libertatea artelor și tehnologiilor? Înscrie-te ca membru! (http://ceata.org/%C3%AEnscrieri)
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
În 2014-01-05 12:19, Tiberiu C. Turbureanu a scris: In Romanian there is a saying, your freedom ends when my freedom begins s/when/where („libertatea ta se termină acolo unde începe libertatea mea”). -- Tiberiu C. Turbureanu Președinte, Fundația Ceata Telefon: +40-761-810-100 GPG: 8B51 53CB 354E 3049 FAE9 3260 F033 8452 4154 1967 Susții libertatea artelor și tehnologiilor? Înscrie-te ca membru! (http://ceata.org/%C3%AEnscrieri)
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
I will respond just to these two because they are essential in this debate and I am tired of arguing with you But you MUST! For the sake of Justice and Freedom! You're chosen one, last hope of FSF, because only you able to stop malicious alliance of roboq6, quantumgravity and gnuser!
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
El 05/01/14 05:42, aaz...@mail.ru escribió: I will respond just to these two because they are essential in this debate and I am tired of arguing with you But you MUST! For the sake of Justice and Freedom! You're chosen one, last hope of FSF, because only you able to stop malicious alliance of roboq6, quantumgravity and gnuser! What?
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
I got it now. Your definition of freedom is so slippery that you just call the lack of freedom sometimes slavery, sometimes hierarchy or being a team, just which of the names suits you best in order to rationalize your behaviour. You never provided any real arguments about the differences of the three. I think every reader recognizes this and if you don't provide a few concrete definitions and point out in a clear way why the animal in a tribe has freedom because he can try to overthrow the leadership but people in tyrannic countries have not, then your lack of arguments is obvious for everyone and my work is done.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
În 2014-01-04 16:27, shiret...@web.de a scris: Your definition of freedom is so slippery that you just call the lack of freedom sometimes slavery, sometimes hierarchy or being a team, just which of the names suits you best in order to rationalize your behaviour. I know it's hard to follow arguments when your own agenda is against the conclusion. -- Tiberiu C. Turbureanu Președinte, Fundația Ceata Telefon: +40-761-810-100 GPG: 8B51 53CB 354E 3049 FAE9 3260 F033 8452 4154 1967 Susții libertatea artelor și tehnologiilor? Înscrie-te ca membru! (http://ceata.org/%C3%AEnscrieri)
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
If you had any real arguments I would gladly accept them. There were many situations when people in this forum convinced me with their ideas. So this can't be the reason.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
True, I convinced you once :P So, yeah, the problem is not on your side. And quantumgravity, what have I told you about feeding trolls? No more cookies for tct under the table, okay? ;D
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
I didn't pay attention for a second and then it happend... You better watch out or you'll share my fate and find yourself in the middle of a huge discussion with some troll in no time!
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
În 2014-01-05 01:46, shiret...@web.de a scris: some troll in no time! If supporting the free software philosophy of the GNU project (in this case that freedom is the highest value) is trolling in a free software community such as the Trisquel users community, then something must be wrong. The Trisquel project, the Trisquel community or some members. I will contact Ruben for clarification. -- Tiberiu C. Turbureanu Președinte, Fundația Ceata Telefon: +40-761-810-100 GPG: 8B51 53CB 354E 3049 FAE9 3260 F033 8452 4154 1967 Susții libertatea artelor și tehnologiilor? Înscrie-te ca membru! (http://ceata.org/%C3%AEnscrieri)
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
However, I've not seen the free software movement making this kind of call to authority. Because ethics of FSF based on the ethical dogmat: freedom is the highest value Unfortunately, no-one can prove this statement. It's like a religion, you must belive in this dogmat. Your argumentitivness seems more to stem from problems you have with religion What problems?
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
Sorry for waiting, I didn't have the Internet these day. Is it because you think ... 1.You cann't trust anyone? 2. Giving is better than receiving? 3. Freedom is the highest value? 4. FLOSS fits my selfish interests? 5. Progress is important. And FLOSS is more progressive than proprietary software?
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
În 2014-01-03 10:30, aaz...@mail.ru a scris: Because ethics of FSF based on the ethical dogmat: freedom is the highest value Every movement has ethics and principles, and it promotes them. Unfortunately, no-one can prove this statement. No proof needed. Every animal strives for freedom (even the domestic ones). Humans are no different. If you believe otherwise, distribute WikiLeaks documents and notify the police to arrest you; use corrupt, restricted GNU/Linux distributions or even proprietary systems like Windows and Mac OS; or, why not, become a slave to a farmer and give him all your identity documents to burn them or do as he pleases. It's like a religion you must belive in this dogmat. You are confusing movements with religions. Political movements (socialism, liberalism, environmentalism, etc) are all based on beliefs, ethics, principles and they promote their values. The free software movement is no different then any other movement. Religions believe there is one or more higher powers which controls or oversees humans. They can employ movements too. The free software movement believes no higher power should exist over people, common users. The Church of Emacs is a joke. By expressing and supporting the view that the free software movement is illogical just like a religion you are attacking us, the free software community. You shouldn't expect us to agree with you. Instead, go to OSI, Microsoft and Apple; they already agree with you. You are even more perverse then they are: you are pretending to be a free software supporter to attack the community from inside. -- Tiberiu C. Turbureanu Președinte, Fundația Ceata Telefon: +40-761-810-100 GPG: 8B51 53CB 354E 3049 FAE9 3260 F033 8452 4154 1967 Susții libertatea artelor și tehnologiilor? Înscrie-te ca membru! (http://ceata.org/%C3%AEnscrieri)
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
Every movement has ethics and principles, and it promotes them. Of course. But nobody can promote illogical principles by means of logics. You must appeal to emotions. Maybe I missing something, but I can't see this approach in FSF advocacy. It's like to use a spoon instead of a hammer. It's ineffective. Every animal strives for freedom REALLY?? O_O How about the whole story of domestication of dogs? If every animal strives for freedom, then domestication is impossible. And by the way, how about ants? If you believe otherwise .. I believe otherwise and I don't want to do it. Why? Because I can't see any benefits in these specific situations. Your argument looks like If you don't belive computers are the higest value in my life then throw away your computer right now!. free software movement is illogical just like a religion You got it wrong. Every movement have motivation. But every motivation needs under-logical basis. For example, there isn't any way to prove need to stay alive by means of pure logic. But, if you want to change mind of a person, you must use the same basic illogical beliefs. Example: Person A: You should care about ecology, otherwise your children would live in terrible world of devastation Person B: Hurhurhur! I'm a childfree (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childfree), go away!
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
Every movement has ethics and principles, and it promotes them. Of course. But nobody can promote illogical principles by means of logics. You must appeal to emotions. Maybe I missing something, but I can't see this approach in FSF advocacy. It's like to use a spoon instead of a hammer. It's ineffective. Every animal strives for freedom REALLY?? O_O How about the whole story of domestication of dogs? If every animal strives for freedom, then domestication is impossible. And by the way, how about ants? If you believe otherwise .. I believe otherwise and I don't want to do it. Why? Because I can't see any benefits in these specific situations. Your argument looks like If you don't belive computers are the higest value in my life then throw away your computer right now!. free software movement is illogical just like a religion You got it wrong. Every movement have motivation. But every motivation needs under-logical basis. For example, there isn't any way to prove need to stay alive by means of pure logic. But, if you want to change mind of a person, you must use the same basic illogical beliefs. Example: Person A: You should care about ecology, otherwise your children would live in terrible world of devastation Person B: Hurhurhur! I'm a childfree (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childfree), go away!
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
their campaigning seems effective to me. I don't want shatter your sweet dreams, but can you tell me percentage of computer users who use Trisquel? Put one in a leash and then unleash him. You will see the difference in his attitude. You dodged the answer. Maybe I need to repeat my question. If every animal want to be free, then how is it possible to domesticate them? Don't confuse these with slavery. Slavery is a subset of hierarchy. I can prove it. Let's pretend that slavery isn't a subset of hierarchy. Anarchistic society haven't got any hierarchy. Thus, citizens of anarchistic country can have slaves. But, it's absurd. Thus, because we have only two mutually exclusive options Slavery is a subset of hierarchy and Slavery isn't a subset of hierarchy, then the option Slavery is a subset of hierarchy is true. You can find benefits in each of the three described situations Maybe I wasn't clear. Surely, it's possible to find out positive sides in every situation. But every situation is sum of minuses and pluses. Thus, if I said I can't see benefits, then you must translate it as the sum is a negative number or zero. Freedom is above all How about free corpse or alive slave choice? You know, like 300 spartans. It's because they are reckless and act before they think Then why Bill Gates don't use Trisquel? I don't think he is a reckless idiot.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
Freedom does not have to be the highest value for a user to only accept free software. Are you sure? Because if freedom isn't the highest value, then user can start to use proprietary software because of more important things. Example: Joe has the highest value and it is his nerves. He hates Abrowser, because new versions of Abrowser so slooow. Thus, he started to use semi-proprietary Chromium instead.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
Freedom isn't natural at all. Most sentient life (putting aside non-sentient organisms that can't make decisions at all) is too busy surviving to think about freedom; freedom is a luxury to life in general, a result of having much more than you need to survive. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for freedom, though. Saying that not being free is OK because it's natural would be naturalistic fallacy. We should strive for freedom because freedom makes our lives and our civilization better and more sustainable overall. Sure, sacrificing freedom can give you temporary comfort, but if we keep giving up freedom, our society will devolve into a totalitarian society like North Korea, or a primitive despotism like what the ancient world had, depending on whether technology is preserved. Neither of these are favorable to a free society, and history shows that neither of these are sustainable in the long run.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
În 2014-01-03 18:26, aaz...@mail.ru a scris: their campaigning seems effective to me. I don't want shatter your sweet dreams, but can you tell me percentage of computer users who use Trisquel? I haven't made any statement regarding the users of GNU GPL-licensed software, GNU software or Trisquel distribution. The fact that there are so many developers who do one of the three things I mentioned: license their software under GPL, donate software to GNU and develop free distributions like Trisquel seems to me FSF's campaigning work is effective. Put one in a leash and then unleash him. You will see the difference in his attitude. You dodged the answer. Maybe I need to repeat my question. If every animal want to be free, then how is it possible to domesticate them? By tricking them, giving them immediate benefits and then enslaving them. That's the way of proprietary software developers too. They trick the users to give their freedom for convenience. Don't confuse these with slavery. Slavery is a subset of hierarchy. I can prove it. So what. Proprietary software is a subset of software. It would be wrong to reject software because most of software is proprietary. There is free software as well. So if slavery is a subset of hierarchy, that doesn't make hierarchy a bad thing. There are democracies (which are hierarchies) and those forbid slavery. Anyway, confusion means you say hierarchy = slavery, not hierarchy slavery. Let's pretend that slavery isn't a subset of hierarchy. Anarchistic society haven't got any hierarchy. Thus, citizens of anarchistic country can have slaves. But, it's absurd. Thus, because we have only two mutually exclusive options Slavery is a subset of hierarchy and Slavery isn't a subset of hierarchy, then the option Slavery is a subset of hierarchy is true. Your logic is faulty because you fail to see that anarchy is the system in which there is no single big hierarchical tree with a central root (leadership), but that doesn't mean there are not a lot of smaller hierarchical trees instead. So instead of having a hierarchical community or society, you have an anarchical community or society of smaller independent subgroups, of which some, if not all, are hierarchical. In some of those subgroups you will find slaves. Actually, anarchy drives disorder, violation of individual freedoms and slavery. Thus slavery can happen in hierarchy but in anarchy it will certainly happen. However, this forum of a free system is not the place for a hierarchy/anarchy debate. You can find benefits in each of the three described situations Maybe I wasn't clear. Surely, it's possible to find out positive sides in every situation. But every situation is sum of minuses and pluses. Thus, if I said I can't see benefits, then you must translate it as the sum is a negative number or zero. At some point you can think some rather trivial benefits can weight a lot, more than your freedom. That doesn't mean your are rationale and you're make a good long-term decision when you value benefits over freedom. Sometimes you don't even think of the minuses. You are reckless and just go with it without giving it a time to think and analyse. It's because they are reckless and act before they think Then why Bill Gates don't use Trisquel? I don't think he is a reckless idiot. He is a perverse person who wants freedom just for himself and not for all users. I am pretty sure that if he uses Windows, it's not the version a regular user can get. And I am sure he can modify the system he uses, because Microsoft grants him with the source code. And I am sure he doesn't have any Microsoft backdoor in his system. But this is not the only person who strives for the power to control others and have freedom just for himself. -- Tiberiu C. Turbureanu Președinte, Fundația Ceata Telefon: +40-761-810-100 GPG: 8B51 53CB 354E 3049 FAE9 3260 F033 8452 4154 1967 Susții libertatea artelor și tehnologiilor? Înscrie-te ca membru! (http://ceata.org/%C3%AEnscrieri)
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
În 2014-01-03 18:54, onp...@riseup.net a scris: Freedom isn't natural at all. Most sentient life (putting aside non-sentient organisms that can't make decisions at all) is too busy surviving to think about freedom; freedom is a luxury to life in general, a result of having much more than you need to survive. You can argue that culture is not naturally above all, above survival. And I am not saying it's true or false. But freedom is naturally above all. Afro-american slaves were used as animals to do hard works, were not given enough food, were beaten, were sexually abused and were killed. This doesn't mean they didn't strive for freedom. Some rebelled, and few become free and gave speeches for freedom and slavery abolition. Most of them talked with fellow slaves about these issues and sang beautiful songs about freedom. A slave is always thinking about his freedom. -- Tiberiu C. Turbureanu Președinte, Fundația Ceata Telefon: +40-761-810-100 GPG: 8B51 53CB 354E 3049 FAE9 3260 F033 8452 4154 1967 Susții libertatea artelor și tehnologiilor? Înscrie-te ca membru! (http://ceata.org/%C3%AEnscrieri)
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
Why is it absurd? Your whole argument on this page seems to be from a stance of dodgy semantics and argument for arguments sake. I agree that ethics can be a moveable feast. We could come up with some examples from the Roman arena to the temples of the Aztecs to show how the ethics of one society does not match up with those of another. A stark and simplistic call to ethics that mirrors the type of call to moral rectitude that effectively only references itself as the true moral guardian, without real explanation , is not a great idea. However, I've not seen the free software movement making this kind of call to authority. Your agumentitivness seems more to stem from problems you have with religion than a discussion over how to argue the benefits of free software. It seems a pointless and divisive argument to be having here.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
Humans need to be medically and socially healthy in order to live. Some scientists performed an experiment in Nazi Germany to discover whether people need love to live. The babies which recieved only food, water, shelter, and sanitation died. The babies which recieved food, water, shelter, sanitation, and love lived. A Japanese man worked as a quality control inspector. He hardly ever saw his family. One day, there was a quality issue at the plant he worked at. The man was medically completely healthy. He was in the middle of a phone conversation with his boss when he suddenly collapsed. He lost the will to live. His heart quit beating. He died. If this world is everything, and by world I mean universe, then love should not be necessary to live. Plain and simple truth is, love is necessary to live. How is that posible without there being more to existence? There must be other worlds with angels and devils...and a God!
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
What's love but a second hand emotion --Tina Turner I've also heard the anecdote about the babies and I do believe it. What I don't understand is why do you think angels and devils are required to explain it.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
I am not sure why I spend my time arguing like that. Truth is, this world would be a much better place if people really followed Christianity. It is supposedly the most popular religion, but is that possible with all of the immorality we see? The Bible spends no time trying to convince people that God exists, because at the time the Bible was written, God's presence was obvious to everyone. His presence is still just as obvious, we just live in a world where the media controls what people think about and how they think about it. They say you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. The solution is, if you work the horse hard enough on the way there, it will drink. Someone can tell you the truth, but how can you believe it? All you need is a heavy dose of reality. I do not have enough life experience yet to explain all of my ideas. However, I believe there is truth in them.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
The biggest obstacle to human progress is credit. If nobody cared who recieved credit for progress, people would be more willing to help, and thus thrive!
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
Using proprietary software violates MY code of ethics, which is why I use free software. That fact that it works very well, is free of malware, etc. is really beside the point.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
Using proprietary software violates MY code of ethics By the way, are you a believer or an atheist?
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
The existence of god/gods doesn't pass the laugh test. Religion is an activity for the weak-minded and the single biggest obstacle to human progress.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
Are your ethics based on pure logical reasoning?
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
No. They are based on experience, observations of others, my own sense of logic and (at least to some extent) the law. Of course, laws and the experiences of others may be based in part on input from religion, but I have had not direct input from religion as I was (thankfully) shielded from this during childhood. I'm not an 'athiest', but rather a 'none.'
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
And how can you explain your position about Free Software Movement?
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
The four freedoms are entirely consistent with my code of ethics. Pretty straightforward.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
Quakers are a strict sect of Christians. Most Christians are not Quakers. What is fatalism?
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatalism incorrect belief that we have no input in our lives, fate determines everything
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
I think we'd like to think that purely 'we' makes the choises. But you have to consider that we are not singular entities, each of us are made up of several parts that cooperate to make the choise. Our emotions tells us one thing, and our logic the other. Do we decide what emotions to have at a particular time? Maybe it is possible through technology, but currently i do not consciously decide what emotions to have. So i don't know whether it is correct to say that we have freedom, as in the moment we were born(of which we did not choose to do), we were 'given the combined functionalities of our parents(of which we did not pick).
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
Ethics is the whole point of Free Software. Also, there is political argument for FLOSS
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
Freedom is not necessarily the ability to do anything You're misunderstood me. You can't behave freely AT ALL. You're a marionette in hands of the God/laws of Physics(atheistic variant of fatalism). Freedom is an illusion.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
Christians believe that man has a free will, not that people are puppets in the hands of God.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
I can be wrong, but I heard that quakers(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers) are fatalists.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
Ethics are not the only argument for FLOSS. You're right. But the ethical argument is the most absurd for me.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
On 18/12/13 19:20, aaz893 wrote: Why non-FLOSS is unethical? Because proprietary software stops a user from having control over their computer. Many forms of proprietary software save file/s on the computer, which can only be used by proprietary software. If a user sends a file created by a proprietary program to another user, that other user then has the choice of getting a copy of the proprietary software and accepting the EULA, or not using the file. In a lot of cases, proprietary software has a cascading effect and most people end up signing the EULA. All of those users rely on the software developer, who can change the EULA whenever he/she wants to. I highly recommend watching the film Terms And Conditions May Apply for reasons as to why this is dangerous for society: http://tacma.net/. As RMS says, proprietary software is anti-social. All of the users become helpless, and their acceptance of proprietary software cascades and makes more users helpless. So to answer your question, I think proprietary software is unethical because it is anti-social. Andrew.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
Because proprietary software stops a user from having control over their computer. How about this case: There is not such thing as freedom. All humans are slaves of the God.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
On 19/12/13 23:13, aaz893 wrote: Because proprietary software stops a user from having control over their computer. How about this case: There is not such thing as freedom. All humans are slaves of the God. Software developers aren't gods, so no need to be a slave. :-) Andrew.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
man,never heard such crap before.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
Freedom is not necessarily the ability to do anything; it is the ability to do what is right. People should not need to be ruled by a sinful man, and all humans are sinful. That is why I use libre software. How can you live with atheism, the idea that there is no reason why we are alive? God is just and good, thus I do not mind the idea of being a slave of God. If there is no God, there is no reason to live.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
How can you live with atheism, the idea that there is no reason why we are alive? That's not atheism. That's nihilism. Don't confuse the two. All being an atheist means is that you don't believe in any god or gods. More colloquially, that you don't believe in any religion. Most atheists I have seen (including myself) are not nihilists, and don't think that there's no reason to live or whatever. I know it's hard to imagine, but if you ever find that the evidence for whatever god you believe in is unconvincing after all, you'll see that it really doesn't matter. You just get on with your life. (One exception: if you get forced out of a religious community you're attached to because of this, I've heard that the result is devastating. But this is because of loss of a community, not the loss of a belief in a god.)
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
Ethics is the whole point of Free Software.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
ssdclickofdeath FTW
[Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
Why non-FLOSS is unethical? There is a lot of ethic systems. For example ,a meat is unethical for me. I'm an atheist and atheism is unethical for somebody else. Etc. And I can't see any method to convince followers of one ethical system to adopt another ethical system. For example, convince a radical muslim to accept atheism as ethical thing. Thus, ethic is (mostly) area of emotions and dogmas. If you saying You must not [use a proprietary software]/[eat meat]/[beat your wife], because this is unethical, then it is equivalent of You must not eat apples, because apples are unappetizing, IMHO.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
Religion is not ethics and ethics are not religion. Don't confuse the two.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
Religion is not ethics and ethics are not religion. How could I confuse them? I'm an atheist. I don't have a religion, but I have my personal ethics.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
Ethics are not the only argument for FLOSS. Security, support, costs, all come to mind when it comes to use FLOSS. The ethical side of it... It has it's place, but honestly I think some FLOSS ideas might as well be considered unethical, so it is a matter of balance, in which two persons can disagree in many points while agreeing in many others.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
you might want to see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
I know RMS likes to nitpick... so what? The reasons I pointed out are totally fine arguments to convince someone to let go of windows and use free software is good. You can teach them later.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Is ethic really good argument for FLOSS?
Very interesting. Please, give me subtitles.
