That's not slavery at all. It sounds to me like dependence on a commune. The
problem with that comparison, though, is proprietary software creates
dependence; dependence on a commune for food is caused by nature, not people,
so a question of ethics isn't raised. The difficulties of escaping f
> " It's just someone choosing to submit to someone else and taking on
> the title "slave". Because it's not actual slavery, you can back out
> and otherwise assert your right to freedom."
>
> proprietary software fits perfectly to this description. You _can_
> back out of the "slavery" of a pr
About the closest I can think of is the use of LGPL in software, where as
Free software can be distributed simply as a binary in a proprietary program.
Even then this is merely a compromise because the additional software isn't
Free.
The big issue is that the only distinction between propriet
Just a question :
Are there ethical arguments that justify to use proprietary softwares rather
than free softwares ?
"I'm not sure what you mean here. LibreOffice wasn't offered by Microsoft as
an alternative. Microsoft only developed Microsoft Office."
No, you got me wrong. I　argued that proprietary software resembles D/s more
than slavery because - instead of real slavery - it doesn't prevent people
fro
I think you misunderstood my mention of whipping. I didn't say that it was in
any way connected to leaving, and I didn't mean to imply that either.
Whipping is sometimes a BDSM activity that people choose to partake in.
Slaves don't have a choice in the matter; if their owner decides to whip
"But what if you need Microsoft Office, and LibreOffice can't suit your
needs? "
You're mixing up things. Offering choices is not the same as using the whip,
i.e. actively holding somebody back.
You describe a slave owner, telling his slave:
"you are free to go, but then I won't give you foo
quantumgravity said:
> Once I　install microsoft office on my computer, that doesn't mean I will
> get punished if I decide to get rid of it - I can just delete it.
But what if you need Microsoft Office, and LibreOffice can't suit your needs?
This has been the case for people in the past, and no
To clarify, I don't think slavery is in general similar to proprietary
software. I just think some aspects of it are comparable.
"If we compare proprietary software to slavery, D/s is more like choosing not
to assert control over a libre program than choosing to use a proprietary
program. "
Well, according to your statement about D/s
" It's just someone choosing to submit to someone else and taking on the
title "sla
riftyful said:
> Now then, if someone makes the choice to be a slave and they happy with the
> way they are treated, is that wrong? If a person enslaves someone who
wishes
> to be enslaved and is completely okay with it, and they do not force that
upon
> other people, what is wrong with that?
riftyful said:
> But I don't mean to martinet, just making sure this is a loose comparison.
It is.
But regarding being able to move to freedom, oftentimes slaves could
ostensibly move to freedom, e.g. by paying their owners. It just didn't work
like that in practice.
Though not quite to th
But they're not just limiting their own freedom, they're limiting everyone
elses too. They are saying, effectively, "it's OK to publish proprietary
software and it's OK to limit people's use and freedom through it".
I am pretty sure slavery is worse than proprietary software, seeing as slaves
could not stop being slaves and move to freedom. But I don't mean to
martinet, just making sure this is a loose comparison. Now then, if someone
makes the choice to be a slave and they happy with the way they are tr
Well, what if someone does smoke, but they do not mind their health being
endangered at all? Sure, that does not make smoking good - I suppose that
over the time people set a common standard that damaging one's health is bad,
so this can apply here. But is it incorrect or unethical?
Let's t
Just watched it, not bad. Nothing totally new and amazing, but interesting.
BBC Horizon 2014-2015 Episode 4: Inside the Dark Web
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTjNkbLBEqg
Terms and Conditions May Apply (pre snowden)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2084953/
I'd like to point out that Skype users did *NOT* "agree to being tracked".
Let's explicitly state a fact that in our hearts pretty much all of us
already know:
Having clicked "I agree" or whatever to 50 pages or however much dense
legalese in order to use a "free" program does not validly q
Modification of another quote I know:
"Software freedom doesn't matter until it does"
With regards to Skype, for many years it continued to be a useful, P2P
VoIP network, despite being proprietary software. At the start its
encrypted connections attracted use by people who couldn't use phone
netw
Thank you a lot, onpon4, for checking. :-)
Perhaps "by which" would have been better suited but I had to try.
"Whereby" usage is fine. Not a word I personally tend to use, though; I had
to look it up in a dictionary to be sure of what it meant.
Proprietary software is always bad, there is no context which can show us the
contrary.
>As R. M. Stallman said many times, proprietary software is bad because the
user does not control it; instead, the software controls the user. But is
that always true? What if being in control of the sof
If it does not do harm to the user, is it okay?
Depends on your definition of harm.
The libre argument would possibly be along the lines that it's not harm that
registers with the user, but is still harm none the less.
Those who live by the market can be manipulated by the market. In other
^ This. So much this.
I've spoken to people who've read all about the Snowden NSA stuff, and don't
really care. It infuriates me actually. They would be livid if someone read
their snail mail, yet in the digital realm, suddenly it's a-ok? Bizzare.
it's ok because they don't understand what's all about, if they see the
postman snoop in their envelope, read the content and then put in the mailbox
for sure they will be mad of him, it a matter of perception.
riftyful said:
> What if being in control of the software is not important to the user?
The problem with proprietary software is that you don't have that choice.
With libre software, you do. If you don't feel the need to control it, you
can just run it as is.
Personally, I don't very often
Hello!
I talked to some people recently, about how Skype is bad because it's
spyware. But they said that the people who use Skype agree to being tracked,
so it's okay. I do not think this case must be exactly true, but it was still
interesting to think about.
As R. M. Stallman said many t
27 matches
Mail list logo
