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 software is not important
to the user? What if the user is okay with spying and does not mind sharing
data with someone? While many people would surely see free software as
superior, many also don't really care about their freedom or privacy. If it
does not do harm to the user, is it okay? Or is proprietary software always
wrong? What is your opinion on this, and why?
Regarding to what you said about how if some people don't care about freedom
and privacy then proprietary software is not bad, I have to say that it's
like saying that if people don't care about a their health then tabacco is
good. Proprietary software is bad, the fact that someone refuse to see how
bad it is doesn't make it good, tabacco is bad for you and for the people
around you that is a fact and non-free software is worse because with tabacco
the only thing whereby someone else can excert his/her power over you is by
your addiction, something you can potentially control by the power of will
and you can even do that without the help of other individuals. With
proprietary software is diferent: the developer have a wider range of things
they can do, and doesn't matter how strong your will is because you cannot
evade their control on your own. Do you want to have an idea of the reach of
their control? Try looking for Karen Sandler on your favourite search engine
or youtube.
I think this is a matter conciousness: we know it doesn't feel good to be
hunted by a panther but we are not fully aware of what it implies, we don't
usually know how it truely feels to be eaten alive...among other things.
>Thank you for your time.
It's a pleasure to share time you :)
PD: Could someone tell me if the use of "whereby" is correct in this context?
Thank you.
