On 03.06.2018 19:52, Louigi Verona wrote:
Saying that proprietary software is immoral is baseless.
That you either never read or just failed to understand Stallman's
arguments doesn't make it baseless. Though even he has no problem with
proprietary (nonfree) software, as long as the authors keep it to
themselves.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html
The problem starts once you do anything that encourages another person
to use non-free software, because in doing so, they will give up the 4
freedoms. In turn, the entity controlling the non-free software gains
influence.
Calling that immoral in itself may sound over the top at first, but it
should be seen in the context of all the dark incentives and actual
practices connected to it:
- Asking users to pay for licenses at costs way in excess of making a
living.
- Bothering paying customers with license management.
- Pushing others to buy licenses to the same software for being able to
work with closed file formats.
- Newer program versions that write files that can't be read by older
versions (even if no new feature was used), to force all collaborators
to update.
- Making and keeping things incompatible to potential competition in
order to attain a larger piece of the cake and to maximise user dependency.
- Keeping deficiencies around that users may hope to be addressed in a
costly update.
- Injecting spyware or other malware.
- DRM schemes.
- Incentive to create addictive software.
That said, there is no justice in how hard it is to earn a living
working on Free Software and in how developers are treated by users at
times, either.
--
Thorsten Wilms
thorwil's design for free software:
http://thorwil.wordpress.com/
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
