Doug posted on Thu, 19 Jul 2012 01:41:45 -0400 as excerpted: > Oh, I can see the replies now: why not just use Linux? Well, when I > can get AutoCAD (for a reasonable price or free) and WordPerfect, and a > few other goodies on Linux, then I'll consider it. > They don't run on WINE. In the meantime, I use both.
FWIW, I understand and accept why you don't "just use Linux" -- all those servantware apps not available on Linux... and unlike freedomware, not portable by anyone but the original providers, because they ARE servantware, with the owners disrespecting what at least some on the freedomware side consider basic human rights in the software realm, the right to (legally) read, understand, modify, and distribute those modifications in ordered to help others, all the software they use. And consider this: most software, including most freedomware, includes a waiver of rights that the (legal) user would otherwise have, rights to damages for claims of fitness for a particular purpose, etc. The legal wording of such waivers states that the user agrees to waive claims for such damages against the developer. The reality is, in software, it's very expensive and rare to be able to rightly guarantee such claims -- that's the realm of real-time control software used in airplanes, ships, nuclear and other power plants, water and sewer plants for large cities, etc. Proving the correctness of code to that degree takes quite a bit of time and generally, at least tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. So it's not really realistic for software developers to assume such responsibility and the waivers do make sense. *BUT*, and a big "but" it is, there's a legal principle of meeting of the minds, of a fair agreement based on a reasonable understanding of the risks and responsibilities assumed, and my argument is that without access to the sources to examine (and/or to have experts they trust and designate, examine), users do not have the ability to rightly understand what they are committing to and thus cannot fairly agree to such waivers in the first place. Thus, the argument is that in ordered for these waivers of responsibility and rights to damages to be fair and legal, they should require that the code be available to examine, and that such availability NOT be conditioned on unreasonable NDAs or the like, that would prevent the same "ordinary" people the agreements are targeted at being able to take advantage of such ability to examine (or to designate an expert they trust to examine, if they don't read source code). Thus, freedomware would continue as it is, while servantware would have a choice, they could either effectively become freedomware, or they could stop demanding that users waive their rights in regard to fitness for a particular purpose or for claims of damage, etc. Of course, the price of insurance for such vendors would then skyrocket, since they're now taking on serious liability risks, which would mean they'd have to jack their prices accordingly. As I said, it IS possible to make such guarantees, but the software to which such guarantees apply typically costs thousands of dollars (up, tens of thousands of dollars isn't unreasonable, hundreds of thousands of dollars is possible) a seat. Which would of course price proprietary servantware right out of the normal personal use and small business software market. But it would be a natural effect of the choice of the developer to stay proprietary and assume the responsibility for risks they are currently unfairly placing on the user, unfairly, because the user has no way to properly inspect the software to see what risks they're actually agreeing to assume responsibility for. It's only the warped legal system exception to the fair meeting of the minds condition for a legal agreement, that has allowed the current situation in the first place. Meanwhile, while I accept your willingness to sell out your own rights, it's your computer and your rights you're selling out, after all, don't expect me to simply go along with any suggestion that I should sell out my own rights, similarly. That's something I don't and won't do, which is why I don't use MS Windows, AutoCAD, WordPerfect... or for that matter, the proprietary servantware flash plugin available on Linux, or proprietary graphics drivers, etc. Of course, it can be noted that if my employer for instance, assumed such risks and made such agreements for me, and I agreed not to violate them under the limited terms of my employment, then I could use proprietaryware in the course of that employment, etc, so there is an out for employees simply doing their job, within the confines of said job (tho whether it's reasonable for said employer to make such agreements is an entirely different subject, see for instance the Ernie Ball case where the guitar-string company learned that lesson the hard way after the BSA goons came calling, but given that many employers do...). But I can't and won't make such agreements for myself. But I can understand others choosing to make them... -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman ___________________________________________________ This message is from the kde mailing list. Account management: https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde. Archives: http://lists.kde.org/. More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.
