Re: Using proprietary software [was: Re: one-paragraph comments on s/w freedom being more important than tech niftiness]
* John Darrington [2020-05-12 12:28]: > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 09:34:50AM -0700, Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) > wrote: > > > However, using proprietary tools also isn't inherently unethical. > > > > (Also, if you're using tools to produce proprietary software (which > > free tools cheerfully allow), the debate of which tools it is ethical > > to *use* kind of goes out the window.) > > You are correct. The GNU/FSF position is sometimes misunderstood on this > issue. In case anyone isn't sure, let me try to summarize it: > > Using proprietary software is NOT unethical. But it is unwise for > a lot of reasons, and hurts yourself. > > Producing proprietary software IS unethical because it hurts the people > who will use it. As ethics is personal issue, for me is using proprietary software not ethical.
Using proprietary software [was: Re: one-paragraph comments on s/w freedom being more important than tech niftiness]
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 09:34:50AM -0700, Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) wrote: > However, using proprietary tools also isn't inherently unethical. > > (Also, if you're using tools to produce proprietary software (which > free tools cheerfully allow), the debate of which tools it is ethical > to *use* kind of goes out the window.) You are correct. The GNU/FSF position is sometimes misunderstood on this issue. In case anyone isn't sure, let me try to summarize it: Using proprietary software is NOT unethical. But it is unwise for a lot of reasons, and hurts yourself. Producing proprietary software IS unethical because it hurts the people who will use it. J'
Re: one-paragraph comments on s/w freedom being more important than tech niftiness
On 2020-05-08 17:40, Mark Galassi wrote: Dear GNU folk, Long ago I had a conversation with a fellow long-time GNU developer. We were talking about how we had come upon free software in the 1980s and early 1990s. We were discussing how sometimes we had felt exhilerated by, for example, the coming of gcc, or gcc-2, which were so technically excellent. And then we both commented that we had eventually reached the conclusion that the usefulness of gcc, or the linux kernel, or other great products, had come mostly because of the freedom that comes with s/w, rather than the fact that at the moment it is the coolest s/w around. Years latere we then noticed that, for example, gcc had played leapfrog with various proprietary compilers, passing in and out of the top performance slot (that's not true anymore). Other technical matters are important in compilers, like the safety of the code, quality of diagnostics, integration with tools, compilation speed, arch support, ease of retargetting, reliability, version-over-version stability, standard conformance: just to name a few things. In dev tools, being proprietary is not just an ideological issue. It is actually a technical disadvantage, like an important missing feature. Anyway, nobody in their right mind pays licenses for proprietary tools any more except in super niche areas. But sticking with depending on tools that offer freedom turns out to be both ethical and deeply strategic in the long run. However, using proprietary tools also isn't inherently unethical. (Also, if you're using tools to produce proprietary software (which free tools cheerfully allow), the debate of which tools it is ethical to *use* kind of goes out the window.)
Re: one-paragraph comments on s/w freedom being more important than tech niftiness
* Mark Galassi [2020-05-10 19:37]: > > Dear GNU folk, > > Long ago I had a conversation with a fellow long-time GNU developer. We > were talking about how we had come upon free software in the 1980s and > early 1990s. > > We were discussing how sometimes we had felt exhilerated by, for > example, the coming of gcc, or gcc-2, which were so technically > excellent. > > And then we both commented that we had eventually reached the conclusion > that the usefulness of gcc, or the linux kernel, or other great > products, had come mostly because of the freedom that comes with s/w, > rather than the fact that at the moment it is the coolest s/w around. > > Years latere we then noticed that, for example, gcc had played leapfrog > with various proprietary compilers, passing in and out of the top > performance slot (that's not true anymore). But sticking with depending > on tools that offer freedom turns out to be both ethical and deeply > strategic in the long run. That is great that freedom is in the first place. Now even more needed! Jean
one-paragraph comments on s/w freedom being more important than tech niftiness
Dear GNU folk, Long ago I had a conversation with a fellow long-time GNU developer. We were talking about how we had come upon free software in the 1980s and early 1990s. We were discussing how sometimes we had felt exhilerated by, for example, the coming of gcc, or gcc-2, which were so technically excellent. And then we both commented that we had eventually reached the conclusion that the usefulness of gcc, or the linux kernel, or other great products, had come mostly because of the freedom that comes with s/w, rather than the fact that at the moment it is the coolest s/w around. Years latere we then noticed that, for example, gcc had played leapfrog with various proprietary compilers, passing in and out of the top performance slot (that's not true anymore). But sticking with depending on tools that offer freedom turns out to be both ethical and deeply strategic in the long run. I wonder if anyone here would care to send me examples of how they came to feel this viscerally, and what examples drove home for them that freedom is what gives you a deeper convenience than the occasional technical peak. If I get responses I will summarize it in a brief article and post it back here.
