Beneficial proprietary? That sounds like fair trade organic slaves. So no,
still mostly bad.
But even bad entities do good things sometimes.
For example Facebook which is a very disgusting and despicable giant
corporation [1] [2] releases some free software.
Thus it's better to say that
The free software movement mustn't be satisfied by someone who makes the
software free some time after the release.
It _is_ better than releasing the source code never, but honouring this puts
us in danger to accept the bad practise of this companies.
The user must own his freedom right now,
On Apr 29, 2013 11:35 PM, em9...@lavabit.com wrote:
What is Grovel?
Seconded. The only thing I could possibly guess is Google, but that
doesn't sound right at all.
Hey all,
What do you all think about proprietary companies that have been
beneficial to the free software movement like id software? I know there are
some who are using free software for malicious means like Microsloth and
Grovel.. but I think it's worth mentioning the likes of id,
It's great when anyone does good, but that doesn't excuse unethical actions
like developing proprietary software. Even if the unethical actions had some
part in their contributions, they are still unethical actions which should be
condemned.
Consider the following situation: a slave owner
I don't consider it really beneficial to the free software movement. By the
time they make their software free, the large majority of its former audience
would of moved on to another proprietary platform/game.
That said, it is better late than never to make the software free.
