Freetards BTFO!

Of course you can buy soup and it will be YOUR soup, but if you buy some shitty adobe creative cloud license, it's not YOUR software. Adobe can take that license away whenever they feel like it. However with soup they can't take it away without it being considered theft. a license != food.

>food analogy
stopped paying attention there

>restaurant uses nonfree ingredients
>tfw the botnet wants me to starve
kek
/thread

Why do freetards freak out when someone just uses the software that they like?

You know more than 99% of the time it's because it doesn't actually harm them and they need to use it to do normal functions, right?

Do you complain about the safety of someone's method of traveling to work just because it's "technically, with an extremely small probability" less safe than the method you are able to use? In the entire world, there's very few cases where the benefits still don't outweigh the risks, and people generally use the transportation that is relatively safer when it's reasonable.

>it's YOUR soup
Yeah, just make sure to buy your soup once at month, but it's yours, and don't think about sharing it with a friend, that's not allowed.

And if you try to change our SECRET recipe, we might sue you. Also remember to connect WiFi before drinking your soup you won't be able to drink it.

Attached: [Niku] Asobi Asobase 01 (BDRip 720p V2) [B24952C2] (00:05:04.387) 0002.png (1280x720, 932K)

I mean, that argument is literally refuting itself.
I don't feel safe knowing what kind of shit they do in the kitchen, but if I cook myself, I know exactly the ingredients, how it was prepared, and the fact that no one busted a nut in the boiling water.
Besides, serious resturants do at the very least list the ingredients, otherwise people with intolerances could risk getting sick.
Bad argument. Really bad argument.

#REKT

I have a peanut allergy I really need to know the ingredients of the soup or I could die

Imagine being at computers...

Except the argument doesn't refute itself, you just didn't read it.

He didn't say anything about you feeling safe, he didn't tell you to do anything up or down if you feel unsafe. He literally just said you don't have a right to know how someone makes soup. Your argument that you have a right to feel safe is invalid, you only have a right to not buy soup that makes you feel unsafe. Your flawed position is fully addressed by OP's pic.

BTW you don't actually feel unsafe buying soup from some place that isn't a literal cesspool, everyone knows this.

>don't have a right to know how someone makes soup
I do if I have a food allergy.

Good analogy desu

Technology companies face similar liability as restaurants concerning the issues you're talking about. For instance Boeing has a software issue with the 737 MAX that has killed over 500 people. They are for sure going to face liability over that.

The analog works fine.
You can buy the soup from the restaurant, but let's say you want to sell that soup on their behalf. You are granted a license to reproduce that soup for others. You cannot modify it, you cannot sell the recipe to others, you can only make soup and maybe eat it.
Compare that to a family recipe, or one recipes that are in the public domain. You can modify them, sell them, and redistribute them however you like.

Attached: 1546441476038.png (446x384, 232K)

Not really how it works. You can ask about allergens in the soup, but they can decide to not tell you. You're then expected to not eat the soup on YOUR volition, you still don't get access to knowledge about the recipe.

>Tfw license for food in my gut is revoked and got sued

Attached: 1558009482990.jpg (665x625, 64K)

>assume it's fine, their a company after all
>eat soup
>get sick because they don't tell me what's in it
>sue because they wouldn't tell me
lol.

Attached: 1556621835139.jpg (395x1024, 60K)

>soup analogy
when you buy a car you can take it apart..
modify it and add it whatever you want if you know what you are doing...

When you build something based on existing technology
Programming languages, libraries, mathematical formulas
No one asks you to pay for it ..
And you still get the basics to build something of your own ..
Asking for money for what you've built is not against the law ..
But it's a spitting in the face for all those who preceded you
Who chose to build free technologies

SO FUCK OFF OP NECK YOURSELF YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT

Attached: rage.jpg (442x293, 79K)

The only part about this analogy that fails is that you can't copyright a soup. If I figure out your soup recipe, I am allowed to make it, sell it, and profit from it and you're not allowed any recompense. In software this isn't allowed, if I compile your code and you've attached a license then I need to comply with the license, which might mean not compiling it at all.

The other complaints above are pretty out there.

When I buy soup from the resturant I demand all to be escorted to the kitchen when I can inspect all the ingredients and then cook it myself

He forgot some important details about the soup. The soup never runs out, this soup can stay pristine forever, it can also change taste and become something you did not initially pay for and even cause harm to you, so you're left with this never ending soup that makes you either have to accept the harm or not eat it at all.

And? The only point that matters is you don't get to know the recipe. The closest you'll get in the situation you're describing is the public will learn there's an allergen of a specific kind in the soup.

What the fuck? No if they tell you it has no nuts then it has nuts their ass is getting sued. Why do you think every single package in the grocery store lists all the potential allergens? For fun? You are a fucking goddamn moron Jesus fucking Christ you're stupid.

>y-you didn't read it
God these childish responses are so adorable.
The whole point of the post is that they should be able to not give out the recipe. I told you why not knowing how something is made is a bad thing for you as a customer, and also highlighted the risks of eating out in general.
And yes, I've both seen and had incidents, so I do feel unsafe even in non-cesspools. Stop projecting your rootless cosmopolitanism.
And yes, you do have a right to feel safe when eating something. You are literally speaking like the most cucked corporate bootlicker on Earth.
Get fucked, and don't you DARE respond again in such a pathetically intellectually dishonest manner.

Soups don't gather data about you in the background.

Attached: org2j5jv4v3z.jpg (668x720, 47K)

You're entitled to know what ingredients are in something, though. What if it has something in it that makes you sick? The same principles apply to software. Having a backdoor might not matter to most people who don't do anything, but a backdoor is important to anyone who works with sensitive information, like a doctor.

What is that supposed to imply?
Baking cakes is great.

The recipe is more so the instructions on compilation rather than the code itself. I have the right to know what food I am consuming, and that's we have food labels for everything.
Of course I don't audit everything but if I get something nasty from open source software I at least have the ability to look through the code and find out what it did.

Attached: D6QA7CDWwAAttvq.jpg (575x411, 38K)

Based freetard

Think of all of the possibilities for the cake you could make, though.

That's a pretty shitty analogy.
To counter with my own shitty analogy, it's more like it's MY digestive system, and your fucking waiter has me strapped down and is force-feeding me whatever garbage they want to.

Attached: 1402886827853.jpg (900x810, 55K)

You didn't read his post, not to the point of comprehension. You are trying to bring up outside arguments that he has even already addressed.

>You should be able to
First of all, not related to whether or not the argument is refuting itself. Your argument about risks is stupid, anyone that has real risks with software chooses to use software that doesn't present such risks, and they have the tools to do that.

The analogy is accurate and it pretty well compares the issues, but that'd be inconvenient to you so instead we get some bullshit about allergens.

Knowing what does and doesn't have peanuts doesn't tell you the recipe anymore than an OS having TCI/IP support tells you it's source code. You never have a right to the recipe unless literally the recipe hurts people.

Why do americans need food analogy on everything?

Is there shrimp in the soup? I'm allergic.
Is the soup prepared according to local health code? I don't want to get E. coli.

You're a drooling retard.

If you buy something without knowing what's inside, you're a retard. Ask what's inside *before* buying. If you're unsure the thing has something that might make you sick, then don't buy.
You're not entitled to anything. Grocery stores listing the ingredients are only complying with law, and law isn't what makes something ethical.
In an ideal world, every food would have their ingredients listed on the package, not because of law enforcement, but because consumers aren't drooling retards and know what's good for them, and selling something without telling the ingredients would be the best way to have no client.

This has never happened in software except in the case of hacking, which is illegal and not comparable to proprietary software.

Hell there's plenty of viruses that have source code available.

>y-you didn't read it once again!!1
>you bring up "outside arguments"
>your argument about risks is stupid because i said so!!!11
I warned you, but you still chose to be retarded.
Just kill yourself at this point, man.

You forgot a reaction image.

But keep whining, the analogy and its point are still valid.

every valuable person to society should know how to compile.

GWX

>bogdan botezatu
>derp derp compile it now freetards..
open Cookbook = gnu/linux Manuel
problem solved..

FPBP
Also, if I buy soup from a restaurant, I can freely modify it to my tastes. I'm entitled to know it's composition so I am aware of allergens and dietary information. And I can the take the soup and sell or give it away, with or without modification. It's not unreasonable to ask for the same rights when buying software.

But that isn't the point, the fact is that if someone just gave you cake ingredients for your birthday, you should feel offended or confused. Only someone that specifically asked for that should receive that. Knowing how to do something doesn't mean you should be expected to do anything.

>compiling is hard durrr

imagine unironically believing this

the absolute state of wintards

>from sale to gifts
If someone cares enough to give you a cake for your birthday, he will also likely have zero problems telling you what's inside and how it was made.
Seriously, these analogies are getting more and more retarded.

That's also not the point of the pic, try again.

If there was some issue with the cake that the cake maker should address, the point is they STILL should be making the cake. You still don't get it.

>just gave you cake ingredients for your birthday
no no no..
you pay for that fucking cake, thats what offend me kido..
You get lost in all these pitiful "sophistication reactions"

Why when they offer you something
Given to you for free and you can do with him as much as you like feel insulting ??

You are moving the goalposts at every response and talk like a middle school edgy teenager, please go cry somewhere else.

>le "it's muh soup" analogy
THANK YOU FOR CHOOSING RESTAURANT INC.!
This license agreement is between Restaurant Inc. and, depending where you live, you (the soup eater).
By eating the soup you accept the terms to the following EULA. If you do not accept them, do not eat the soup.

1. License.
This soup is licensed, not sold. Under this agreement, we grant you the right to eat the soup so long as you are the only person to eat this soup. You may not share this soup with anybody (e.g. feed a child). Adding additional ingredients (e.g. salt) or using utensils (e.g. spoon) from non-authorized sources makes your soup non-genuine, and in that situation, you do not have the license to eat the soup. You may work around technical limitations around eating the soup. You may not reverse-engineer the soup. You may not transfer the soup to a third-party

2. Privacy.
By accepting this agreement, you agree that we may monitor some of the ways you eat the soup (such as your hand movement, your mouth movement, your body movement et cetera) in order to better our product and customer experience. You agree that your first name, last name, email, phone number and home address are valid as per registering to eat in this restaurant. You agree that this information may be shared with a third party (such as advertisers, employers or the government).

3. Support
Because this soup is given "as is", we do not offer support for this product.

4. Damages
You can recover from Restaurant Inc. only direct damages up to $5.00.
You cannot recover any other damages including (but not limited to) choking, food poisoning and death.
You forfeit your right to sue Restaurant Inc. under any circumstances as per agreeing to this license by eating the soup.

Attached: 1549860330987.png (512x512, 159K)

software can be open source but not free.
windows could be open source and not free.
not many people have the ability to read source code and know what it's doing and fix it.

out sourcing development could work. you find a bug, submit it along with the fix. if it's up to standards it can be used and the bug fixer could get payed for their work. Same with new features.

they pay people to work full time. they could also pay people for in essence contract work.

good post

I am not.

Look, this is clearly going over your head. In real life, when you buy a cake for someone, you make sure the cake isn't chocolate if they're allergic to chocolate. That's how real life works when you interact with other people. The actual practice, as it is really done in the real world, of cake and birthdays is incompatible with the strategy seen . This presents and proves the fact that open source software isn't a universal constant you pin an ideology on, just because of practical real life, not ideology. You then resorted to an ideology that doesn't actually bring up a problem with cake buying, as anyone who has ever bought a birthday cake already knows.

But I guess the goalposts moved or something.

if you debugging windows and you are a tard enough to report your fix to microsoft They'll sue you..

High IQ.

>puts shit in your soup and you just dont know

that is their recepy and fuck off

Based

This is why Open Sores software is crap -- they don't give you a cake -- and the worst is, if they actually bake you a shitty cake, and you start throwing up blood, they nope the fuck out and tell you that it's your fault.

Attached: Paint Jobs.jpg (864x487, 299K)

Based and souppilled

>using 23 years with windows
playing video games browsing useless shit watching anime and fap.
consider to kill myself daily
>using 2 years gnu/linux
learning systems,programming,networking and computers in general..
get a relevant job
IQ goes up from 105 to 127
maybe its better to make your own soup sometimes..

If only baking cake was as easy as ./configure && make && make install
But you can always just shove the ingredients onto wifed and it'll make something out of them

I was looking for this post.

But you're free to take that soup home, share it with friends, add some spices and copy the recipe.

> posts his own google gaytube on Jow Forums
> thinks they have a point
> best comment ever.. about his own comment

Attached: 1547453022287.png (625x423, 73K)

user are you me?
Except I still have time to fap, anime, and vidya; just way less.

freetards dont even argue for such a statement. stallman agrees that it is fine to sell software, he agrees with copyrights, and believes in the need for some kind of social welfare system to support artists and innovators.

however it is perfectly true that all software *can* be open source, because it is still protected by copyright, licenses, and contract laws. it really just takes the most minor modifications to the business model to enable it.
nota bene, open source is not "free software". it is a development methodology/pr/marketing choice, not an ideology.

people with mit/bsd/wtfpl leanings hostile to the entire category of "copyright" generally also agree that it is fine to keep code a trade secret.

imagine being so fat

Stallman already addressed this inane analogy

stupid comparison is stupid

soup doesn't collect and send information about you

it's a one time transaction with no further involvement completed at the place of purchase

that guy is a retard and so is op

bake the cake, bigot

>ingredients not listed
>customer dies of allergies

>alt-right retard beliving in spooks like rights or morals
why arent you le radical individualist like max stainer?

>using analogies in arguments

just don't, you'll always look like a reductionist retard

>secret recipe
Is he ordering soup from KFC or something?

The funny thing is that RMS actually AGREES with this guy. In fact, RMS explicitly said that, for example, if a microwave has closed source software running in it BUT it cannot be connected to the internet and cannot be updated or modified then its not a problem for him. A soup fits that description, because it’s a fucking soup

When 90% of soup is proven is poison, it's a fair call to want to watch it be made

Attached: FB_IMG_1557415196718.jpg (720x720, 70K)

Does soup usually have drm in it I think I'm going to be sick

Internet of Food when?

asobased

But I'm allowed to resell it, share it and reverse engineer it, which I should be allowed with software as well because (((intellectual property))) isn't real. Yet here we are.
Also, a soup can't be infinitely copied and distributed which means it's infinitely more valuable than software. Since software has 0 value, you're expected to put it in public domain and not have DRM. If you don't share it's source code people can't know if it's malware, and if you have DRM it means you're controlling people. So they should use an open source alternative since it's clearly a superior option. Since open source is the only option you have no reason to hide your source code.

Recipes in cook books can be intellectual property.

Intellectual property isn't real.
Also, it's then the equivalent of open source but proprietary.

Soup © - tastes great, beautiful smell, despite the recipe being a secret, leaves your stomach full and satisfied, the waitress coming nearby with a smile, you tell that it was delicious, ask to thank the chief.

GNU/Libre Soup aka Gnoup - "I'm sorry sir, you have to cook it yourself, here's the ingredient list you will need". Spend all evening looking for them, every GNU/Libre restaurant has a different method of cooking it. Spend 4 hours trying to start the water boiling, because it required some electricity component that wasn't free. The soup is ready, damn, could've just gone to the McWindows burgers and call it a day. Finally get to the table. The soup is cold already. Tastes similar to Soup ©, but something is missing. Out of nowhere a fat hobo sits next to your and asks to eat your soup, he adds some brown powder from his pocket in your soup, because he can modify all he wants since it's free to modify the recipe. Some folks tell you that you should try OpenSOUP restaurant, and that shit will never happen, your soup will never be bloated and be secure from hobos. Even thou some restaurants close OpenSOUP's recipe and sell it to people. But it doesn't matter.

>buy soup
>Health and safety aren't allowed in the kitchen because it's THEIR kitchen
>Turns out they put arsenic in the soup
>Die because you ate soup at a proprietary soup kitchen and checking if they put bad stuff in the soup is wrong because it's not health and safety's soup

>paying for soup
>not making your own
are you cooktarded or something?

FSF is a cult, RMS is its cult leader. The GPL is a restrictive license, it restricts people to the terms of the license. These have absolutely nothing to do with freedom.

when i buy soup from a restaurant i can add salt and pepper and the FBI won't kick in my asshole.
i can also make soup in my kitchen that looks and tastes like the soup from the store, and then share it with my friends, or give it away to homeless people and everyone knows that's okay. I can even share my recipe with them and everyone knows that's okay too.
there are entire cookbooks based on this.

Ok NSA.

There is a modern over reliance on analogies nowadays that just goes to show how poorly people are at explaining. Analogies are NOT explanations because they compare two different things and pretend they're the same. Analogies only serve as a way to illustrate a point so you can finally explain it, therefore you pretending that the analogy refutes anything, but plugging your ears when someone tries to add to it (it's an analogy after all) goes to show that you don't even understand what analogies are for. I don't even feel like indulging in this stupid analogy, this shit is out of hand. Food and software are different and while we can gain insight by using both, they fundamentally do not function the same, ever. Let your arguments instead on their own, instead of propped up by straw crutches.

I meant your arguments stand on their own*

>food analogy

Attached: 1543265355545.jpg (1274x1001, 94K)

aaah yes, food analogies