I write and sell proprietary software

>so why do Free Software advocates like Stallman insist that I am infringing on their personal freedom in some manner
strawman

hes not. you are infringing on your users's freedom, yes. not his freedom though since he doesn't use your software. if your users are ok with having less freedom then they can keep using your software.

Why haven't you cut off your dick and adopted a CoC yet?

No he's not, by insisting he reveals his source code you are infringing on his ability to compete with globohomo

>they're not free to use the software for any purpose, to modify the software, distribute the software, or distribute the modified software
Yes that's right. People are also not free to rent a car and then sell it to their neighbor, or free to take a shit in a hotel room's microwave, just because they paid money to use the car / room. They are however free to not rent the car or hotel room.
>since if they try to do any of those things, you'll try to get money from them under threats of violence
Yes, order is maintained in our society under threat of violence.

>>they are FREE to choose to not use it.
>that's not really enough is it.
Why not?

>strawman
>hes not. you are infringing on your users's freedom, yes. not his freedom though since he doesn't use your software. if your users are ok with having less freedom then they can keep using your software.
Well that was a misunderstanding on my part, I thought Stallman and others in his camp actually believe that people selling closed source proprietary software infringes on everyone's freedom in some way, even if they don't use the software.

I do wonder though if Free Software people would choose to make it illegal to sell proprietary software. I think they would if they could.

cute foxxo

Attached: 1qrw888ssp531.jpg (819x827, 53K)

>they are free not to smoke cigarettes or buy lottery tickets
>this somehow clears the national lottery and phillip morris of any wrongdoing

It come from our belief that we should own our software,and do what we want with it.
I wouldnt illegalize proprietary stuff but i do avoid it personally cause of it.

I don’t care if you’re selling proprietary software but as soon as you start making my life—as one of your users—hard and I have no ability to do anything about that due to the code being closed source, then it becomes an issue. And it seems like inevitably everything closed source goes in some direction that becomes a pain only after I’ve bought into it and it’s even more of a pain to migrate to an alternative.

If you can prove that using proprietary software harms someone's well-being in a way comparable to getting cancer from smoking cigarettes, then go ahead and pursue legal action.

Otherwise, this is a retarded analogy.

Should Holiday Inn be put on trial for renting out hotel rooms because the guests aren't "free" to set fire to the room if they want to?

Alright then just don't buy it then, problem solved. Do some people think proprietary software should be made illegal?

Sometimes we buy a movie ticket and the movie sucks.

Only if you're using someone's else software in a way that explicitly violates their licensing agreement

>moral epistemology is retarded
well you asked and I only tried to give you a reasonable answer
>Should Holiday Inn be put on trial for renting out hotel rooms because the guests aren't "free" to set fire to the room if they want to?
arson is prohibited whether Holiday inn says so or not. Are you even trying?

I wont buy it,i said that,though their is a conundrum once a certain closed source prouduct becomes the standard and you physically cant use the free alternative.

And yes for the conumdrum i listed above,and the belief that you should whats on your device,in a way treating digital goods like physical goods.

>arson is prohibited whether Holiday inn says so or not.
In many legal jurisdictions, it is not a crime to set fire to your own property. Since the ownership of the hotel room is not transferred to the guests when they rent it for the night, it is illegal for them to set fire to it.

Hotel guests purchase the right to stay in a hotel room, but they must follow certain rules and guidelines or face legal penalties. For example, they are not free to sell the hotel room to another individual (transfer ownership of the property), since they do not own it.

>well you asked and I only tried to give you a reasonable answer
Your answer was shit, and so is this second reply of yours. You've failed to make a logical argument.

renting isn't irrational so you've failed to make any point whatsoever.

the physical goods analogy doesn't work well for software, because if someone buy's a chair (as in another user's example above), someone can't just instantly (magically, and without cost) duplicate the chair an infinite number of times and start distributing those chairs in the parking lot of the store where they bought it to anyone who might have otherwise gone into the store to buy a chair for themselves.

here's another problem that we can discuss: I would not write the software that I do if I could not sell it, because I need a way to provide for myself. what I think some Free Software people say in response to this is something along the lines of: "people would only work on the software they want to out of interest or passion, and we would have all the software we need this way and you wouldn't need to pay for it".

you know what that is? that's communism. that's the exact same argument communists make when they try to sell the idea of everyone making the same amount of money no matter what their job is: "well the amount you make doesn't matter because you will be doing the work you love in the workers paradise, comrade. we all contribute in the way that we could best serve society and we each get as much as we need".

so basically this Free Software ideology seems like some kind of communism to me.

you've failed to demonstrate how buying proprietary software is irrational.

free software just makes no sense. the only people on earth that are stupid enough to do anything for free are computer janitors

Attached: 1537952121631.png (1193x489, 50K)

Of fucking course you do jackie chan

>>you've failed to demonstrate how buying proprietary software is irrational.

You can pirate it for free with zero consequences. That money could have been better spent on other things like taxes or sex with whores.

>you've failed to demonstrate how buying proprietary software is irrational.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_pay_system#History

by "free" you specifically mean without monetary compensation, but people often have other reasons for creating software, such as personal interest or recognition. Ever make a super cool script and want to show someone, or post it online so others can use it too? Bam, you just contradicted yourself.

You're posting on Jow Forums for free, aren't you? Some would call that work

>Some would call that work

Yes, some would

Attached: 1547049152649.webm (711x400, 1.92M)

based

Why not do a patreon or some stuff like that if you need money.

Also Im more about not being able to modify the software,not being able to distribute it sucks a bit but its a-ok in comparison to being forced to use it only for what the creator wants me to use it for.

The rest,i kinda agree cause im not a stallman type.

>>Why not do a patreon or some stuff like that if you need money.

Patreon is for whores he has dignity.

god the government is fucking retarded

I said "or something" cause i know not everyone likes patreon

One of the consequences could be that the software stops receiving updates because the developer can't afford to feed themselves by working on the software.

Just because some product is a bad deal doesn't mean all products are bad deals. Try again.

>Why not do a patreon or some stuff like that if you need money.
How many Patreon accounts of software devs exist that make them six figures a year? I bet there are none.

this

>no one is forced to choose to buy the chair from you on those terms
When IKEA finally outcompetes all other furniture stores and goes rental-only, perhaps you will realize the flaw with your philosophy.

>renting
>ikea furniture
it's made of toothpicks how would that work

you're buying the compiled software you aren't buying the source code

i wish i rented my furniture instead of buying it

>For software it is my own computer.

are you sure about that? How exactly is it your computer

I think other anons have already answered your questions on how proprietary software robs users of their freedom. It just sounds to me now like you are grasping at straws to morally settle your own money-making scheme.

How am i supposed to know?

Also software doesnt have to be a full time job, esspecially when something is open,a community can help you develop.

Also if money is the main thing that drives you to develop, then you develop for very different reason than most freetards do,they get paid by smiles and a maybe some small donations,the way you develop is incomparable with thier way.

Your furniture analogy is no good, as explained here: Here's a better version of your analogy:

Chair manufacturing process = source code

Factory = compiler

Chair = compiled binary

So you are actually complaining about how the company selling chairs won't let you into their factory so you can copy their manufacturing process, and potentially then replicate exact copies of their chairs so you could distribute them.

(the physical goods to software analogy is still very poor, but this is a lot better than what you put forward)

If IKEA begins renting out their furniture and the market does not like it, their business will fail.

lmao, I have no moral qualms with my capitalist "money making scheme", comrade. I'm obviously now exploring the psychology of people who believe that it is somehow not their personal responsibility if they choose to buy something.

>they get paid by smiles
Smiles cannot put food on my table and a roof over my head. If I have to work a different job to provide for myself, then I can't dedicate 12+ hours a day to coding, which means the project takes much, much longer.

They are autistic, free software is not just open source, it's an ideology with roots on literal communism (open source is not bad per se, but it's not always convenient depending on your objectives). So just ignore them and keep doing your job while they seethe for no reason at all.

That why you keep it open,a good community can help the developepment and pick up the lost hours.

Also we already chose to not buy it,we already did that,that was square one,you seem to think we use windows,and all closed stuff or something.

You seem to look at how its supposed to benifit yourself and you only think about yourself then of course it wont seem favorable,your expecting a payraise from doing good,let give you a quck tip,just being good doesnt make money,that doesn't mean corporations have done no good,but you must remember that.

>being this autistic

Spotted the libertarian.

You're not. Free software is dead

>give point on how you think about only yourself when that wasnt free softwares goal
>le autism
Me,the non freetard, just implying youre a greedy person must have hurt you way more than any Jow Forums insult,no quips and no arguements,ill just end it here...

if I'm forced to use your program at school or work then I do not have the choice

op here, nobody is forcing you because you can just drop out of school haha!

You're not. It's better to make free software for the benefit of all, but if you choose not to, that's your right and we also have the right to ignore your software and use true Free software.

>just make an open source project
>wanting to make a living writing software is greedy
>just work at mcdonalds like me and write software in your spare time
>it's called getting paid in smiles you capitalist pig
ok :o)

>nobody is forcing you because you can just drop out of school haha!
correct. no one is holding a gun to your head

The conclusion I have come to: some people who screech about Free Software have deep convictions of entitlement and cannot grasp the concept of personal responsibility. some are outright communists, even without realizing it.

i'll explain it simply

since computers are essentially turing machines, the only way to prevent someone doing what they want with software is giving it a drm license, aka built in spyware

that's literally all a license is. spyware which monitors how you use the software

the whole concept of 'renting' or 'licensing' turing machine executions is literally retarded. please note that some people on this planet have studied epistemology, ontology, computer science, and ethics beyond you watching youtube videos. so when you talk to me about your licensing turing machine executions, this is what you might as well be saying: youtube.com/watch?v=Bko-6kWJ5XQ

the whole concept of licensing was flawed from the beginning. you're literally trying to prevent my turing machine from executing a certain sequence of memory modifications. it's like transgender people claiming they are the opposite sex. lol, no. you can lie to yourself, but not to me. and i don't care about gender

the computer is a turing machine. some fag spyware pretending it isn't won't stop me from cracking your garbage software and doing what i want to do with MY computer. don't tread on me or violate the NAP or i'll respond with deadly force. i am concealed carrying every location ever situation across the nation. if i have to defend my life, i will do so through your bedroom window when you're sleeping

Attached: 1548380181926.jpg (1066x1093, 163K)

is that a new copypasta

>you can't copyright a book bro, it's, like, made up of individuals letters of the alphabet put together
>you're literally trying to prevent me from organizing individual letters of the alphabet together

>it's like transgender people claiming they are the opposite sex
i dont think thats accurate

exactly

this. if it exists, a free version exists, and if its not as good as the proprietary version, then get better at programming and improve it (theres your sense of entitlement)

Not that user, but that only debunks the license part.
>ree why aren't you reorganizing those bits so that I can see the source code
That's also crazy. I don't care if you decompile or crack my shit, but you won't force me to make the code available.

Copyright == state enforced scarcity over ideas
Copyrights are retarded, and so is crying when others don't publish their code.

Attached: Mises-thumbs-up.png (1800x1947, 769K)

furfags
>>>twitter.co.uk/

The gun to head excuse. How novel.

Stallman just amends your advertisement with information that you withheld.

"Anything goes" is a double edged sword though, because then I'm free to cancel you, because you agreed that anything goes.

i could offer to kill people who wanted to die for a fee, and they are FREE not to buy the service from me

with the software there's the issue that most people don't understand tech or phylosophy. most people who buy the software from you do so in ignorance, so you are kinda taking advantage of them, so you are kinda committing fraud (ethically).

if you want to change this, the solution is not to teach them about ethics, freedom and liberty and so on because it's not practical or feasible, but you can simply use a FOSS license like stallman says. this might decrease or improve your revenue, different people have had different success with donations, patreon etc

I don't recognize copyright law here. All software is free from my perspective.

The room is the user's computer though, and software is a guest there and feels like it can shit in the microwave.

>Should Holiday Inn be put on trial for renting out hotel rooms because the guests aren't "free" to set fire to the room if they want to?

You keep deliberately conflating physical things that have limited use and a set cost with something that is free to duplicate, and in fact is duplicated every time it is sold.

If you shit in the microwave or set fire to a room, you are taking that thing from the hotel, they can no longer use it.

If someone modifies your software, it doesn't take jack shit from you. Even if they download an illegal copy, they did not remove money from your account

you're deliberately making up strawmen to argue against, you're using metaphors that don't apply, and your entire post was disingenuous from the start.

You're kind of a moron.

"Have sex" is posted by women.

>the terms are normal for software but not for a chair, therefore they are morally right for software and not for a chair.
Bad argument, user.

How is it relevant to what I said? The point is, I am allowed to use the chair for fucking firewood if I want, whereas EULAs contain shit like "you're not allowed to use this software for business purposes". The point is control, I should be in control of everything that you require me to run on my system. Unironically, cloud services (SaaS) are better in this regard, at least I'm not forced to install anything on my own system.

i am also free to pirate and crack your shit and nothing you can do about it

Free software doesn't mean you won't get paid. A lot if not most free software is developed by paid professional in their job. The lone programmer developing stuff in their basement is kind of a meme. They exist but either their software remains insignificant or they find a way to monetize it at some point. Free software doesn't mean you won't get paid, in fact even with propietary software most money isn't made through licenses but through ancillary work like administration or support.

People just don’t lile proprietary software because you can’t check the source code to see wether it is infringing on your privacy or not. That’s the number 1 reason, when you use proprietary stuff you put yourself at the mercy of the developer, and that’s fine in of itself if you can trust them, but most tech companies love collecting all your info in every way they can to make more profits unrelated to the quality of their software off it.

So yeah. Don’t put spyware in it and were good. Of course we can‘t verify that you aren’t.

Attached: 5DC3D6CF-A3A4-4535-9221-620F5C0EDE49.jpg (640x396, 43K)