My Concern [LWN.net]

My Concern

Posted Aug 31, 2006 19:55 UTC (Thu) by EmbeddedLinuxGuy (guest, #35019)
In reply to: My Concern by pbardet
Parent article: Fedora Core to drop openmotif

Linux is already open/free.
It's great, isn't it? So why sell out your freedom now for a proprietary application.

I don't see why all the software components have to be.
They don't of course. Fortunately in this case there is a nice free component available, thus no need for OpenMotif. Using non-free software is a bit like eating human flesh; yes, you should do it if you haven't got any other options, but it's better for society if people avoid it as the default.

The good thing about open is that you allow competition and choice for the user.
There are a lot of good things about being open, and not all choices are good. There is a lot of competition and choice within the context of free software; including proprietary vendors does not necessarily lead to more long-term competition and choice.

preventing closed-source software from spreading on Linux is creating another kind of dictatorship
I did look up "dictatorship" but could not find a use that applies to Fedora or other distros preferring free software.

(Log in to post comments)

My Concern

Posted Aug 31, 2006 21:18 UTC (Thu) by pbardet (guest, #22762) [Link]

"why sell out your freedom now for a proprietary application."

I didn't sell my freedom. I can still uninstall the software at any time if I feel it doesn't meet my needs. Since I didn't pay for it, I won't feel I've been screwed by the company, unlike when I buy a software to find out it's not what I want but I can't return it for refund since I opened it. Freedom is about choice. Freedom is unrestricted access.

"Using non-free software is a bit like eating human flesh; yes, you should do it if you haven't got any other options, but it's better for society if people avoid it as the default."

What kind of comparison is this ??
Now I've read everything to justify force-feeding the "good" open source against "evil" closed-source.

My Concern

Posted Sep 1, 2006 22:28 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

I didn't sell my freedom.

Sadly, using a proprietary application is indeed selling out your freedom. You often lose your freedom to study the software, to use it as you see fit or to lend it to others. At the very least you lose the freedom to modify it and distribute modified (custom, patched, extended...) copies; otherwise, it is not proprietary.

I can still uninstall the software at any time if I feel it doesn't meet my needs.

I wish it were so easy. Many proprietary programs hold your data ransom (like these not-so-amusing examples we saw here last month). Others hold on to your hard disk like a virus. Yet others become so "standard" that you are forced to use them, often at work.

Freedom is about choice. Freedom is unrestricted access.

Sorry, but no: freedom is freedom and unrestricted access is unrestricted access. Unrestricted access to, say, tactical nuclear devices is not freedom; while Red Hat provides freedom but not unrestricted access.

Freedom is not either about choice, most of the time. Even if you can choose between XP Professional and XP Home Edition, that is a very poor freedom indeed. Freedom to do things and freedom from unpleasantness I can understand; freedom to choose the lesser of two evils I do not want.

My Concern

Posted Sep 5, 2006 15:49 UTC (Tue) by pbardet (guest, #22762) [Link]

Sorry, but no: freedom is freedom and unrestricted access is unrestricted access.

I suggest you open a dictionnary since unrestricted access is part of the definition of freedom n my Collins. If you want to argue this, I'm not the one to do it with. Contact them and good luck arguing.

Webster chooses the words "Unrestricted use" instead.

My Concern

Posted Sep 5, 2006 19:29 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

The American Heritage Dictionary also says "freedom" is "Ease or facility of movement" and "lack of modesty or reserve", and I don't think you mean that. Dictionaries are general in use, and "freedom" is a generic term which can be many things in different contexts.

That is why Stallman chose to define the four freedoms which pertain to software. "Unrestricted use" is one of them; "unrestricted access" is not there. That is because unlimited access is not a precondition for free software; not even for open source. If you want those definitions changed, I suggest you contact the authors. Good luck arguing with Stallman and Raymond :)