Because it isnt open source so the autists automatically dismiss it as an invasion of privacy and wanting to spy on you.

Even though thats fucking idiotic.

“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them.

When users don't control the program, the program controls the users. The developer controls the program, and through it controls the users. This nonfree or “proprietary” program is therefore an instrument of unjust power.

Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer”.

What aren't you using free software anon? Proprietary software doesn't respect your freedoms.

>>35659088 (OP)
Different definition of free.

You are always free to make whatever choice you want. If you use propietary software, that's up to you, but you don't get some of the benefits of free open source software.

>>35659277
It's impossible to be free when you choose proprietary software. Proprietors ask users to be restricted to use the software. Proprietors ask user to be restricted to modify the functions of the software. Choosing proprietary software by definition means allowing the proprietor to restrict the user.

>>35659347
Exactly. But free will and free software are different.

>>35659375
That's right. There is no freedom in using proprietary software, only the choice to use it or reject it. Some people believe that choice is equal to freedom. I don't agree with this.

>>35659411
>People should have the right to privacy
>WHY DON'T YOU RELEASE YOUR SOURCE CODE, I DEMAND IT OR ELSE I'M GOING TO ASSUME YOU WANT TO SPY ON ME
>I don't want to spy on you I just have my own personal reasons is all
>BOTNET SHILL BOTNET SHILL

This is how fucking hypocritcial you guys are.

>>35659578
When you're distributing software outside your family/organisation you're dealing with other people's computer. Without access to the source code, you're telling the users "my right to control your computer is more important your right to control your computer. If you don't like it, do not use my software".

>>35659088 (OP)
You're free to use proprietary software. The FSF is only letting you know that it doesn't respect your freedom.

>>35659650
No.
They're saying that they have a right to keep their hard work to themselves because that's the right of anyone who creates anything.

It's not about power or control. It's the principal.
But you autists will never understand this because you have a persecution complex.

Do people demand that musicians supply them with everything in the track?
Do people demand movie makers release everything?
Do people demand artists release all their drafts?

No, because they shouldn't have to.

Quit being paranoid about things that aren't real. That's a form of schizophrenia and you should seek help.

>>35659578
I don't see the hypocrisy. You're free not to release your source code, but that means you're restricting your user's freedom.

It's pathetic that /g/ can't figure out when Microsoft paid trolls are posting.

Please stop responding and just hide and report the thread. No one with any common sense actually says anything so insane.

>>35659730
If they want to keep their hard work to themselves, they shouldn't be distributing it in the first place.

>>35659730
Music, movies and other sorts of art can't be used to spy on the user. They aren't tools.
You're comparing apples to spaceships here.

>>35659730
Computer software exists to control the computer. The people who control the software (source code is necessary for this) are the people who control the computer.

You need to learn the difference between works of personal expression and works of practical use. Music, movies and images are not practical tools but expressions of opinion. Recipes, software, design blueprints, datasheets, specifications are all works of practical use. These two distinctions have different uses and must be considered differently.

>>35659788
=\=
>>35659795
THE SONG/PICTURE/MOVIE HAS CONTROL OVER ME BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WAS MADE.

That's essentially what you are saying.

>>35659802

>programming can't be personal

okay.

Oh look.
freedumbs don't even know what to say now.

You fucks are sad.

>>35659834
>programming can't be personal
Artwork are not tools that can be used to control people. Copyright is a tool that can be used to control people. Software is a tool that people use.

>freedums
freetard/10, so wonderful

>>35659176
But software isn't a product you consume, like a candy bar or a loaf of bread where you buy it and can then use it for whatever the fuck you want.
You're licensing it. It's like renting a house. You pay a fee and gain the use of the software for a specified period of time. The licenser may agree to perform maintenance on the software as long as you keep up your end of the bargain. You can't just go knock a wall or dig up the garden whenever you feel like it

>>35660085
>used to control people
>used to control people

Is that really all you guys have to defend your hypocrisy with?

Paranoid notions that everyone who doesn't agree to release their source-code because they have the right to it's privacy wants to attack you and see your chinese cartoon stash?

Okay.

Solid argument.

>>35659834
>THE SONG/PICTURE/MOVIE HAS CONTROL OVER ME BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WAS MADE.
You're obviously trolling.
It's not like one can be on /g/ and not hear about carrierIQ and the wikileaks about NSA backdoors. Have you never heard of RAT tools? How do you know they aren't built into any of the software you use?

>>35660098
When users agree with the restrictions of proprietary software, they choose to be restricted of their own freedom.

>>35660115
>how do you you aren't getting hacked

Paranoia

Again, you guys are hypocrites with no real arguments other then paranoid delusions everyone wants to see what's on your computer.

>why do greedy developers want to make money

>>35660133
It's called a contract

They're a pretty common thing, maybe you should look it up

>>35660156
Erm, I'm the one stating facts here. Carrier IQ is a thing, and was found on smart phones and companies admitted to using. The NSA backdoors have be acknowledged by companies too.
And these are only the cases that were found out, and it is a fact that with closed source software, you have _no way_ of knowing. Now what's your argument?

>>35660112
Without access to the source code, users cannot control themselves. Users choose to accept the control of other people. With access to the source code, users can take responsibility over the software.
>Oh I don't do anything malicious
That's great. Can you guarantee this for every single piece of proprietary software? When users have the source code, anything that is malicious can be replaced, this is not feasible within proprietary software.

>>35660225
I know it's a contract. The whole idea of the free software movement is that it is unjust to ask users to enter such an agreement.

>>35659834
song/picture/movie is software for your brain, why would they share the production with you?

>>35660223
Google makes shittons of money off Chromium and Android. RedHat's whole business revolves around free software.
Making money is one thing, making billions by manipulating the market by forcing your own standards like with Microsoft Office is another thing.

>>35660223
Free software doesn't mean profit is forbidden. All it means is that users deserve freedom.

>>35660229
>These people are evil therefor everyone else is too!

That's your argument. You're saying because some people have malicious intent, that you shouldn't trust anyone at all with anything.

>>35660230
Again, not everyone is out to get you.
And you're side-stepping my comment about people having the right to privacy with their source code just like they do with anything else.

>>35660288
My point, programmers should be respected in the same sort.
Like I stated above, it's not about power or control. It's the principal of privacy to something you created.

And let's not go in circles with

>but if they want it private, just don't release it

Two different things and you know it.

>>35659088 (OP)
You are free to do whatever the fuck you want. Whether it's justified is another case all together. Please delete your thread, it's just like any of the other hundreds of threads exactly like this one – fucking stupid.

It's not original, the question is well covered on the web and you're not trolling anyone.

>>35660340
But if they want to sell the software, they HAVE to lock it down. They have to prevent just giving it to everyone. I have no problem with believing in free software. But so many people portray software companies as evil overlords for wanting to protect the programs they worked on.

>>35660358
>And you're side-stepping my comment about people having the right to privacy with their source code just like they do with anything else.
When you attract people to use your software, that software is running on the user's computer not your computer. When the user doesn't control the software, you are controlling the user. If you didn't want to control the user, you must give the user all four freedoms.

>>35660358
>You're saying because some people have malicious intent, that you shouldn't trust anyone at all with anything.
My argument is that closing the source of software enables people of bad intent to spy on me, and I have no way of knowing the good guys from the bad guys.

File: 1375247266825.jpg-(61 KB, 554x461, 1373218394844.jpg)

61 KB JPG

>>35659088 (OP)
>yfw there are no good video editing software that respect your freedoms

>>35660399
>But if they want to sell the software, they HAVE to lock it down.
That's just your opinion man. That way is one business model out any number of business models involving software.

>>35660424
>>35660436

It really is never ending with you people.

You're like a fucking robot programmed by Stallman himself to spout the same shitty arguments

>but it l-locks me down
>but it m-might spy on me

>>35660438
You're not interesting in taking responsibilty for your own computing. If you were interested, you'd be investing yourself into improving software.

>>35660468
This post marks the point where you unknowingly admit defeat.

>>35660468
Of course! You're asking users to use the software AND be restricted of the source code!

>>35660438
I say in this case, use it in wine.
It kind of works like sand boxing in most cases anyways.

>>35660446
Well yes, there is advertising and such. But if they want to actually sell the program, they can't allow infinite transmission and open-source. They have that right, it's not morally unjust in anyway. Just like you have the right to only use free software.

>>35660508
>>35660516
No it's not defeat, it's just an endless circle due to your delusions of not being able to formulate any other arguments.

>>35660535
How can you make money advertising in free software if someone can just take the advertisements out?

>>35660554
You make claims of circular reasoning. If you can lay out our arguments, then I'll be willing to agree.

>>35660535
>they can't allow infinite transmission and open-source
It's morally unjust because you're attracting society to be restricted and divided to control themselves. The justificiation for restricting society is so "I can eat and sleep in my house". Don't ask users to be restricted, give them the source code when you give the binary. Don't ask users to be divided, give them freedom to share without restriction.

>>35660554
You're just a pathetic basement dweller dreaming of success that matches that of Bill Gates or other rich software businessmen, trying to justify enslaving the users.

>>35659088 (OP)
You are perfectly free to give up your freedom.

>>35660580
1. People have the right to want to make money off of their software they create and not be forced to release the source code
2. People have the right to privacy of their source code even if they aren't selling it because that's their right as creators.
3. Not everyone has malicious intent or is out to get you
4. Your basic reasoning to everything being free and open is so you can't be attacked which is delusions because see (3)

That's the basics.

>>35660660
That isn't our argument, that's your own argument. I asked you to lay out our argument.

>>35659730
I expect musicians to not be butthurt faggots when people share their music or make transcripts.

>>35660618
Charging for Photoshop isn't dividing society.

>>35660660
>Not everyone has malicious intent or is out to get you
As we've seen over the past decade, they may not be out to get any one in particular, but that's only because the more people abused at once the harder it is to get pinned for anything.

See: Wall Street, US telecoms, the NSA, the Bush Administration, etc...

>>35660679
Finished product != assets in making
>>35660678
Your arguments are basically the reverse of 3, and four.

Any more I didn't cover?

>>35660700
Big groups != individuals trying to make a living off of their passion

>>35660688
>Do not share this copy of Photoshop without our permission.

>Hey, that Photoshop program is really good, can you give me a copy?
>Sorry no, I promised Adobe that I wouldn't do that. They want you to go to an authorized reseller or themselves.

>>35660660
>People have the right to want to make money off of their software they create and not be forced to release the source code
Free software ensures this right.
>People have the right to privacy of their source code even if they aren't selling it because that's their right as creators.
They can keep the sourcecode to themselves if they keep the software to themselves. They can even choose to sell proprietary software, but that makes it non-free and it will disrespect the user's freedom.
>Not everyone has malicious intent or is out to get you
Our argument is that non-free software enables the ones with malicious intent.
>Your basic reasoning to everything being free and open is so you can't be attacked which is delusions
This is a good argument, imo. I'd rather use software that _can't_ attack me than use software that _can_ and hope it doesn't.

>>35659088 (OP)
Look, if you want to use some proprietary garbage, that's your right. I'm not stopping you and nobody should. However, I'm not going to use a piece of software if I don't have the legal right to investigate how it works. If a user is not legally allowed to know how their software works, how could they ever know if it is secure or safe to use?

We trust science as a source of truth and reliability because it is peer reviewed. The same standards should be applied to software so that the users are empowered.

>>35660737
>Well that's understandable, software isn't like most other commodities. I could ask to use your toaster, but then there would still be only one toaster. And if I brought the toaster to my house, then you couldn't use it, unless you also came over to my house. Otherwise, someone could just buy one toaster and give it to everyone else, and the toaster company would have only sold one toaster, even though there are 200 million in the country.

>>35660717
>individuals trying to make a living off of their passion
And licensing is a pain in the ass way of doing it. Easier to do contract development (but not in the US, cause of healthcare) and get sponsored to do your projects.

>>35660717
No, that isn't the argument we're making which makes your characterization a strawman. Your characterization simply proves you're confused about what we're saying.

I will now reiterate our point. Our main point is that users and the community control THEIR OWN computing. Dealing with malicious software is one part of this but is not the focus of the control, the focus is that the USER and the COMMUNITY control the computing whenever we wish to cooperate.

You have the right to give up your freedom. FOSS tries to help provide you with software that respects your freedom.

/thread

>>35659088 (OP)
>So why am I not "free" to use proprietary software?
You are of course free to use any software you want. Or rather, you are free to use any software you can. Hmm... you are free to use any software that's licensing permits you to use it.

But that is not the issue. The issue is that proprietary software licenses don't give you the freedom to modify and redistribute the software. Or put it another way, proprietary software only allows you to use the software in the way that the license permits. If the owner of the software doesn't want you to do X, then the software will prevent you from doing X; you are no longer free to do X.

This wouldn't be a huge problem if there was a lot of competition in software. In a competitive market, if one piece of software doesn't let you do X, you'd move to other software that does allow you. But there is next to zero competition in the software market, and it has been this way for a few decades.

Preventing you from doing X can take many forms. From Word doing silly games with their file formats, Google logging everything you do on Android, to the 100% locked down iOS that will only run the things Steve Jobs in His Infinite Wisdom deems Worthy and the appalling Amazon deleting books from people's Kindles.

Again, you are free to use the software you want but you must be aware of the freedom you are giving up by doing so.

>>35660793
Please don't confuse software and physical tools. Our point is that proprietors entice users to be controlled and divided. Our point is that it is unjust to entice users in this way.

>>35660766
>Free software ensures this right.
No not directly. Not evenyone wants to start the next Ubuntu or Redhat
>they can keep the sourcecode to themselves if they keep the software to themselves

Again, not an argument and I've been over this three times now.

>We are the freedom force

No you're not, and again not a valid reason

>This is a good argument
It's fine but just paranoid.

>>35660825
Again, I see your point about being paranoid by not knowing how every single thing works.
But It's obnoxious. You don't need to read the source of a calculator to know how it works.

>but it might have malicious code hidden somewhere

Just stop.

>>35660845
Well see this is something I do agree with. Proprietary software CAN be a bad thing. It has the capability of having a negative impact on the computing public. But, that's the same as guns, cars, drugs etc.

>>35659802
What about videogames, which arguably are 'expression'?

I've wondered, in free-as-in-freedom, nonfree-as-in-beer software terms, would it be acceptable to release the source of the game, but restrict the redistribution of the assets [my graphics, logo, music, etc.] so that people can learn from the software, tinker with it and such, but not outright take "anons game"and release it again free of cost. [But if they edit all the graphics and music, they *can* do this. The idea being that people may pay more for more polished graphics, sound, etc.]

The other option I see would be to release a game as proprietary, then a while after it stops earning money, just release the source.

>>35660660
>1. People have the right to want to make money off of their software they create and not be forced to release the source code
Releasing source code and making money are not mutually exclusive. Look at Red Hat or IBM.

FOSS isn't for the protection of programmers. It is for the protection of the users of programs. And there are far far more users then programmers.

And by "users" I don't just mean Joe and Jane sitting in front of their computer, but Wiget Co, who paid big bucks for some proprietary software, didn't get the source code, the vendor went out of business/got bought out and dismantled/whatever and now has to pay big bucks AGAIN to move to some other proprietary software.

The solution to the above is that Wiget Co only buys software from the most reliable, largest, longest lived company (aka Microsoft, Oracle, etc) which causes the market to consolidate, which in turn means less competition and in the end, worse software.

>2. People have the right to privacy of their source code even if they aren't selling it because that's their right as creators.
Privacy does not mean what you think it means. There is no "privacy of their source code." (Ignore this comment if you are not native English speaker.)

>>35660865
>Again, I see your point about being paranoid by not knowing how every single thing works.
Hypothetical: what if I want to change my copy of Simcity to include elements of the Sims, I like both these games and I can figure out some game mechanics that'll be good. Merging the features of the two games without the source code is not practical. The most practical way to deal with it is to write a new program with these features - that is create new source code to a new program so that the user (me) can control the program.


Hypothetical: what if I want my copy of Simcity 5 to run on my ARM machine? That's not going to happen without access to the source code. The most practical way to deal with it is to write a new program with these features - that is create new source code to a new program so that the user (me) can control the program.