Hacker News Reader

Comment by trestletech | Hacker News Reader

I feel like we're not far off from a digital version of the Amish. "Technology was perfected by the FSF in 2003; everything developed since is evil."

View on HN

I think you're completely missing the point. RMS and FSF have never claimed to even create an adequate free-software ecosystem, let alone perfect. They celebrate tons of free software progress since then and maintain a high-priority list for things that are yet to do: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/

Many people confuse this, but being critical of ethical problems with the way technology is built in practice need not have anything to do with being anti-technology in general.

Everything developed by big companies that deals with our data on their premises is evil.

We should simply not allow that, and let big companies just develop the hardware.

I mean, given the recent and continuing rash of hardware backdoors, wouldn't that just make your premises their premises?

""We" should not allow that"... Yeah that sounds like freedom to me.

You are free to deal with these companies or not. Whether you agree with these companies and their ways is irrelevant. This is same as not agreeing with another persons' religion, you are free do choose a way to lead your life, don't try to force your way upon others. Others happily share their data with Google and reap the benefits of a very helpful Google Home assistant.

Direct your efforts towards educating these people about the potential downsides, yes, but don't try to use law or other forms of powers to change their ways. That is not freedom.

Worrying about free software advocates using the law against others is hilarious. It's like worrying about Walmart cashiers demanding to make more money than software developers.

I see someone hasn't had GPL conflicts in their code base before. There is a reason companies specifically look for them and it's because the FSF and it's communities will make your life hell.

Try using proprietary libraries in your software without complying with their licenses and you'll see what having your life made hell means. GPL license holders barely ever sued anyone, and when they do (like FSF v Cisco), it's usually after years of trying to get them to comply. That they (rightly) complain about your practices is not using the law.

It's not and I am glad it isn't. The GPL is sometimes enforced and rightly so, code authors choose this license and donated their time and skill under this condition (the GPL) of their choosing. Re-licensing it or ignoring the licenses is a crime, you lied that you would uphold the license when you started using the software.

Don't get me wrong, I love the GPL, I love free software! Choosing a license though, GPL or proprietary, is entirely up to the author of a piece of code though. Forcing open licenses upon authors is detrimental to freedom in general.

Worrying or not worrying about it has nothing to do with the ethics of breaking the GPL (or any license).

> ""We" should not allow that"... Yeah that sounds like freedom to me.

Absolute freedom does not exist. Every kind of freedom requires sacrifices.

Just operating systems, and it was 30 years earlier by AT&T. Our user interfaces have gotten progressively worse, though, along with almost all user apps.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com