Okay, what exactly is the core basis for Stallman's philosophy? He makes a claim that software should be free and then defines what freedom is, but does he ever make any epistemological reason for said freedom? I see him give these off handed reasons like:
>proprietary applications sell your information >proprietary applications have back doors that invade your privacy
But theoretically you could have the same with a free software product. So what exactly is his deal? Does he have a solid philosophical basis for his movement or what?
That doesn't answer my question. I asked for a philosophical argument for free software, not an explanation of free software.
Adrian Russell
he's a fat old fuck promoting communist agenda.
Sebastian Brown
retard
Carson Anderson
Given the choice to have more or less freedom, he strives for more. Why does it matter why beyond that? people don't fight for things by first defining axioms and ideological frameworks, maybe he just loves the idea of free software full stop.
Isaiah Wright
>implying communism is bad
Nathaniel Lopez
Okay man, it just lists what free software is and the most I get out of it is the explanation of how copyleft plays into intellectual property. Not an argument.
That's like saying you should take might as right for face value just because it's a freedom that you can't possibly refuse.
Brandon Cox
>>proprietary applications sell your information >>proprietary applications have back doors that invade your privacy >But theoretically you could have the same with a free software product.
Well, theoretically, yeah. But only theoretically.
What would happen real quick is that someone would fork a copy and remove the crap.
Then, you'd have two free copes: the original crappy copy that literally nobody wants, and the forked version that everyone would use.
The whole problem with proprietary software is that you don't get a chance to fork it, so you're stuck with the crap. I'd love it if there was a de-crapified version of Windows 10, but that's never going to happen, because the source code isn't forkable. But nobody bothers to put crap in free software, because they know that the code would just get forked immediately, and they would lose control -- so what's the point?
Jace Hill
>Implying U.S. patent law is communist.
Juan Perez
Stallman is an anti-athoritarian anti-capitalist. Sort of anarchism light.
Nolan Jenkins
>What would happen real quick is that someone would fork a copy and remove the crap. A lot of people use Facebook not because the code is proprietary, but because it's a nice service with steady updates. Forking something doesn't automatically make it better. People often times use software because of the experience in general, including the developers.
Jace White
listen to these people, OP.
you have a flaw in your question, btw. Software should be free, but the freedom thus gained is human freedom, not the software's. Big difference. The 1s and 0s don't care.
In the end it's all about control. You buy a computer with your money, legally you own it, should you also control what it does? Because that's what free software is about.
Software that isn't changeable legally controls the user, not the other way around. Being controlled by someone or something is the opposite of being free.
Maybe if you still don't see the point, you could tell us whether you see it as self-evident that humans should be free, or if slavery is ok?
Gavin Nguyen
fat emperor autist and nothing more
Hunter Lopez
>humans should be free, or if slavery is ok?
It's interesting that you mention slavery.
Intellectual property is a false property right, in the same way that slavery was a false property right.
Eventually, we realized that the freedom of mankind was more important than the financial health of plantation owners.
And, eventually, we will realize that the freedom of our ideas is more important that the financial health of publishing corporations.
We live in a strange time in history. We understand that people must be free, but we inexplicably fail to realize that a person is not truly free unless his ideas are free as well. Future generations will look back on us for our barbaric, immoral selfishness -- in the same way that we look back on the American slave trade for their barbaric, immoral selfishness.
Cameron Adams
>Forking something doesn't automatically make it better.
That's true. But if software is free, then forking it gives us an OPTION to make it better.
If the software is not free, then that option is not available.
Free software is fundamentally more valuable in the long term. Not because the freedom necessarily means that it's better -- but because the freedom gives us the OPTION to make it better.
Anthony Hall
>why should it be free? >your question is flawed >it should be free >because reasons?
You haven't given any reasons. I might as well say might is right should be a freedom because it's self evident.
You have the option to make another product.
>free software is more valuable in the long term If I said might is right is a freedom, is it self evident? What your asking for is a positive right, which requires SOME justification.
