Hello, first let me say thank you for all the replays.
Easy. Show me a situation where non-free software is good (note: by good I don't mean technically better but that the fact that it is non-Free is good), and there you will have the exception that breaks the "always".
So far I haven't found any situation where loosing one of the four freedoms is good, but I can be proved wrong. Can you help me?
yes your are right. I think that its never good to lose freedom, too. But my question is more if non-free software is always bad or are there situations were you could say "It's bad that i don't have all the freedoms, but i just need the tool do get a job done and if it does the job it's ok" For example if i get an PDF which can displayed only by the acrobat reader. Should i say "the reader is bad because it's non-free" and don't read the PDF or should i just use the acrobat reader to read this one document? I think you could tell very few people to do the first thing.
Basically i see people who use the PC like a microwave or a washing machine if it does it job than it's ok. It would be hard to convince people to not "clean the suit" just because you don't like the license of the "washing machine" and at the moment there is no free "washing machine". I think thats one of the reasons because Debian still keep their non-free archive. They could creat a complete free OS without non-free, but the decided that maybe someone have to "clean the suit" and than a non-free "washing machine" is better than no "washing machine" at all. I think about people who just want to start the PC and play some games. I think you can't convince him to install GNU/Linux just because of the license. If he can't play the games on GNU/Linux he will not switch. He just want to have some hours fun. Is this bad? Or people who just want a better typewriter, he buy a PC with windows and MS Office or StarOffice and write his letter. Why sould he switch to GNU/Linux and maybe have problems to print because of a missing or bad printing driver or have problems to open and edit the files from the fellows. For him the PC is just a tool, like the old mechanically typewriter. It does it job and thats all he want. Is this bad?
I agree that free software is always better and there is no argument which makes non-free software better because of the non-free license. But what i ask is: Is the license always the most important thinks or are there situations were other thinks are just more important?
On 19-Jul-2005, Markus wrote:
yes your are right. I think that its never good to lose freedom, too.
Does this mean you think it is always bad to lose freedom?
But my question is more if non-free software is always bad or are there situations were you could say "It's bad that i don't have all the freedoms, but i just need the tool do get a job done and if it does the job it's ok"
I don't see why you're setting those two up as either-or. The way you've framed them, they don't contradict each other.
* non-free software is always bad * non-free software is always bad, but I want to use this program
Those two aren't contradictory. "Bad" doesn't mean "Never allow anyone to use this". It is bad to attempt to enforce a usage restriction on someone because of the copyright license, whether the motive is good or not.
Just because the *act* of restricting software is bad, doesn't mean people should be *restrained* from using that software. That's not what free software advocates.
Rather, we should be *encouraging* free software actively, and *discouraging* people from using or accepting non-free software, based on the relative arguments for and against.
The reason we keep banging on about it is that there is a lot of disinformation about software freedom out there. That doesn't mean we want users of non-free software to be locked up; we want to help them choose freedom.
One major part of that is to make them aware that they are currently not free, and then to encourage them to demand a free alternative.
Markus gnufriend@gmx.de wrote:
But my question is more if non-free software is always bad or are there situations were you could say "It's bad that i don't have all the freedo= ms, but i just need the tool do get a job done and if it does the job it's ok" For example if i get an PDF which can displayed only by the acrobat reader. Should i say "the reader is bad because it's non-free" and don't read the PDF or should i just use the acrobat reader to read this one document? I think you could tell very few people to do the first thing.
It is interesting that you mention acroread as an example. The latest version of acroread may let you read that PDF, but it can also help to advertise the fact that you read it, thanks to its support for spyware as described in http://lwn.net/Articles/129729/
Now, is that OK to your "PC appliance" users or not? It did their washing, but it also sent the details of the unusual chemicals washed off them to the local constabulary and told the environment agency what they just put in the drain.
Adobe also had a rather more direct effect on one developer's freedom during the Sklyarov case. Burn all PDFs, anyone?
[...] But what i ask is: Is the license always the most important thinks or are there situations were other thinks are just more important?
The licence is not very important in itself. It's a tool. It's what the licence facilitates or hinders that is important.
On 19-Jul-2005, Markus wrote:
I agree that free software is always better and there is no argument which makes non-free software better because of the non-free license.
Good.
But what i ask is: Is the license always the most important thinks or are there situations were other thinks are just more important?
Don't conflate the license and the freedom of the software user. A copyright license is just one of many ways to grant or restrict a user's freedom. Software idea patents, trademark restrictions, non-disclosure agreements, et cetera are all tools used to affect the freedom of software users.
A license isn't important. The freedom of the software's users is important.
What is *most* important is for the individual to decide for themselves.
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 01:39 +0200, Markus wrote:
But my question is more if non-free software is always bad or are there situations were you could say "It's bad that i don't have all the freedoms, but i just need the tool do get a job done and if it does the job it's ok" For example if i get an PDF which can displayed only by the acrobat reader. Should i say "the reader is bad because it's non-free" and don't read the PDF or should i just use the acrobat reader to read this one document? I think you could tell very few people to do the first thing.
You should ask whoever generated that PDF to generate a standard PDF, instead of one with Adobe extensions, or in fact say it's a corrupted PDF, so you can't read it.
Rui
At Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:12:47 +0100, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 01:39 +0200, Markus wrote:
But my question is more if non-free software is always bad or are there situations were you could say "It's bad that i don't have all the freedoms, but i just need the tool do get a job done and if it does the job it's ok" For example if i get an PDF which can displayed only by the acrobat reader. Should i say "the reader is bad because it's non-free" and don't read the PDF or should i just use the acrobat reader to read this one document? I think you could tell very few people to do the first thing.
You should ask whoever generated that PDF to generate a standard PDF, instead of one with Adobe extensions, or in fact say it's a corrupted PDF, so you can't read it.
And somebody should write a decent PDF reader, but that's a different story...
Jeroen Dekkers
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 12:56 +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
At Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:12:47 +0100, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 01:39 +0200, Markus wrote:
But my question is more if non-free software is always bad or are there situations were you could say "It's bad that i don't have all the freedoms, but i just need the tool do get a job done and if it does the job it's ok" For example if i get an PDF which can displayed only by the acrobat reader. Should i say "the reader is bad because it's non-free" and don't read the PDF or should i just use the acrobat reader to read this one document? I think you could tell very few people to do the first thing.
You should ask whoever generated that PDF to generate a standard PDF, instead of one with Adobe extensions, or in fact say it's a corrupted PDF, so you can't read it.
And somebody should write a decent PDF reader, but that's a different story...
evince, although not perfect, is quite good.
Rui
Markus wrote:
Or people who just want a better typewriter, he buy a PC with windows and MS Office or StarOffice and write his letter.
Interesting comparison. When you use a plain typewriter (mechanical or otherwise), you assume that what you type on it can be read by anyone (who you decide to give it to). That's a basic assumption that most people don't even think about because it's so obvious. So naturally they have the same expectation of "computer typewriters", i.e. word processors. And at first glance this appears to be the case. Only later, they might realize that the documents they wrote, cannot be read by others who use different software, or sometimes actually only another version of the same software.
So if you want to think about your word-processor as a typewrite, be sure to use one that creates files that everybody can read. Or otherwise, print everything you type, remove the files, and send printed copies by snail mail. Welcome back to the old days ...
And I don't even want to start about hidden, sometimes dangerous, content stored in proprietary files. Someone with the typewriter comparison in mind wouldn't even think of this possibility, but it's very real ...
Why sould he switch to GNU/Linux and maybe have problems to print because of a missing or bad printing driver or have problems to open and edit the files from the fellows. For him the PC is just a tool, like the old mechanically typewriter. It does it job and thats all he want. Is this bad?
If he's not 100% sure he won't ever give the files created to someone else. Because if he does, he'd become just one of those fellows you mention that cause problems to others.
And if he's not 100% sure he won't ever create other files he might give to someone else, it's at least a dangerous trap. Because then he might not be willing to learn to use another program that doesn't cause such bad behaviour. (That's what we see from proprietary software users very often.)
So, for just about anyone, the answer is, yes, this is a bad thing.
Frank