I value free, open source software more than convenience. For this reason, I will not use OSX or any other non-free operating system no matter how convenient they may be to use. That convenience comes at a great cost that I am not willing to pay.
I'm curious about your thoughts outside of software. This is a sincere question because I often see so much passion about the topic in software, but rarely outside.
Do you only play free games, listen to free music and read free books? What about the electronics you use, the architecture of the buildings you live in and the car you drive?
The analogy breaks down for most things outside of software (even hardware, to a degree), because the basis for the argument in favor of free software is the four freedoms[1], which are themselves mere extensions of the rights of purchase.
If you sell me something, you cannot tell me that I can't modify it for my own use, for example. You as the seller can't tell me that I'm not allowed to resell my textbooks, or to modify the frames on my eyeglasses, or to hire my friend to fix my vacuum cleaner.
Proprietary software licenses do do that - the main difference is that is a non-rivalrous good; I can redistribute software without losing access to it myself. Because of that, people think it's somehow 'wrong' to say that I should be allowed to purchase a program and then resell it to another person, but if you look at it the other way, that's no more 'wrong' than purchasing a physical good and then reselling it.
In the South, it used to be common to sell property on the condition that the purchaser never sell it to a black person (I think they still used the term
Negro or 'colored' then). If I remember correctly, that was first deemed illegal in certain parts not because it's horribly racist, but because it violates the principles of first sale: you've sold me something, and now you can't tell me what I'm not allowed to do with it.
Textbooks and eyeglasses are guarded by copyright and patents. I cannot improve on the design of Oakley sunglasses and hire a firm to manufacture them. I can modify it for myself, but that is a much more limited form of freedom. Microsoft probably wouldn't care if I somehow reverse engineered Windows and modified it for myself only.
Same goes for architecture. When I buy a house, I can make modifications to it. But I don't think I have the right to hire construction companies to build new houses based on the design.
Electronics and car companies guard heavily the schematics and designs that makes it possible to repair their products much less reproduce them.
Edit - One more thing:
Just the ability to modify something you own (like textbooks or sunglasses) does not make it free. For example, I've made many modifications to OS X through utilities and configuration. The fact that OS X doesn't come with source code is equivalent to Textbooks not coming with their LaTeX source.
> Textbooks and eyeglasses are guarded by copyright and patent
I'm talking about the physical book, not the words contained within.
> When I buy a house, I can make modifications to it.
When I buy software, I should be able to make modifications to it.
> Microsoft probably wouldn't care if I somehow reverse engineered Windows and modified it for myself only.
That's explicitly prohibited by the license. Whether or not you think they'll enforce the license in your case has no bearing over the fact that it does violate it, and free software advocates argue that such licenses cannot be nonenforceable.
In any case, patents are a separate issue altogether. So is copyright, actually - free software licenses are a way of twisting current copyright law into doing the opposite of what it was meant to do: provide freedom.
Let's take a step back and look at the goals of free software. It's not just to modify and tweak things I own, it's to allow me to modify, enhance and contribute that work back to the community.
By that yardstick, most textbooks and eyeglasses are not free.
I can't improve a textbook and put it online. I can't put my improved sunglasses on the market (even if it was non-profit).
So why are people revolted by a copywrited and patented (hence unfree) OS, but have no qualms using other non-free products?
Personally, I think free and proprietary products can co-exist. Both models produce innovations which ultimately benefit society.
> By that yardstick, most textbooks and eyeglasses are not free. I can't improve a textbook .... I can't put my improved sunglasses on the market (even if it was non-profit).
Yes you can - the product in that case is physical, not digital. You can certainly turn the pages of a book into an origami creation and sell that on a secondary market if that's what you want to do. You can sell modified copies of physical products to your heart's content.
Quick aside, there are still (in NZ at least) various conditions that you can attach to property sales. For example, if your property had some native rainforest on it, you could state to whomever you sell it to that they are not allowed to mess with that part of the land (e.g. chop trees down), and whenever they onsell they must also make that a condition of sale.
Yes, though the justification behind those are the negative externalities for society at large; ie, destroying a rainforest/killing off an endangered species, etc. And even then, they're limited. (They have them in the US too - homeowners' associations are an example).
But outside of real estate, I can't think of any analogous practice outside the information market - you don't sell me a book on the condition that I not loan it to a friend, write notes in the margins, or even burn it.
> natural logistical limitations for copying and improvement.
There's also a marginal cost beyond the first unit, whereas for software, there is none.
> I cannot OCR a paper book I own, make modifications to it and then publish it on the web.
You'd be violating a copyright, which is a separate point of discussion, but I'm talking about the physical book itself. You've sold me a bunch of paper bound together, and I'm allowed to modify (or destroy) it, as well as resell it to someone else.
Sorry, I just don't see it that way. Don't get me wrong, I prefer open source, all else being equal, but software is a tool for me to achieve some other goal. If paying someone for proprietary software allows me to more quickly or cheaply achieve my real goal, then that's great. What exactly is irresponsible about that? What exactly is ignoble about that?
I think this mostly comes down to things like vendor lock-in. Yes, the tool enables you to more effectively do something, but at the cost of certain freedoms to you.
For instance, I can buy a hammer because it will make it much easier to drive nails than without one, but the handle is too long. So I can saw the end off to suit my purposes. You can't with proprietary software.
Also, don't make the mistake that free == libre. It's the fact that you're paying for proprietary software, not that your paying for it.
Although only about 1 percent of the computer-using population chooses to run Linux, the competition provided by Linux has had a positive effect on proprietary OSes, which benefits computer users who will never run Linux.
One example of this beneficial effect is the appearance of the netbook. Only after netbooks running Linux gained significant market share did Microsoft consent to license Windows to netbook makers at a price that made any sort of sense given the low retail price of the netbook. If Linux has not been an option for the early netbook makers, it is likely that hardware makers would never have been able to persuade Microsoft or Apple to consent to allow the product category to be created in the first place.
An argument can also be made that without at least a small fraction of computer users running Linux on their desktops, Linux would not have been able to capture the hearts and minds of corporate decision-makers with the result that Linux use on corporate servers might not have exploded the way it did in the late 1990s and first years of the 2000s. Certainly, Linux activists claiming to understand the thinking processes of corporate execs were saying at the time (late 1990s) that Linux needs desktop users in order to be taken seriously by mostly-Windows-desktop-using corporate execs and IT managers.
I will concede that at least some people (particularly, perfectionistic people like me or people who are easily annoyed) by will waste less time learning how to admin their machine if they run OS X than if they run Linux. And I will concede that the time and effort of these people would probably result in more social good if it were spent earning money and donating that money to a philanthropy than if it were spend learning how to adminning a Linux box. But that does not detract from the fact that if all you know about a person is that they run Linux, they're doing more "expected good" (a statistical term) for the world than someone who all you know about them is that they are a computer user or an OS X user.
You're making a different point now than what I took you to mean before. Not only that, but the OP would really be doing something noble if they were making open source, contributing in some other way if they aren't a coder, than with some holier-than-thou complaint about other peoples choices (i.e. OSX).
> . If paying someone for proprietary software allows me to more quickly or cheaply achieve
You're confusing the tradeoff. The tradeoff is not about money; libre software can be sold as well.
The point in question is whether you should have to (or even be able to) sacrifice your intrinsic rights, such as your right to modify your own property for your own purposes.
Whether or not you paid money for it is irrelevant to that aforementioned right.
Intrinsic right? That's a weird statement to me. What about the creator, don't I have an intrinsic right to determine the terms by which I distribute my creations?
What makes you believe any of these things are intrinsic? Is that a faith based belief?
The definition of property is fuzzy, and I can sell you bits that don't include source code. The OP is arguing that source code is an intrinsic right. I don't see that.
The biggest thing to remember is that you need to select hardware that will work with Linux (just like how the vast majority of Mac users use Apple hardware). The issue is knowing what to get. If you're in the market for a laptop, I would highly recommend the ThinkPad X1 Carbon. It's a great piece of hardware by itself, and the Linux compatibility is there as well.
Yeah, I've been using Linux for years, and I currently have a System 76 laptop that comes with Linux installed.
I'm more worried about switching to the "GNU Approved" OSes, like Trisquel or Parabola. They have a modified "Linux-libre" kernel with non-free modules removed, and they usually block non-free software by default in the package manager.
I want to do it, because it does make me feel better to use all free software, but I don't want a crippled user experience. I'll put up with a little extra work to get things like Gnash working instead of Flash, but if certain drivers just aren't there, I'm not comfortable just giving up core functionality. Not yet, at least.
I would prefer to use only open source, but I am not technically literate enough. I have used both Windows and Linux for 16 years, and had been using Linux more and Windows less for the first nine years. Over the past 7 years, since getting on the Internet, I have mostly used Windows, because I have not managed to get any of the Linux distros I have tried to work over a dial-up modem.
definitely prefer open source but sometimes have to delve into the other to get the outcome sought. aversion to buying a product and now owning it though. should be yours to do with as you please.
