Free Software and Freedom of Will

Sorry if I put this screenshot, but I'm just about my journey through rolling release distros.

Sorry if I put this screenshot, but I'm just about my journey through rolling release distros.

Greetings to all. On this occasion, I come to give my point of view about the atmosphere that occurs in the Free software and freedom of will (or decision) that allows us.

Although our colleague nano has questioned the respect that is had in the desks of the users (and users) of desktops GNU / Linux, the truth is that the GNU / Linux panorama is quite translucent in terms of paradigms of software freedom and freedom to decide, both apparently incompatible.

The truth is that there is an incompatibility between the philosophy of Free Software and the philosophy of freedom of will, because if we cling too much to the freedom of Free Software without prior knowledge, we will end up being fanboys and madmen.

The concept of Free Software is based mainly on the principles of Free Software, which must be shared both the binary and the source code. In addition, they recommend any free license that does not involve the use of the source code or the binaries for profit.

In the case of the open source concept, it is based on the principle of Free Software, but it allows us to make use of the profit from binaries but not from source code, so we can be given a source of money to pay for one that another need. A very clear example of this is Google Chrome / Chromium.

Now, the question is: do the supporters of each of these principles agree? Well the answer is no.

The truth is that there is an endless dispute between these two principles that has come to touch aspects as frivolous as customization of desktop environments, and this discussion becomes completely tiresome.

On the other hand, the dependence on proprietary software such as proprietary blobs of the Kernel itself and some proprietary drivers make it more difficult for us to have a completely free computer, so having distros like Trisquel or Parabola seems useless, since we have hardware It does not work well with free drivers (rather, it makes it very difficult for us to configure the free drivers) and in many cases, the Linux-libre kernel does not work as it should thanks to the absence of the necessary blobs.

In my case, my problem is not privacy on the Internet itself, since I have lost it for a long time when I registered in Hotmail, and gradually I have been registering in several other sites until I became so public that Google easily finds me. Now, the problem that I have (and many others would have) is the comfort generated by the use of Free Software.

At the moment I am happy with Debian y Slackware, but right now I'm testing Arch Linux, for which, thanks to tutorial from our colleague @elav to install it with KDE, is helping me a lot so I don't get lost on the way.

Although it may take me a few digs with the help of the Arch Wiki to correct some mistakes that I have made along the way (and for now, I will be giving my opinion about this great distro but in a few weeks to to be able to fully enjoy it).

If there will be time to do an installation tutorial of Parabola GNU / Linux-LibreThere will be, but at least let me breathe for a moment to be able to fully handle that distro (I generally like semi-automated distros, but I see that doing the odd craft doesn't hurt).

Returning to the point, the truth is that this mess that is generated between Free Software and free will should end in an amicable agreement, since there is so much dust for only theoretical and not practical issues, making the transition from the use of Free Software and open source increasingly thorny and confusing than ever.

It's okay that there are a lot of distributions of GNU / Linux spread all over the world, but what is requested is that there be a maturity on the part of those who defend this position of Free Software and a tolerance (and respect) for those who cannot yet dissociate themselves from proprietary elements by a or Another reason, besides that they realize that not everything in this world is GNU / Linux, since there are also Solaris, BSD, Hurd, Tron and other operating systems that are neither Windows nor Mac OSX.

I hope that my "manifesto" serves to reflect on the subject, and that a flamewar is not created for something that has been misunderstood and / or misinterpreted.

Thank you very much and until the next post.


81 comments, leave yours

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

*

*

  1. Responsible for the data: Miguel Ángel Gatón
  2. Purpose of the data: Control SPAM, comment management.
  3. Legitimation: Your consent
  4. Communication of the data: The data will not be communicated to third parties except by legal obligation.
  5. Data storage: Database hosted by Occentus Networks (EU)
  6. Rights: At any time you can limit, recover and delete your information.

  1.   chinoloco said

    What a good thought, it would be nice if it appeared on all blogs, and forums.
    Greetings.

  2.   Lukas said

    mmm I used to be one of those linux defenders to death. Then I met the real world and saw that I was just a brainwashed fool.

    1.    eliotime3000 said

      Well, I use GNU / Linux for convenience, not just for the freedom and "privacy" that the most common distros give.

      1.    kennatj said

        I think the same.

    2.    majority said

      People who do not understand freedom because I continued paying for the licenses of the windows, although they do not have anything about windows, now they are squares. I do know Linux well and I trust it for my daily work ...

  3.   diazepam said

    Here I found an alternative version that says the same

    (Warning: it is heavily politicized and produces uproarious laughter)
    http://ubuntuperonista.blogspot.ca/2011/04/la-tercera-posicion.html

    1.    eliotime3000 said

      Well, I wrote this article as neutral as possible to avoid flamewars.

  4.   Tedel said

    Well, I don't focus so much on the topic of software freedom (I even got an ugly look at the Fedora chat once for giving a comment on that) as I did on freedom to choose. I think the "big tech companies" failed by not offering transparency. I think you should use what is good for you and not complicate the story. I think that good things should be imitated and improved, and that free software allows that. I think it's good that there are people scrutinizing that they don't try to do weird things behind our backs and I think it's better that they don't even have the intentions to do something behind our backs.

    That is why I use Linux: because it seems more reliable in the sense of the security of my computer.

    But this does not mean that I prefer the original Nvidia driver over Noveau, or Flash Player over Gnash. They work fine for me and I use them. It is simply that.

    Greetings.

  5.   charlie brown said

    It already seemed to me that a post like this was being necessary, I agree with your proposals. Every time I see a Byzantine discussion among the staunch defenders of these positions, it seems to me that I am witnessing a meeting between religious fundamentalists who make their "doctrine" the center of the universe and who also seek to impose their vision on the rest. I think that this "evangelizing" attitude does not help to spread the SL and makes it look like something of intolerant 'geeks'.

    In my opinion, the defense of free will begins by recognizing the right of each person to use the OS that they see fit. Let us remember that for the vast majority of people, a computer (in its broadest sense, where I include any other intelligent device), is nothing more than a tool used to work, communicate, have fun, etc., with which You will use the one you like or satisfy the most, without dedicating a moment to philosophical considerations about the license under which your code is found, if anyone doubts what I say, stop to think how many users of devices with Android know that it is based on GNU / Linux, does that make you "defenders" of Open Source?

    1.    eliotime3000 said

      Well, that's where I'm going, that they demonstrate what they say with actions and not only in words.

  6.   itachi said

    You forget that free software has a philosophical foundation and an ethical orientation that cannot be hidden. If we take away its philosophical character, why do we want free software, with windows and apple we would have plenty if finally the criterion is that adobe flash player is better than gnash etc ... if what we want is that everything works, we better stay on windows.

    1.    Alberto Aru said

      I think exactly the same, when I finish my degree I want to learn to program properly and help in what I can to improve the software I use, it is the only way to do it better than the proprietary one.

    2.    pandev92 said

      The problem is that in windows xD not everything works, nor is it so stable, plus it is difficult to make it look the way you like it.
      The problem here is that we confuse the philosophy of the fsf, with the philosophy of opensource, and many of us are closer to that of opensource, we use what we use, because this benefits us in some way or another, not by ideology, but by tastes , technical, appearance or whatever.

      1.    Morpheus said

        It is a mistake to compare the concepts "Free Software" with "open source". We are mixing pears with apples. Open source is a software development methodology. Free software is a philosophical and ethical concept. It's like comparing freedom of speech to the printing process of a newspaper. One can serve the other (sometimes not).
        Being "in favor of free will" does not necessarily imply believing that it is valid that someone has the possibility to decide to do ANYTHING they want. Because, for example, someone could "freely decide" to take that freedom away from another. That's what “free software” is about, not about imposing, but about THINKING what is the best ethically (and not technically) ...

  7.   seachello said

    I very much agree with itachi. I think one of the most important aspects of free software is precisely its ethics. The characteristics of free software are not only to make efficient software but to make a better, more just and collaborative society. I think this is vital and it is the reason why when I use proprietary but free software there is a bug in my head that urges me to look for a free alternative. I use linux and it is more comfortable than windows (without a doubt), but the main reason for using it is because I agree with its philosophy and because I believe that its distribution would be beneficial to society (a clear example is the public administration). If linux were worse than windows, I think (because the situation has not occurred) that I would stay and defend linux. Using the example of Charlie Brown, using android doesn't make you an advocate for free software. In short, being in favor of free software and defending it means believing in its philosophy and using it even if there is something technically better. I clarify that I speak in general, of trends. If there is any specific software that you must use, you don't have to be a Taliban, but you do have to have the attitude mentioned above.

    Regarding the benefits of free software, I believe above all that it is the most sustainable and what would save us the most resources. It does not make sense that many people have to invest resources and time in developing the same thing unless it is to improve it.

    In summary I believe that YES that free software must be defended and that it is not enough to say use what suits you best. Even so, I believe that we should not impose or despise but convince and educate through dialogue and reasoning. If not, what you get is that people get defensive or flee from the subject.

  8.   Alberto Aru said

    What you really have to do is fight for that free software and do it the same or better than the proprietary one, point ball.

    1.    eliotime3000 said

      Well, that's what I meant, since nowadays, nobody dares to use gnash because of how useless it is compared to the flash player.

      I hope you also take into account the convenience of using free software.

  9.   diazepam said

    The day that (insert adult video portal) stops fucking and switches to html5, I get rid of the flash.

    1.    pandev92 said

      I totally support that XD, in the end it is what has me tied to flash ahahha

    2.    eliotime3000 said

      But let it be fast, because I am tired of seeing several banners in flash and that they require me to install it (and by the way, that gnash deserves a development worthy of real free software).

  10.   staff said

    I do not believe that there is no compatibility between the "philosophy" (thus in quotation marks, because I am not very sure that these ideas can be called philosophy) of free software and that of free will, to begin with because they touch on different subjects.
    The freedom that free software talks about is an ethical issue supported by legal bases, and free will is a philosophy almost entirely religious with edges, physical and moral.
    For example: A slave loses his freedom but maintains his free will.

    The madmen who seek to impose their ideas (whether they be from the SL or something else) are those who do not know what freedom is, and it is that first you have to know what it is, to value and defend it.

    Regarding the SL and CA, I think there is an error, Free Software does allow you to profit from binaries, Anyone can make software, publish the code, release it under the GPL and sell the binaries (there is someone who wants to buy it from me it's something else 🙂).
    What is not worth it is to take the work already done by another, change the icons, the name and sell it.

    And finally, the hardware and software / proprietary drivers.
    You just have to remember the steps for choosing my equipment.
    Resources (human, knowledge and financial) -> What do I want (and can) do -> what software do I need to do it -> what hardware do I need for that software.
    (Maybe I will skip one, but it was a long time since I was taught it in the computer center administration class)
    And I leave you two examples.
    1. Resources (5 employees, medium / high level of programming, little capital)
    2. What I want to do: Develop web pages based on free standards while maintaining ethics and privacy for my company, as well as my clients and their users.
    3. What software do I need: based on the fact that I cannot pay for licenses, I look for the advantages of free software and I have no problems for terminal installations, Parabola with libreoffice for documents, gimp2 + krita for graphics.
    4. Hardware. Computers with i3 are good for programming and an i5 for graphic design. Intel video and compatible network cards.

    Result, all good.

    Example 2.

    1 Resources. Teen with medium knowledge and 2,000 dollars in the bag.
    4. Hardware, i7 xtreme, 2 nvidia in SLI and 16 GB of RAM all with overclock.
    3. Software, trisquel because it is based on Ubuntu but without unity because I do not understand.
    2. What I want to do. Play the last of us and other exclusive PS3 games.

    Outcome. A thousand complaints in forums about GNU / Linux and the teenager jumping two feet on his monitor.

    1.    eliotime3000 said

      Well, as far as I know, so far I have not seen any case that they actually sell a binary whose source code uses GPL (as is the case with Ares, which does not sell the binary itself as something physical, but offers you a service in which you "pay" to access the P2P network, even if its source code is in Sourceforge, abandoned).

      In the case of software whose source code has Apache, BSD and other licenses, it gives you that facility to profit from the binaries but not from the source code in one way or another, even adding the occasional backdoor to the final binary.

      1.    staff said

        Well, I have not seen that it profits directly with the source code or the binaries in the open source, but if you want an example how you can profit with a product with an LGPL license, there is Libreoffice
        and their Novell Edition, and I don't know if they continue to sell, but before if they did, OpenOffice Novell Edition, with GPL / Apache license.

        Free software licenses defend the freedom of the user, the person, not the code, or economic issues, the open source only see to have better quality code in less time.

      2.    Morpheus said

        RedHat!

        1.    eliotime3000 said

          Yes, but it does not forbid you to make a copy of it from the disc or share it with your friends. The problem is that you have to pay the subscription as if it were a pass to be able to use their repos without being harassed.

          1.    staff said

            I did not understand that last, we already saw that if there are those who sell the binary with a free license (another example would be PPSSPP, a psp emulator that is sold on googleplay and has a GPL license).
            But do you want free software that prohibits making copies and sharing them with your friends? That is absurd, it would be attacking the social solidarity of your community, and it would turn it into proprietary software.

  11.   Tina Toledo said

    Excellent topic with which I largely agree, in fact I have also questioned that point: https://blog.desdelinux.net/gnulinux-cual-es-el-camino-de-la-libertad/

    A big hug and a big kiss Eliotime.

    1.    eliotime3000 said

      Thank you very much for the compliment, Tina. What's more, I would have liked you to be the editor-in-chief of this blog, but due to unknown factors (and I don't dare to ask out of respect), you appear on those occasions.

      1.    eliotime3000 said

        PS: Do you use Chrome Canary? Since I use Chromium nightly builds to prevent Google Update from taking more resources from my processor.

        1.    Tina Toledo said

          Hello Eliotime,

          Yes! Indeed, I use Chrome Canary… I love Chrome.

          The question of why I am no longer so participatory is somewhat related to your topic. The reasons are several:

          1.-Work eats up a large part of my time, so I prefer to dedicate the little time I have to my family, to practice some sport or any other recreational activity in the open air, to read a book ... and also to pamper myself a little bit.

          2.-The other reason is technical. I am a graphic designer, not a systems engineer, and I use GNU / Linux because I like it. In this sense, issues of a technical nature do not occur to me: I do not know how the kernel of an OS works, for example, and therefore my contributions in that area - the technical one - are null.

          3.-Here your theme fits into one of my motives. While it is true that free software itself does not bother the environment. Certainly this site breathes, most of the time, an air of respect but we are not exempt from plagiarism either. The truth is that it annoys me that a topic written by me, or by any other collaborator, is copied, pasted and passed off as their own on another site by unscrupulous people who, in addition, fill their mouths giving "lessons" of the high moral and ethical quality of free software.
          I also do not like that users of other OS are treated pejoratively. In 99% of the topics written here and on other sites there is no lack of sarcastic comment, a mockery of wit, which tries to discredit and / or minimize the entire context of other OS.

          If in both cases the use of freedom is alleged, in one to copy and paste and in the other to write what you want instead of what is correct, ah! then I appeal to my freedom to participate or not.

          All the best

          1.    eliotime3000 said

            In my case, as I am still in my studies at the institute, I can at least afford to browse this site from time to time (and by the way, write a little more for this forum, although the tutorials are better than the posts opinion). From time to time, I go out with a couple of friends so that we can relax a bit and get rid of the hustle and bustle.

            Regarding graphic design, I would like to work on it, although unfortunately I am in the part of maintenance and repair of Windows PCs (I have a page in DeviantArt, but until now, I can't find the time to make a really great wallpaper with Photoshop and Illustrator, applications that, along with Adobe's Creative Suite and CorelDraw, I have become used to using). I am curious about the modus operandi of operating systems and making obsolete PCs come back to life, which is why I like to use GNU / Linux.

            On the plagiarism side, I am simply here for the mere fact that in T! there are a plethora of copypastas and creepypastas, plus at least I feel much more comfortable that, on one occasion, I was criticized for writing an article that seemed like a forum question. Anyway, that site is already in decline and another pastebin on steroids will be taking its place, although he prefers to be editing and writing articles for the Spanish Wikipedia than for those pastebins.

            And by the way, I also like Google Chrome (well I liked it), but I stopped using stable Chrome on Windows because Google Update slowed down my PC, making it slower, so I had to use Chromium nightly builds to be able to sailing calm and without complications. I would like to use Chrome Canary, but seeing as it has Google Updater and updates as often as Arch Linux, then I went to use Chromium.

  12.   dmurana said

    It is always good to see healthy reflections like yours. Well, many people know how to talk about tolerance but they become intolerant when doing so, on the other hand I was happy to read your text.
    About what you mention about the difference between 'free software' and 'open source', perhaps you have not expressed it correctly, because the principles of the first do not say anything about not selling binaries or being non-profit, in fact, while anyone you can download the source code and compile it or buy the binaries and distribute them freely, it is free software (example you quote, Chromium). The 'open source' on the other hand ignores the principles of free software that start from ethics and simply emphasizes the practical advantages of being able to read the code (even if it is proprietary). But in both cases you can make money by selling software and / or services.
    Greetings.

    1.    eliotime3000 said

      Well, of the concepts of free software such as open source, I could be wrong. In the end, I am human after all.

      As you say, free software you have the freedom to do whatever you want with it, but if the binary differs from what the source code contains, then it may be that if you have paid for it, you may be the victim of a scam.

      The case of Chromium is that it uses the BSD license, which allows for proprietary forks like Google Chrome, which usually has certain components like the Google Updater for versions made for Windows and Mac.

      If Transmission were to have a proprietary fork knowing that it is being licensed under the GPL, then it would be a complete act of piracy. If it is licensed under the Apache or BSD license, then that proprietary fork would be completely legitimate.

    2.    diazepam said

      Regarding the differences between SL and CA, take away the even if this is exclusive. The rest is left the same and it is already the correct difference.

  13.   nosferatuxx said

    Live and let live..
    Thank god for diversity ... (if not, we would all be clones)

    1.    nosferatuxx said

      mmm and I wonder for the 3rd time, why if I am registered in the forum and I have just accessed it ... my avatar does not appear when I post a comment on the blog?
      Should I also register on the blog?

      1.    nosferatuxx said

        ok .. ok… I understand… I must also register in wordpress… !! lol O_o

        1.    cookie said

          Use Gravatar.

          1.    eliotime3000 said

            That was going to say. Also, I already have my avatar on Gravatar, and I haven't uploaded any of them on this blog.

  14.   Joaquin said

    The problem with having a 100% free distro is that for "normal" use by anyone it does not work due to problems with drivers, audio / video codecs and any other software that is lamely necessary (such as the already named Flash Player).

    But it is also necessary to teach and share the philosophy of SL. Those who are totally faithful to this and do not depend on proprietary packages will be able to use a free distro without problems or at least adapt to the free alternatives as they mature.

    Personally, I think that many of us who use GNU / Linux, although we agree with the SL and spread it, we do it for convenience and because it is easy to adapt it to our needs.

    1.    eliotime3000 said

      Thank you for summarizing everything I have written.

  15.   Juan said

    the user AleQwerty from taringa (www.taringa.net) is stealing all the articles from this blog (and others that are published in Spanish) and publishes them as if they were his; has already received several complaints, so you may be interested in taking action on the matter.

    1.    eliotime3000 said

      Well, next time, put the reference link and do not forget that all posts are using Creative Commons (BY-NC-SA). If not, I denounce it (since I am also registered in Taringa!).

      PS: I will open this thread in the forum in the section "Blog stuff" and / or "Trash" so as not to saturate the post with a huge off-topic.

  16.   asrafil said

    It is true that as people we must respect the decision of others and that we are free to modify our operating system as we wish.
    Even so, the reason for the existence of the GNU system is not to compete with other operating systems, but to abandon proprietary software and unfortunately this idea has been minimized in favor of convenience.

    1.    pandev92 said

      As such, there is no GNU operating system. Linux itself is a system that works thanks to the efforts of communities and companies, many of which have nothing to do with gnu and the ideals of the fsf.

      1.    staff said

        Just to clarify.
        If the GNU / Linux system exists, even the GNU operating system (like that without anything else) only that without a kernel it is not functional.
        This is what we see when installing, for example Arch, just before installing the Desktop lol
        We use it every time we run a bash script, every time we connect to the Internet, every time we compile, etc.

        The most basic and essential components (Bash, coreutils, GCC, etc.), all were programmed for the GNU system, and in many of them there is code from Richard Stallman, GCC and Emacs for example.

        That it was a community work does not take away the unity of the project, come on, even Windows and Mac OSX are projects that amalgamate an infinity of parts of their own code, from other companies (some buy them, others hire them) and even free code.

        1.    pandev92 said

          You are mixing pears with apples, of course there are many pieces of gnu code, but today linux on the desktop, it is more and more like android, Linux and less and less gnu, people are going from gcc to llvm clang, not kde It is a gnu project, everything in ubuntu is not a gnu project, neither is the kernel, nor wayland, nor did I look, etc etc.

          1.    cookie said

            Yeah, yeah, they're both right but they see it from different points of view.
            The base system consists of GNU + Linux kernel tools, we all know that. And the other additions come from external developers to these projects.
            What happens is that pandev takes as a system the set of all elements (kernel, GNU tools, desktop, applications) and staff as what only works below.
            But I think this has nothing to do with the subject, right?

  17.   Poor taku said

    Everything is very clear in "the book" by stallman http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fsfs/free_software.es.pdf

    1.    eliotime3000 said

      Very good recommendation, although at the moment, I am on a tight enough schedule to read it carefully.

    2.    David Gómez said

      Everything is very clear according to Stallman's vision, which in fact is not very compatible with a society free to do what it wants and not what Stallman wants.

      1.    Morpheus said

        But if all Stallman thinks is that no one in society should be able to do whatever they want on someone else's PC with their software (such as TESTED backdoors out there on Windows and on Mac) and without informing you (without publishing the code). And that we should all have the right, not only to know what the software does with my data, but to use that software as I please, where I please and modify it as I please and share it with whoever I want. I want to and SELL it to whoever I want (free is different from free !!). How complicated is it to understand that? Or is there "someone" who wants to impose on us that "if it works better, it doesn't matter what is inside"? Would you eat a food if you are forbidden to know what it is made of? Would you buy a car if you were forced to use it only on one route?

        1.    David Gómez said

          It's that freedom goes both ways ... If you don't like it, don't buy it, don't use it, don't even look at it. But you don't have to impose your way of thinking and seeing the world on others.

          If I want to close my software it is my problem, if someone wants to use it well, if another does not want to use it, that is also fine. But what is not right is that this extremist comes to treat me as malicious or other adjectives just because I don't want to do things the way he thinks they have to be.

          1.    staff said

            "It's that freedom goes both ways ... If you don't like it, don't buy it, don't use it, don't even look at it."
            That is exactly what Mr. Stallman RECOMMENDS, although of course, that does not mean that it cannot be criticized just because you do not like it.

            “But you don't have to impose your way of thinking and seeing the world on others. »

            Okay, but an appointment would be necessary where it is seen that RMS someone else tries to IMPOSE the ideas of free software, which by itself is absurd, since the ideas of the SL are not taxable, unlike those of the SP, the which if it imposes:
            - how you should run your programs.
            - If you can study and modify them.
            - What should they do.
            - To whom you can and to whom you cannot share the program.

            "If I want to close my software it is my problem, if someone wants to use it well, if another does not want to use it, that is also fine."

            Completely agree.

            "But what is not right is that this extremist comes to treat me as malicious or other adjectives just because I don't want to do things the way he thinks they have to be."

            Well, putting adjectives to a person because you don't want them to put them on you is quite ironic.
            Especially when you rely on prejudice.
            I have never heard or read RMS saying that users are malevolent, in fact or the software (what it says, and I can quote it, is that closed-source software makes us assume that it contains malevolent functionalities.), And when he calls a developer malicious for using proprietary licenses, he is right, because he deliberately violates social solidarity, and that here and in China is bad.
            So it is not that he is malicious because he does not do things the way he thinks they should be, he is evil because he does not do things ethically.

          2.    David Gómez said

            @staff

            "That is exactly what Mr. Stallman RECOMMENDS, although of course, that does not mean that it cannot be criticized just because you do not like it."

            There is criticism to criticism and the extremist man has a long history of going overboard with his criticism, even undermining the freedom of choice of users and developers.

            "Okay, but it would be necessary to have an appointment where it is seen that RMS someone else tries to IMPOSE the ideas of free software ..."

            If I were to link to all the content available on the Internet where we can see Stallman lashing out at companies, developers (even colleagues), assorted other people for making use of their right of choice, and even making public scandals for their inability to control themselves or control their opinions, the blog's spam system would block my post for the number of links included.

            "Well, putting adjectives to a person because you don't want them to put them on you is quite ironic."

            At no time do I ask you not to use adjectives (you have to read carefully), what I say is that it is not right to say publicly that my interests as a developer or company are malicious simply because I do not want to share the fruit of my work with everyone who wants to benefit from it. Ethical or unethical, that is completely subjective, because at the end of the day I as a developer am not doing any harm to a user by not sharing the code, much less if I am not forcing him to use my product.

            Assuming that I have bad intentions towards my users simply by not releasing my code is completely irresponsible, and much more irresponsible when I go out to shout it from the rooftops.

            Returning to the adjectives, Stallman's extremism is not an invention of mine, it is what the type of behavior that he exposes when he wants to impose his ideas is called, it is a dictionary definition.

            So far I leave my participation in the post, because it is a waste of time trying to make someone who communes so blindly with a person who does not have the mental capacity to understand that the world and the human being understand a different point of view , they are too complex to put in black and white terms.

            Good luck!

          3.    eliotime3000 said

            More in agreement, I cannot be with David Gómez.

          4.    staff said

            "... even undermining the freedom of choice of users and developers."
            Another unsubstantiated accusation, requires appointment (with a coarse).

            "If I were to link to all the content available on the Internet where we can see Stallman lashing out at companies, developers (even colleagues), assorted other people for making use of their right of choice, and even making public scandals for their inability to control or control their opinions, the blog's spam system would block my post for the number of links included. "

            This would be your first fallacy, you appeal to the existence of multiple tests, but you do not present any, when only one is enough. I leave you an “extremist” example:

            -Of course I have 8 fingers on my hand, but if I were to send you all the evidence I have of it, my hard drive would saturate and explode, causing a chain reaction whereby the planet would be destroyed.

            "At no time do I ask that you not use adjectives (you have to read carefully),"

            Another false argument, because if we go to those, I never said to ask for it, and I quote:

            "... why don't you WANT them to put them on you,"

            You have to read carefully, Wanting is not the same as asking

            “What I am saying is that it is not right to say publicly that my interests as a developer or company are malicious simply because I do not want to share the fruit of my work with anyone who wants to benefit from it. "

            You have to read carefully,

            Ethical or unethical, that's completely subjective,

            Another false argument, ethics is divided into subjective and objectivist. The first will be as personal as you want, but here it does not apply, because when dealing with a licensing issue, it leaves aside the philosophical, it enters the legal field, the objectivist ethics has been used to, through centuries of debate, achieve rights human beings that we have today, the political constitutions of countries and states, well, even the labor contracts of companies that manufacture SP have elements such as: "ethical manuals of behavior inside and outside the company"

            "Well, at the end of the day, as a developer, I am not doing any harm to a user by not sharing the code, much less if I am not forcing him to use my product."

            False, to begin with, because it is not up to the developer to decide what hurts the user or not, it is up to the user himself.
            If a user wants to learn about the program for which he paid and is forbidden to see the code, he is being damaged.
            The best way to learn programming is by reading and writing code, I particularly learn a lot by watching other people's code, and it doesn't mean I copy or plagiarize them.

            "Assuming that I have bad intentions towards my users simply by not releasing my code is completely irresponsible, and much more irresponsible when I go out to shout it from the rooftops."

            There is read carefully. Assuming is not the same as showing off.
            And it can be presumed that closed codes hide malicious functions because they have already set precedents for it.

            "Going back to adjectives, Stallman's extremism is not an invention of mine, it is what the type of behavior that he exposes when he wants to impose his ideas is called, it is dictionary definition."

            You have to read carefully, I didn't say it was your invention.

            So far I leave my participation in the post, because it is a waste of time trying to make someone who communes so blindly with a person who does not have the mental capacity to understand that the world and the human being understand a different point of view , they are too complex to put in black and white terms.

            🙂 This is for auction. You say goodbye with an Ad Hominem fallacy.
            And to top it all, as is customary, based on your prejudices.
            Who said that I agree with the ideas of RMS?
            To avoid future confusion I clarify it:
            I agree with logic, democracy and capitalism, and the 4 freedoms of the FSF (not of Mr. RMS) are logical and defend democracy and capitalism.
            If I am wrong, present strong logical evidence and I retract, with apology included.

            I use software and I have developed proprietary software, but I do not have a double standard, I am aware of the degree to which this has been malicious and I take responsibility for my actions, that this is freedom, not “doing what I want”, and there is the dictionary that won't let me lie.
            "1. F. Natural power that man has to act in one way or another, and not to act, so he is responsible for his actions. " -RAE
            So when they call me malicious, for not delivering the x software code, I do not turn into an ostrich, nor do I play the saint or the offended.
            So from:
            "Oh! By the nails of Christ, you have called me malevolent, if I would be incapable of something like that, I am a completely moral person in all aspects of my life, oh and I say moral and unethical, because ethics, fuchi, is subjective "

            With 5 fallacious arguments and many other misinterpretations of the text (I dare not say that they are intentional) it is difficult to dialogue, so I also say goodbye to the subject.

            regards

        2.    Mario said

          Stallman wants each user to be able to use the software as you say ... but it has certain limits: if you make modifications you MUST publish their code and you cannot close it ... it is not as "as I please" (it is known that no right is absolute , everything has its limit). The problem is that in this world of private property these ideas can generate a certain itch in developers and companies. By licensing the GPL you can allow any user of yours to resell your product, even become your competitor. This does not happen in other areas. If you buy a car, they do not give you the plans or the license to produce them. I don't think Ford likes you to take your car apart and grab a lathe to copy each of the parts and put your factory together. The software is so flexible that it can be copied millions of times without losing quality, that's the difference (which I think stallman or the gnu website says). But many times software is thought of as a commercial product, with trade secrets, and with the characteristics that tangible things have. It depends on the developer Do you want to share your software or just think of it as a final product to license?

          1.    staff said

            Surely that is why companies that, with double talk, boast of being capitalists while actually detesting capitalism, create and bombard with disinformative propaganda to attack the SL.

          2.    Morpheus said

            If the GPL license would allow ANOTHER to close "because he wants to" a free program that the AUTHOR created free "because he wanted to" that is free, which desire is worth more than that of the AUTHOR or that of the OTHER that is benefits from the AUTHOR's work? is it valid to allow freedom to be taken away? In societies where slavery does not exist, are we taking away the "freedom" to decide to enslave someone else who wishes to do so?
            I don't think Ford will bother if you want to "tune up" your car (modify it to your liking) take the parts out to reuse them, use it wherever you want, or resell it. And how do you think competition in the free market is if you can't do something? similar to another product? How do you think there are several brands of cars with similar components? Can someone forbid me to create my own car model by studying how the one I bought works? If there were patents on other products like there are on software, it might even be forbidden to use "cars with wheels" because it has already been patented by another company.
            "The software is so flexible that it can be copied millions of times without losing quality" precisely for this reason, proprietary software is not sold as a product, but as a "user license". And if we think of it as a product, can you build a single car and resell the exact same car millions of times to millions of people, and no one really owns it and has the right to use it as they want? Would it be logical, normal, legal or ethical to do that? Or would it be a SCAM?
            Stallman and all of us who agree with his philosophy fight against these inconsistencies and injustices.
            In this young science (computer science) there is a lot of ignorance (no offense, it is natural that there is) and misinformation (intentional?) And there are people who are taking advantage (becoming mega-millionaires) of that ignorance of a large part of society .
            The free software philosophy does not seek to force anyone to give away their work, or to use other "worse" software, or to think "as Stallman wants": it seeks that, faced with this situation (where, on top of that, in addition to cheating us they spy !!) LET'S OPEN YOUR EYES ...

      2.    Poor taku said

        There is no clearer way of expressing the Stallman philosophy than as the good morpheus does.
        Although in fact everyone can do with their ignorance what they want….?

  18.   Mario said

    Fortunately, "free will" allowed a virtual friend to express his point of view about free software and free will. With all due respect, I do not find a relationship between one and the other. It seems to me like a nonsensical tirade against the first, despite the fact that it manifests that it handles some of its elements. The supposed incompatibility that he seems to see matches proprietary software, which is the one that does not allow the user to exercise and reaffirm their independence. I am struck by the statement in the final paragraph about an alleged "manifest" that does not appear anywhere. A Manifesto is something else, a radical, novel, foundational political declaration. I think it would be very useful for many of us to better document ourselves about this and other topics that are presented in this publication. There is a lot of confusion, a lot of darkness, a bit of animosity for GNUlinux, and a lot of admiration for capitalist demons.

    1.    Morpheus said

      I completely agree.
      It is a pity that there is so much misinformation on these issues.
      In the article the concepts of free and free or proprietary and paid are confused.
      The "free will" of a proprietary software user does not exist, not knowing what the program really does with his machine and its data. By not being able to modify it, share it or reuse it, and even RESELL it (the GNU license does not prohibit selling SL, it prohibits CLOSING it, which is very different (but ask RedHat)). Free will is actually held by those who program proprietary software with us users. They can do whatever they want, "while it works" ... that's how it goes ...

      1.    eliotime3000 said

        Well, you have the power to choose between eating self-service food (or proprietary software), and eating homemade food (or free software). The one who has not stopped to read the terms and conditions of each software (or does not know what those terms are like), then, is completely naive.

        1.    staff said

          I think the analogy is somewhat wrong.
          The self-service food comes with its table of ingredients (source code) so it cannot be proprietary software.

          Although yes, you do have the power (I think this is the term you wanted to use, power does not apply, as it is a legal term, which reflects domain or property and not the ability to choose) to choose between the food you know with what and how it is prepared, and a puree that tastes good, feeds you, but when you ask the one who sold it:
          - It tastes like meat, but not chicken, or beef, or anything I've ever tried before. What animal do they get this meat from?
          They answer you - Do not ask, by eating it you accepted the license, you cannot analyze it to know the ingredients, you cannot know if the diarrhea that you will get tomorrow is due to the puree, you cannot make more puree, and if your child is dying of hunger You cannot give it, because the money you paid for it does not make you an owner, we only give permission for you to eat it. 🙂

          1.    eliotime3000 said

            The thing about self-service food is that they make you believe that it is made of such a thing, causing you to give up on finding out how it was really cooked and if it was really cooked in conditions to be consumed in optimal conditions for human consumption. The same thing happens with soft drinks, which in life will give you the exact recipe for the syrup so you can mix it with carbonated water (or carbonated mineral water), and distribute it freely.

            With free software, you have the ability to know what "ingredients" have been used, plus you can know what "preparation" modes are used to compile software.

            PS: To finish off-topic, I suggest you google or duckduckees "open cola" or "free beer".

      2.    Tina Toledo said

        Morpheus dixit:
        "It's a shame there is so much misinformation on these issues."

        Because you create that chaos yourself. Eliotime's article has not even been fully understood; He does not criticize the philosophy of free software, his claim goes to those who criticize using -as a weapon of attack- the philosophy of free software:
        «... what is being asked is that there be a maturity on the part of those who defend this position of Free Software and a tolerance (and respect) for those (as) who still cannot dissociate themselves from proprietary elements for one reason or another."

        What does Eliotime dislike? Well, it seems to me that precisely these types of attitudes:
        Poor taku dixit:
        "Although in effect everyone can do with their ignorance what they want ...."
        https://blog.desdelinux.net/el-software-libre-y-la-libertad-de-albedrio/comment-page-2/#comment-89090
        And is that using the adjective "ignorant" has nothing wrong, we are all ignorant in many ways and in various ways. The problem is when that adjective is used in a pejorative way and even with a certain hint of contempt. Can everyone really do what they want with their ignorance? Wouldn't it be more correct to say "many of us make wrong decisions out of ignorance"? And it is not a question of semantics or that I have misunderstood it, that way of expressing oneself - «… everyone can do whatever they want with their ignorance….» shows the background and the form.
        And that's the shocking thing.

        First of all, using proprietary software does not restrict my free will, nor that of other people. What's more, it doesn't even limit my freedom - I'm not talking about the freedom of others, just my own. Today, in a globalized world, we cannot live like John Connor hiding from SkyNet: if we use bad credit or debit cards; We provide our data to a proprietary system… but if we don't, we expose ourselves to theft, as happened to Estallman. Ironically, a proprietary system solved his problem because his passport was also stolen; his embassy had to resort to those control systems that Richard criticized, otherwise Stallman would not leave Argentina.

        I personally sympathize with the free software philosophy, but not with extremism. I also think that proprietary software restricts freedoms to the same extent as free software, or is it that we are really so naive to think that free software is the holy miracle worker that will free us from all cybernetic evils? If I install Photoshop I lose my freedom because I provide my data to Adobe and I cannot modify or distribute the software; if I install Gimp I also lose my freedom because I have to spend more time to be as productive as with Photoshop. Then using my free will I weigh those facts according to my circumstances - and those of no one else - and I decide myself what software to use and no one, absolutely no one, has the right to criticize or question my decision without my consent. Point.
        That is what Elotime asks in her manifesto *: to respect the decisions of others.

        The vast majority of users who use proprietary software ignore the existence of a trend that promotes the advantages - I don't know because they never show the disadvantages, which there are - of free software, they ignore the very existence of free software and many of them, although know it, they are not interested. Could it be that they are lazy people, who want to live in mediocrity, enslaved and without the desire to learn something new and improve themselves? NO. Plain and simple they are people who have different interests and goals. Is that so difficult to understand?

        In something we are not being congruent when a Chinese businessman pays US $ 15.3 million for a single iPhone 5 -http: //www.globalasia.com/actualidad/tecnologia/empresario-chino-paga-12-millones-iphone-5-de- diamonds - while Ubuntu Edge raised $ 12.8 million.
        Will we continue to blame others - proprietary drivers, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook ... - or is it that we are not doing our job well? That is, I believe, that Eliotime wants us to meditate on.

        * manifest, ta.
        (From the lat. Manifestus).
        bring something out.
        1. loc. verb. Manifest it, expose it to the public.
        http://buscon.rae.es/drae/srv/search?val=manifiestos

        1.    eliotime3000 said

          And the main reason why I put the word manifest in quotes, is because I already knew that the concept of that word would not be taken into account, and that if someone does not stop to read carefully what I have written, then they are inciting a flamewar by mere whim.

        2.    staff said

          Phew!
          According to 99%
          It just doesn't seem right to me to use syllogistic fallacies to support our personal opinions as arguments on topics we don't master.

          "If I install Photoshop I lose my freedom because I provide my data to Adobe and I cannot modify or distribute the software;"

          True.

          »If I install Gimp I also lose my freedom because I have to spend more time to be just as productive as with Photoshop. »

          False, to begin with we are mixing different types of freedoms,
          The freedoms of the SL have their well-defined limits, there is no talk of the freedom to be productive (to begin with, because that does not exist, what if there is is the ability to be productive and that depends on the knowledge of the person).
          In addition, if someone who does not know how to use photoshop but if you install the latter gimp, they will be more productive, this shows that the freedom or ability to be productive is not relative to the product license.

          We can start by admitting that we are computer scientists talking about legal matters (any law clerk would laugh at a lot of our thoughts.)
          We want to talk about freedom, when many times we are not clear about the concept of it and that is why we use wrong analogies, mixing the freedom to choose with the right not to be spied on, for example, making us choose between one or the other, when playing different takes they are compatible, and we should have both simultaneously.

          What I am going with this is that computing today almost everywhere and on all issues (directly or indirectly), that's why those of us who live from this or like this, give opinions on many things that we understand, leading to confusion and misinformation.
          Sometimes in something as simple as using the term "free will" which, by definition, does not apply here, since it is half the dilemma about whether man can choose his destiny or if everything is part of a divine plan predefined by some god.
          That someone by means of a license prohibits you from copying a program does not take away your free will (which by the way is not possible to verify that you have it).

          1.    Tina Toledo said

            @staff:

            I do not find any fallacies in my reasoning. The confusion is that you keep arguing on the basis that this topic is about free software and it is not. Eliotime never doubts the benefits of free software or its philosophy. What Elio puts on the table of the debate are the extremist positions that many of the sympathizers of this current have, which, most of the time, borders on intolerance. Water and oil.
            That is the point.

            Of course, if you take my two premises out of that context and, furthermore, eliminate the conclusion, my approach seems wrong. Please read what I have written again and you will see that in summary it is:
            "I decide - and no one else - based on my own needs and available resources what software I can and should use and no one has the right to criticize me for it without my consent"
            Is this a fallacy? A complicated legal or theological argument? Is it a seed that sows confusion?

            Finally I continue to stay with this phrase by Friedrich Nietzsche "Every conviction is a prison"

          2.    eliotime3000 said

            I do not question the issues of free software at any time. In addition, what I question is that they do not demonstrate with facts and only the statements remain in words.

            For those people who really work to be able to demonstrate the benefits of free software, they do so by showing you a software that really effectively solves the needs that you require the most, such as Blender, which has really managed to solve the absence of figure editors and / or 3D animation like 3D Studio Max and AutoCAD.

            Now, the main problem of free software is mainly the incompatibility of paradigms that exist, in addition to not studying in detail why it really uses such a proprietary program. Obviously, using Adobe Photoshop is not the same as GIMP, since the former, the operation of its tools make photographic editing easier and easier by editing different image file formats; and the second is being limited both by the operation of its more rustic tools than Photoshop and / or Paint Shop Pro, in addition to that it is not compatible with most professional image formats by default (TIFF, TARGA, ...), In addition, in many cases, when printing on billboards and / or printers such as HP and / or Epson (with original cartridges, of course), the result is completely different.

          3.    staff said

            @Tina Toledo
            I repeat what I said at the beginning of my comment.
            I am 99% in agreement, the content is fine for me, but not the forms.
            I fully support that you have to be respectful of the decisions of others.

            In fact, I am not arguing anything against it, I am highlighting the logical errors so that they are avoided.

            Intentional or not, but say ...

            "The truth is that there is an incompatibility between the philosophy of Free Software and the philosophy of freedom of will"

            It's a lie.

            "In addition, they recommend any free license that does not involve the use of the source code and binaries for profit."

            Is another

            And all that, whether we like it or not, when published in a widely read medium like this one, forms an opinion among readers, so you have to be cautious with what you write, because it can be terribly misinformed, and we end up reading things like :

            "The SL is for hippies and communists"
            "With the SL you can not make money"
            "There is no GNU operating system"
            "I don't use Linux (So without GNU), I use Ubuntu"
            "I'm not saying GNU / Linux because it is a technicality."
            "I'm not interested in my privacy, anyway I already lost it when I was in hotmail"

          4.    eliotime3000 said

            @staff:

            The problem falls mainly on the paradigms that each person has. If you don't know what paradigms those that rely on proprietary software use, then trumpeting won't do any good.

            @Staff:

            "I'm not interested in my privacy, anyway I already lost it when I was in hotmail"

            Read well what I have said about Hotmail. At no point did I mention that I was not interested (or was interested in) privacy; on the contrary, I prefer not to be harassed because I am "violating copyright", when in fact I am doing one of my hobbies.

          5.    staff said

            @ eliotime3000
            The part that is wrong with that text is not the interest (even if I put something that I did not or omit something, I offer an apology), if not the term "I lost", your right (which is not the same as freedom) to privacy , it is not lost, by the fact of being human you have it permanently, accepting an abusive license does not make you lose it, if a company uses your data in violation of that fundamental human right, it is the company that is wrong and you can criticize / defend yourself, that you don't want to or don't know it is up to you, but spreading false / erroneous information is a general problem.

            Another example:

            "In addition, it is not compatible with most professional image formats by default (TIFF, TARGA, ...)"

            I open and save files with TIFF or TARGA format in gimp 2.8, perhaps without all the options that photoshop offers, but from there to saying that it is not compatible there is a long way, and with that misinformation is created.

          6.    eliotime3000 said

            @staff:

            Another example:

            "In addition, it is not compatible with most professional image formats by default (TIFF, TARGA, ...)"

            I open and save files with TIFF or TARGA format in gimp 2.8, perhaps without all the options that photoshop offers, but from there to saying that it is not compatible there is a long way, and with that misinformation is created.

            Obviously yes, but what is most demanded of this type of software is that it comes with everything ready to use, which ordinary people are lazy to configure everything to work well.

            Now, if there were educational institutions that taught graphic design with GIMP, Inkscape and / or Scribus, it would be great, since you would not depend on Adobe products or publish your creations "illegally".

          7.    staff said

            @ eliotime3000
            "Obviously yes, but what is most demanded of this type of software is that it comes with everything ready to use, which ordinary people are lazy to configure everything to work well."

            First it would be necessary to define what "this type of software" is, because as far as I know, all types of software are asked in the technical aspect to be functional and not fail OTB.
            But the concept of free software is political, not technical.
            Technically there is no difference, the same languages ​​are used, the same syntax, the same APIs, etc. (even same licenses, if we compare with Open Source)
            The only thing that is asked of the SL (demands, I would say) is that it respect the 4 freedoms.

            “Now, if there were educational institutions that taught graphic design with GIMP, Inkscape and / or Scribus, it would be great, since you would not depend on Adobe products or to publish your creations“ illegally ”.

            It seems perfect to me that in schools, photoshop is taught, as a tool is excellent, it would not be bad for others to be taught, but today photoshop is the best and must be taught.

            Another thing is that you want to avoid dependence on licensed programs that make their use illegal without prior payment, for that there are more options, not just teaching Gimp and company.
            If Adobe released Photoshop, you would have excellent and free software, just as you would keep asking it not to fail and allow you to be productive.

            I know, here comes the problem of money and that adobe will never free it.
            But we have already clarified that free software does not prohibit profit (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.es.html) and the decision to release him is unilateral so there is no point in mentioning it.

            What if we can talk would be the possible scenarios if he released him and how it would benefit (or harm) the parties.

            So it could be that ...

            - Adobe would offer precompiled a basic version (not to call it precarious) and a premium version, with all its plugins, support and other benefits.

            - And its code without compiling, with separate plugins, and without support.

            So whoever wants to have premium photoshop without paying, would have to download the code and compile the almost 2 gigs it occupies, add the plugins on foot and have no support.

            For the companies that are really paying for photoshop today, that is not an option, it is easier to buy it, have support and deduct taxes, even more with the advantage that it would already be free.

            Few would be the brave who would try (and fewer would achieve) all that work of compiling and assembling.

            OffTopic, How can I post something on the site? Is it enough to send it by mail to be reviewed and maybe accepted?

    2.    eliotime3000 said

      I think you didn't understand the irony.

  19.   asdevian said

    opinion: the truth, many of us are encouraged to try free alternatives, as far as stability allows us, not so much for the free, but for the security that it gives us to be free, in my personal case, the term of «the web should always be free ", but google gives us a lot of comfort, speaking of, recently I discovered diaspora, it is very fluid and stable, it is beautiful and it is open source de-centralized, (the truth I have started to use it because its beauty attracts me XD ,) The same thing happens with firefox, although I don't like the fox doing things to the planet, I change the icon and it remains, we must accept that mozilla strives to keep this of the web free, and risks a lot for people you have not They know what foundations like this do, ..
    well, if you feel like it, come by http://forodiaspora.com.ar/viewtopic.php?id=25 , and I hope to see a post about http://chakra-project.org/news/index.php?/archives/109-Chakra-2013.09-Fritz-ISO-released.html .. 🙂 the truth is there is a lot anxious out there .. XD (:
    see you soon ..

  20.   eliotime3000 said

    Any similar opinion expressed in this blog? Well, you have that of @elder brother and of @Tina Toledo. And we have a ida y flies (with requiem) by Gabriela González about her experience with Windows and Linux.

  21.   Wilson said

    Free and unfree software is practical, not theoretical.
    Or rather, they are so linked that one affects the other.
    It is a matter of seeing what the NSA and the repercussions they have in the technological world.

    If Free Software didn't exist, we would all have gone to the same shit.
    There would be no way to protect yourself from these corporate government monsters.

    1.    eliotime3000 said

      That's what I want you to understand, but so far there are stubborn people who don't.