Stop using nonfree software.

I'm free to use nonfree software. Stop with your communist utopia and go eat your own feet Richard.

>>57897831
Free software requires enforcement the same way a ban on slavery requires enforcement.
>Baww how am I free if I can't own slaves?

File: pie.jpg (37KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 1280x720px

Is it free software if I pirate it?

File: 1457816940432.png (1MB, 1000x1400px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x1400px

>>57897861
Free software means software that respects the user's freedom.

There are four essential freedoms that the user of software should always have:

Freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program however you wish.
Freedom 1 is the freedom to study the source code of the program and change it to make the program do as you wish.
Freedom 2 is the freedom to distribute copies of the program to others when you wish. This includes republication of the program.
Freedom 3 is the freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others when you wish. This includes republication.

If you have all four of these essential freedoms, then the program is free software, which means that the social system of the distribution of the program is an ethical system that respects the freedom and community of the users.

If one of these freedoms is missing, then the program is proprietary software, meaning that it keeps the users divided and helpless, and gives the developer power over the users. This is an injustice. Proprietary software should not exist and should not be used.

If you want to have freedom, the only way you can have it while using computers is by rejecting proprietary software.

>>57897861
no

>>57897854
>how am I free if I can't own slaves?
Exactly.

>>57898212
Real edgy.

can't wait for communist utopia so I can take your toothbrush, fucking whitey

>>57897894
Pirated software has freedom 0, 2, and 3 by default. To make a crack for something you typically have to reverse compile it, which gives you freedom 1.

>>57898295
Publishers often refer to copying they don't approve of as “piracy.” In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them. Based on such propaganda, they have procured laws in most of the world to forbid copying in most (or sometimes all) circumstances. (They are still pressuring to make these prohibitions more complete.)

If you don't believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word “piracy” to describe it. Neutral terms such as “unauthorized copying” (or “prohibited copying” for the situation where it is illegal) are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as “sharing information with your neighbor.”