You have 5 seconds to explain why every bit of software used today shouldn't be open source.
>Allows user customization (which would obviously violate warranties, so companies are off the hook).
>Code can be checked to respect freedom/privacy.
>"B-b-but how will the code monkeys get paid?"
You would pay for the source code, with programs that would just install a compiled version for the normies. But those who want to see the code and compile themselves can.
>"B-b-but then won't people just share those text files?"
People already share software illegally online. Those files would still be copyright and subject to applicable distribution/sharing laws.
The ONLY reason to keep software closed source today is for government/business spying.
I've got nothing to hide you sperg.
>You have 5 seconds to explain why every bit of software used today shouldn't be open source.
it doesn't work like that. you have to explain why it should be open source.
>>58384087
And I conveniently did so, right under that line you quoted.
>>58383857
All software shouldn't be open source because it makes it possible to profit by making better software which gives us the option of paying for a license to use better software than what is available as free software.
Software developed for and paid for by governments really should be free open source software, if the people paid for it then the people should have the source code and the freedom to use it.
I'm a GNU/Linux user myself but I'm totally fine with proprietary software being available. Being forced to pay for a Windows license that I never use when I buy a laptop is annoying, though.
I think the problem here is that you don't understand how the world works. If it was perfect, we wouldn't be here on this shitty website, LaserDisc would be in place of VHS and all software would be open source. But it isn't.
>>58384218
this
>>58384215
But proprietary software on your network can compromise your own freedomâ„¢ even if you're using all free software.
It should be a herd immunity mindset.