Stallman Philosophy?

no he's just a stupid old hippie

>>59499681
No, in fact it's the other way around, free shit get something out of you, while proprietary applications just want your money.

>>59499716
I'm guessing so, but I'd like to hear someone argue something. I just don't see it in general.

>>59499722
I uh— what? Mind explaining that, son.

>>59499722
Free as in free to share and distribute the software and its codes so anyone can modify and use it and redistribute it.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

>>59499761
That doesn't answer my question. I asked for a philosophical argument for free software, not an explanation of free software.

>>59499681
he's a fat old fuck promoting communist agenda.

>>59499779
retard

>>59499779
Given the choice to have more or less freedom, he strives for more. Why does it matter why beyond that? people don't fight for things by first defining axioms and ideological frameworks, maybe he just loves the idea of free software full stop.

>>59499795
>implying communism is bad

>>59499802
Okay man, it just lists what free software is and the most I get out of it is the explanation of how copyleft plays into intellectual property. Not an argument.

>>59499839
That's like saying you should take might as right for face value just because it's a freedom that you can't possibly refuse.

>>59499681
>>proprietary applications sell your information
>>proprietary applications have back doors that invade your privacy
>But theoretically you could have the same with a free software product.

Well, theoretically, yeah. But only theoretically.

What would happen real quick is that someone would fork a copy and remove the crap.

Then, you'd have two free copes: the original crappy copy that literally nobody wants, and the forked version that everyone would use.

The whole problem with proprietary software is that you don't get a chance to fork it, so you're stuck with the crap. I'd love it if there was a de-crapified version of Windows 10, but that's never going to happen, because the source code isn't forkable. But nobody bothers to put crap in free software, because they know that the code would just get forked immediately, and they would lose control -- so what's the point?

>>59499795
>Implying U.S. patent law is communist.

>>59499681
Stallman is an anti-athoritarian anti-capitalist. Sort of anarchism light.

>>59500019
>What would happen real quick is that someone would fork a copy and remove the crap.
A lot of people use Facebook not because the code is proprietary, but because it's a nice service with steady updates. Forking something doesn't automatically make it better. People often times use software because of the experience in general, including the developers.

>>59499839
>>59500019
listen to these people, OP.

you have a flaw in your question, btw. Software should be free, but the freedom thus gained is human freedom, not the software's. Big difference. The 1s and 0s don't care.

In the end it's all about control. You buy a computer with your money, legally you own it, should you also control what it does? Because that's what free software is about.

Software that isn't changeable legally controls the user, not the other way around. Being controlled by someone or something is the opposite of being free.

Maybe if you still don't see the point, you could tell us whether you see it as self-evident that humans should be free, or if slavery is ok?

fat emperor autist and nothing more

>>59500132
>humans should be free, or if slavery is ok?

It's interesting that you mention slavery.

Intellectual property is a false property right, in the same way that slavery was a false property right.

Eventually, we realized that the freedom of mankind was more important than the financial health of plantation owners.

And, eventually, we will realize that the freedom of our ideas is more important that the financial health of publishing corporations.

We live in a strange time in history. We understand that people must be free, but we inexplicably fail to realize that a person is not truly free unless his ideas are free as well. Future generations will look back on us for our barbaric, immoral selfishness -- in the same way that we look back on the American slave trade for their barbaric, immoral selfishness.

>>59500064
>Forking something doesn't automatically make it better.

That's true. But if software is free, then forking it gives us an OPTION to make it better.

If the software is not free, then that option is not available.

Free software is fundamentally more valuable in the long term. Not because the freedom necessarily means that it's better -- but because the freedom gives us the OPTION to make it better.

>>59500132
>why should it be free?
>your question is flawed
>it should be free
>because reasons?

You haven't given any reasons. I might as well say might is right should be a freedom because it's self evident.

>>59500317
You have the option to make another product.

>free software is more valuable in the long term
If I said might is right is a freedom, is it self evident? What your asking for is a positive right, which requires SOME justification.