Making closed source software is the right of all free men. Imagine

>not knowing that if you go to a top notch restaurant they will tell you every detail of the life and death of the food you have in your plate because it actually is a sign of quality, transparency and care

>>61758597
>>not knowing that if you go to a top notch restaurant they will tell you every detail of the life and death of the food you have in your plate because it actually is a sign of quality, transparency and care
>>61758597
/thread

>>61758597
this

>>61758597
Holy shit OP here I was just shitposting but that's actually an incredible comparison.

Also, to finish the comparison I might add that what you pay for is the access to such high quality ingredients, the productive cycle and how it was all cooked.
Sure, they could (and maybe will) tell you how they made everything but are you sure you will be able to emulate it as good as they do?

Software is the same: all the code should be open but the service you offer should be irreplaceable because you do it better than anybody else

>>61758613
>>61758445
Except you're not going to your friends house to eat, your friends come over to your place (aka your system) and serve you a stinking pile of something, you want to know what it is before you eat it, but instead he start's screaming about freetards and commuism.

>>61758613
They won't tell you the receipe tho

>>61758445
We don't really care how it was made, or where, we just want to be able to tell what it's made of, like what's in it. If we had a list of all the ingredients we would be able to tell if there's poison in it.

>>61758597
>Implying what they are telling you is actually true

>>61758850
>implying they don't have certificates and state-run quality and sanitary controls so you don't just take their word for it

>>61758871
This. Chefs at high-end restaurants usually not only have education and many years of experience, but they also often need certificates. And the restaurant itself needs to be certified and are subject to unannounced inspections so that they can't get away with serving ratfood.

>>61758445
Except you're not going to someone's house, you're having your friend over to your house and he gives you something he already cooked at home and demand that you eat it without him telling you what it is, otherwise he refuses to even come to your house at all.

>>61758891
They still don't tell you the recipe REEEEE...

You're not talking about looking at the source code, you're talking about running ldd on the binary

>>61758910
>They still don't tell you the recipe REEEEE...
Any people who can make food, can infer the recipe from having the ingredients and how they are prepared described.

Just like programming literate people can infer how to build the source code, without having to be taught in detail how to invoke the compiler.

>>61758910
>good morning sir, would you like a nice salmon with <list of ingredients> for staters?
>they don't tell you the ingredients

>>61758925
If you ask how it's prepared, you also get an explanation of how.

>>61758445
>Making closed source software is the right of all free men
imagine how autistic it would be to believe that you can't make closed source software.

>>61758925
Yes, the Michelin star chef will tell you all his hard-earned cooking trickery straight away.

>>61758946
You can also ask the close-source software shop how their software is made and you'll get a similar abstract explanation that's 100% up to your trust. And before you start talking about "law" again, large companies also violate copyleft regularly.

>>61759014
The restaurant analogy is flawed anyway, see >>61758905 and >>61758696

You're not logging on to some remote system and running something that's already there, this is why the "4chan is proprietary software" meme that gets spouted here is absolute horseshit. Interacting with a system, even a closed source one, is not the issue of free software, because you're not being forced to run that closed software on your own private systems.

>>61759046
Outside of the OS itself you don't really "need" any programs so if you don't install them there is no problem with closed source, just like you're free to not visit closed source websites

>>61759108
>Outside of the OS itself you don't really "need" any programs so if you don't install them there is no problem with closed source
What's the point of using a computer if you're not going to run any software?

>just like you're free to not visit closed source websites
You didn't understand my post at all, for crying out loud. Read it again.

>>61758597
That's what I call FPBP

>>61759117
I understand that through the web you're not forced to run proprietary code on your machine (still false because JavaScript)
But nobody is forcing you in using only open source programs so you don't run proprietary code on your computer

>>61759144
I meant that you can use only free software because since nobody is forcing you to use proprietary one

>>61759144
>I understand that through the web you're not forced to run proprietary code on your machine (still false because JavaScript)
While JavaScript is a concern, it's still technically "open", but in a practical view, nobody blocks JavaScript until they read the code, so yeah.

>But nobody is forcing you in using only open source programs so you don't run proprietary code on your computer
I'm not entirely sure what you meant here, but you're right that nobody is forcing me to run proprietary software. But that's not the issue of the debate. The crux of the debate is whether or not it's ETHICAL of software vendors to keep making proprietary software and imposing arbitrary restrictions on it.

For example, you can buy a chair. You can study it, modify it, lend it to your neighbour, tell your neighbour how you modified your own chair so they can do the same. Hell, you can even duplicate the chair as long as you don't sell it as <brandname>

But somehow, all these things are not allowed when it comes to software and intellectual property. Does that make any sense?

>>61759178
Yes, because software isn't a chair.

>>61759178
The answer is simple: digital goods means that they are duplicatable with means which would be impossible to emulate in the world of physical goods

A book is just words and an eBook is just words too, but it's easy to see why one would be restricted and the other not

>>61759227
You can lend your book to your neighbour. You can even write stuff in the book and "improve" the story and then give it to your neighbour.

>>61759224
No, but a painting isn't a chair either, but no one is stopping you from painting your own stuff on it and giving it away.

>>61759274
I can lend it but I can't lend it simultaneously to 50.000 people in less than a second

>>61759284
You can if you have a copy machine or a scanner.

>>61759299
I have to invest an enormous amount of money in copying and transporting which would alert authorities and I would get fucked

>>61759311
Why would you get fucked by the authorities?

>copying a book is illegal
Do you live in a fascist state or something?

>>61759324
Jesus Christ, can't you see the problem?

Internet is almost an unruly virtual world full of retards and shitty people and if I want to survive making some money I have to protect my products because they can be cracked and distributed to everyone in an instant.
It would be like living in the far west without a fucking gun

>>61759350
>Internet is almost an unruly virtual world full of retards and shitty people and if I want to survive making some money I have to protect my products because they can be cracked and distributed to everyone in an instant.
Or, you know, you could adopt an actual viable business model, rather than imposing completely arbitrary and, in some cases, malicious and unethical restrictions on your customers and users.

Proprietary software is an insult to private property rights, in that you essentially waive any rights to actually control your own system and own the software you just purchased, and are at the complete mercy of the software vendor.

>>61759299
If I make a good chair and the fucking chinks copy it they will make a shitty version with bamboo and dog remains; this means my chair will still be competitive because it aims at providing a long lasting quality experience

On the contrary if the poos get hold of my code (and the code is almost everything I can offer if I'm not a fucking corporation) their copied and free version is IDENTICAL to mine

>>61759384
>/g/ defends intellectual property rights and DRMs because muh street shitting brownskinned boogey man

>>61759533
When DRM is good
>I'm a small developer and I made a cute little program and I seel it for a couple of bucks
>I'm a small business operating on the web without JavaScript shit

When DRM is not good
>my code is shit so I have to hide it
>I spy on people and I have to hide it
>I'm a huge corp and the source code is just a small percentage of why my services are wanted and used

>>61758871
>>implying they don't have certificates and state-run quality and sanitary controls so you don't just take their word for it
So we just need state-run software-controls for closed-source soft?

Why can't I post anything
>>61759600