Imagine a developer has a useful idea for a program. She could:
1) Forget about it
2) Develop it for personal use only
3) Release it as proprietary software
4) Release it as proprietary software, monetized through malware/tracking
5) Release it as #FOSS
Here's how I'd rate the ethics of those choices:
1) fine
2) Selfish, but fine
3) A little bit good
4) Morally wrong
5) Morally good
Many FOSS folks say:
1) fine
2) fine
3) wrong
4) wrong
5) good
What's the argument for 3 being worse than 2?
@codesections there's nothing ethically wrong with "honest" proprietary software. The only problem is users usually don't know whether proprietary software is honest or not.
@InternetKevin
> there's nothing ethically wrong with "honest" proprietary software. The only problem is users usually don't know whether proprietary software is honest or not.
That's my view as well. But some (many?) #FreeSoftware advocates (e.g., #FSF) seem to feel that proprietary software is per se harmful. They point out that "proprietary software is *often* malware", but argue that non-malware proprietary software is still wrong.
And that last view is the one I don't quite understand.
@codesections @InternetKevin I'm pretty far on the free software scale. I don't think 3 is worse than 2. In fact, I don't judge the developer in this case. I judge the user for using proprietary software. Especailly when there's a free option. There almost always is these days.
Me? I'm still battling to be better but the drm is still on my back.