[libreplanet-discuss] Why contains in nonfree that's not ethical?

[Thiago Zoroastro]

Most People don't get the point about "what do you mean with free" 
because normally they associate with "no charge" or "worthless". 
Software's freedom is an incredible technology, but if both are "no 
charge by default" at least, what's there being not ethical if not GPL 
licensed or even all the source-code is open? There's something to 
control the computer from other place? What's really happening at 
nonfree software or firmware that does it so nasty? Could it to put a 
person in a state of lacking freedom in the personal life? Freedom is 
not having your life affected by big brother computing? People don't 
understand at all, don't even trust in this history and doubt it 
happens. They even don't believe in it and unfortunately are not being 
educated to be free as in freedom. When Snowden said at world this 
happens, what media did was to put people ridiculing his advice and to 
laugh.



On 11-03-2015 17:29, Richard Stallman wrote:
> We have a simple way of looking at these two versions.  The free
> version is free software, so it is ethical.  The nonfree version is
> nonfree software, so it is not ethical.