Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Proposal for "FUD responses" wiki pages

[Fabio Pesari]

On 02/29/2016 08:08 PM, Paul M wrote:
>
> Its important to realize that this is not actually an argument against
> the GPL, even if its presented as one.
> 
> As an example there are some proprietary programs I rely upon as
> disability aids. There is no reasonable argument so say that I shouldn't
> use them (if there is no suitable alternative) -- because to do so is to
> say I should accept a form of discrimination (that, effectively, I
> should accept a reduced ability to function in the world).
> 
> However this should be seen as an argument for Free Software not against
> this -- in order to deal with my disability I have to give up some
> freedoms in a way that could also be argued is discriminatory. 

If you ask me, it should be _illegal_ to make any software that has
medical purpose proprietary.

> This is not a theoretical concern. One of the programs I most rely on
> makes frequent network check-ins when it has no reason to do so and I
> have no way of finding out what its doing (fortunately there is GPL'd
> software I can use to block it).

Have you tried Wireshark?

> If it was GPL'd I would be able to find it out as well as better modify
> to suit my needs vis a vis my disability, ensure it remains functional
> if the developer abandons or changes it in a way that makes it no longer
> functional etc. 
> 
> These are very important freedoms -- I rely on this software to be able
> to hold down a job -- so my ability to deal with my disability is
> effectively held ransom.

I think your case is very important. Too often proprietary software
creates B-class citizens and with free software, it's the users
themselves who can decide the target audience, regardless of the
intentions of the original developers.

> People don't need to play video games in the way that I need disability
> but there are similar arguments that can be made -- the problem of
> abandonware comes immediately to mind, as well as perhaps developers
> making unpopular changes that ignore players wishes.

It's not that proprietary gaming isn't problematic - it has a lot of
widely recognized issues, from the ones you mentioned to DRM and bugs
that are never fixed - it's just that people want to play them
regardless of it.

> The argument that software developers needs to make money is an argument
> about how society is organized economically. (As a side note an argument
> about the need for a free market is very difficult to sustain when it
> comes to disability: If I am unable to function fully because I am
> denied access to software I need to hold a job it's no longer a free
> market as I am being denied access to it).

The biggest hypocrisy is that there are laws against discrimination in
the workplace.

I think that nobody at this point can argue that ours is a free market.
Aside from the issue you mentioned, the monopolies are so big it is
literally impossible to break into some fields, technology above all.