ethical ubuntu

On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 03:25:48PM +0100, Matthew East said:
> 
> > xxxxxzzzzz:~$ vrms
> 
> FWIW, I've found this program to be an extremely
inaccurate benchmark of
> freedom - loads of the non-free packages I have
installed didn't show up
> last time I tried it, and it showed a number of
packages which are.

File bugs.


-- 
   Shawn McMahon    | "I can see the light at the end
of the tunnel.
   EIV Consulting   | And now that I have some light, I can
see the
 http://www.eiv.com |
tunnel needs painting too." - Steve Jackson
-- 
sounder mailing list
sounderlists.ubuntu.com
htt
ps://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/sounder

On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 12:34:31PM -0400, Shawn McMahon
said:
> 
> File bugs.

Sorry, I meant "Please file bugs."  And probably
should have followed
with:

htt
ps://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+source/vrms



-- 
   Shawn McMahon    | "I can see the light at the end
of the tunnel.
   EIV Consulting   | And now that I have some light, I can
see the
 http://www.eiv.com |
tunnel needs painting too." - Steve Jackson
-- 
sounder mailing list
sounderlists.ubuntu.com
htt
ps://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/sounder

I use Linux for a number of reasons, the main one being the
software is
free and in free beer for the most part. Not having any
money this
allows me to do all the IT stuff I need.

What I don't really understand is why is it unethical to
use proprietary
software?

Baz



-- 
sounder mailing list
sounderlists.ubuntu.com
htt
ps://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/sounder

baza wrote:
> I use Linux for a number of reasons, the main one being
the software is
> free and in free beer for the most part. Not having any
money this
> allows me to do all the IT stuff I need.
> 
> What I don't really understand is why is it unethical
to use proprietary
> software?
> 
> Baz

I suggest you read the spec which is about giving
information and encouraging 
the user to make a decision whatever the answer. I just want
people to be aware 
and to consider.

My main point is that non-free is not intrinsically
unethical, but some people 
may prefer to avoid it. How can they avoid it if they are
encouraged to install 
it without any warning?

There are more pressing reasons why software (free or not)
could be unethical. A 
very simple example might be an (freeware? open-source?!)
virus which posts your 
bank details on a web site. This is not all _that_ far from
Skype, MS, etc. 
divulging your private conversations to whichever
government, especially if you 
happen to be a pro-democracy campaigner.

That really is non-free.


-- 
sounder mailing list
sounderlists.ubuntu.com
htt
ps://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/sounder

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



* Shawn McMahon:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 12:34:31PM -0400, Shawn McMahon
said:
>> File bugs.
> 
> Sorry, I meant "Please file bugs."  And
probably should have followed
> with:
> 
> htt
ps://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+source/vrms

Dude, I wasn't complaining about the program. I was simply
offering an
explanation as to why Quim may have had the experience he
did, and
suggesting that this isn't the best way to accurately
benchmark the
amount of non-free software he has on board.

I'm not interested enough in this program to file bugs. I
have only
tried it once.

Matt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


iD8DBQFEkGH5tSaF0w5rBv8RAvgrAJ9BtBKuphVnS/nSIuv3aZx4AL7L6gCe
If/Q
8/vbiPzsUmF15g/VRYl6skE=
=WOtb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


-- 
sounder mailing list
sounderlists.ubuntu.com
htt
ps://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/sounder

baza schrieb:
> I use Linux for a number of reasons, the main one being
the software is
> free and in free beer for the most part. Not having any
money this
> allows me to do all the IT stuff I need.
> 
> What I don't really understand is why is it unethical
to use proprietary
> software?
> 
> Baz

Hi Baz,

very short explanation, just to give you a hint in this
direction:

There are (at least) two aspects which one might consider
"unethical"
about proprietary software licenses.
The first one is often explained in speeches by Richard
Stallman, and is
about social/community interaction. If it is natural and
good for people
to share nice things with their friends, then it is not
natural and good
to accept a license clause which basically says: Never share
this
software with anybody, even with your friends! If you accept
such a
proprietary license, you will face the "moral
dilemma" as soon as a good
friend of yours asks you for a copy of the software: either
tell him
"no", or infringe the license.

The second aspect is more pragmatic. In my experience, most
(Windows-)users really don't care about "pirating
softare", i.e. sharing
proprietary software with their friends. Problems is, this
(normal,
illegal behaviour) is getting more and more dangerous as the
RIAA and
other Intellectual Property groups are pushing the lawmakers
worldwide
to impose real sanctions on such "pirates". With
free software we have
the chance to raise awareness of the "normal"
day-to-day "pirating" that
many people are doing, and give them a LEGAl alternative.

I'm sure there are more ethical aspects of free software,
but I hope you
get the basic points now.


cheers,
Guido



-- 
sounder mailing list
sounderlists.ubuntu.com
htt
ps://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/sounder