| ▲ | bigstrat2003 2 days ago | |
> As we're seeing, time and time and time again, it is harmful. It certainly is not harmful, in my view. I think that the FSF's position on this topic is ridiculous. No harm whatsoever is done by running a piece of closed source software on your computer. > The last paragraph of the opening section is a plain and obvious concession to practicality No, it's not, at all! It is ideological, not practical, to say that the only reason to deviate from one's ideology is if doing so advances the ideology even faster. | ||
| ▲ | simoncion a day ago | parent [-] | |
> No harm whatsoever is done by running a piece of closed source software on your computer. So, I'm confused. What do you believe that Stallman is right about? If there's never any harm done by running nonfree software on your computer, then what's the problem? I must have misunderstood your commentary here [0] because this statement > The thing is... he seems to have been right the whole time. Companies really do want to lock you out of controlling the devices you own, and do so at the first opportunity. So... Stallman was right. certainly seems like you were claiming that there are harms inherent in the practice. > It is ideological, not practical, to say that the only reason to deviate from one's ideology is if doing so advances the ideology even faster. Not making a concession to practicality would be saying "There is no circumstance in which one should use nonfree software. Not even in the service of replacing that nonfree software with free software.". You're simply incorrect about this... especially when you also consider point #2 of the section you've quoted from. | ||