Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Evaluating the harm from closed source

Filed under
OSS

Some people are obsessive about never using closed-source software under any circumstances. Some other people think that because I’m the person who wrote the foundational theory of open source I ought to be one of those obsessives myself, and become puzzled and hostile when I demur that I’m not a fanatic. Sometimes such people will continue by trying to trap me in nutty false dichotomies (like this guy) and become confused when I refuse to play.

A common failure mode in human reasoning is to become too attached to theory, to the point where we begin ignoring the reality it was intended to describe. The way this manifests in ethical and moral reasoning is that we tend to forget why we make rules – to avoid harmful consequences. Instead, we tend to become fixated on the rules and the language of the rules, and end up fulfilling Santayana’s definition of a fanatic: one who redoubles his efforts after he has forgotten his aim.

When asking the question “When is it wrong (or right) to use closed-source software?”, we should treat it the same way we treat every other ethical question. First, by being very clear about what harmful consequences we wish to avoid; second, by reasoning from the avoidance of harm to a rule that is minimal and restricts peoples’ choices as little as possible.

Rest here




More in Tux Machines

Linux on Servers

Debian, Devuan, and Ubuntu

  • My Free Software Activities in April 2016
    I handled a new LTS sponsor that wanted to see wheezy keep supporting armel and armhf. This was not part of our initial plans (set during last Debconf) and I thus mailed all teams that were impacted if we were to collectively decide that it was OK to support those architectures. While I was hoping to get a clear answer rather quickly, it turns out that we never managed to get an answer to the question from all parties. Instead the discussion drifted on the more general topic of how we handle sponsorship/funding in the LTS project.
  • Initial Planning For Ubuntu 16.10 Today At UOS
    Beyond the announcement that Ubuntu 16.10 won't ship with Mir and Unity 8 by default, many other items were discussed for the Ubuntu 16.10 release due out in October.
  • Ubuntu 16.10 Isn't Going To Use Mir / Unity 8 By Default
    Well, another setback for Unity 8 and Mir. Kicking off the Ubuntu Online Summit for Ubuntu 16.10, it's been confirmed that the Unity 8 desktop and Mir display server will not be the default for the desktop spin. Similar to the current situation with existing Ubuntu releases, Unity 8 and Mir will be available as an opt-in feature for users wanting to upgrade their desktop, but Unity 7 and the faithful X.Org Server is planned to be the default for Ubuntu 16.10 Yakkety Yak.
  • Devuan Beta Release
    After two years in development, a beta release of the Devuan distro has made it into the world (Devuan is a registered trademark of the Dyne.org foundation). Devuan is a very Debian-ish distro. In fact, it basically is Debian, with one notable absence. Devuan doesn't use systemd. In fact, that's its main claim to fame. Devuan was created to offer an alternative to Debian fans who were alienated by the controversial switch to systemd.

Leftovers: OSS

today's howtos