Your premise is wrong: there is nothing unethical about closed-source software. In 99% of the cases users want great software, great customer support and don't care about the source. If they really do, they can often sign an NDA and buy it. And that's fair. Free market doesn't need a pseudo-ethical middle-man.
I think you might have replied to the wrong comment, because this response makes no sense. ddevault said:
> I reject any argument which justifies behavior because it makes someone money that they otherwise might not. Captalism does not justify a lack of ethics.
ddevault's point is that the mere fact that doing P makes someone money is irrelevant to whether it's ethically okay to do P. ddevault does not say whether closed source software is unethical or not (in this comment), and so your "premise" does not exist here.
Furthermore, you go on to make exactly the mistake ddevault is complaining about: "there is nothing unethical about closed-source software." Why? Because "[the customers are willing to pay for it]". The fact that there are people willing to pay for something is irrelevant; the fact that there's a market for hitmen doesn't make that acceptable either.
No one is entitled to free software and should not expect others to slave off and give away fruits of their hard work for free. This entitled communist mentality is unethical.
It's my computer, not yours. If you want to run software on it, I get to see the source code, that's the deal. We could agree that I can't use your software under these terms, but this would exploit those who don't understand the value of the source code. This is how spyware is born. If it runs on my machine, it's open source, or it's bunk.
And, once again, you can sell open source software.
If it's sandboxed and accesses only the resources (network, disk etc.) you explicitly allow it to, you don't need to know how the processing is done. Spyware is not born out of legally obtained closed-source software. It's born out of corporations selling centralized SaaS, infringing on users' privacy and locking them in by design. The very same corporations championing OSS big time, because it benefits their spyware business. With thousands of naive contributors slaving off for posterity and hope that they will get noticed and hired. How ethical is that?
Granted, if you sign an NDA and pay extra, you may have the source. If this is the model you suggest, I think it's fair.
Software that can't access my resources is usually not going to be very useful. If it does get access, I have to trust it with my data, so it needs to be trustworthy. Sandboxing doesn't solve the problem.
If two people, in full understanding of the value of source code, both decide for one to provide a proprietary closed-source software and the other to run it in exchange for money - is it still unethical?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point then. I got from your posts roughly: It is unethical for end-user software to be closed source, everyone is fundamentally entitled to the source code for programs they run on their computer. Further, if an end-user decides not to run the closed-source software, it is still unethical because many people don't understand the value of source code and they are still being exploited when they purchase/run the software.
My question: Is it still unethical if the exchange and use of proprietary software is made only between people who fully understand the value of source code and decide to anyway?
It's a potentially unethical situation at the very least.
If the person running that software asks for the source code, it would be unethical to withhold it from them. However, from the arrangement you made, it would also be unethical for the person to exercise that entitlement which they previously agreed to give up.
Two unethical actions don't make a right, so you're just setting yourself up for an unethical situation all around. Better to just make it clear the source code's available on request from the beginning.
Because government is an easy way to work together on big problems. Things like charity are great, but the participation rate tends to be a whole lot lower than you can get from taxes.
The OP was praising high taxes. If he paid lower tax, he would have more money to spend, also on helping others. Do you think it's ethical to force people into charity?
Simple. I trust the British government to do the right thing more than I trust the likes of HSBC, Microsoft, Google, Unilever and any other company that's built by greedy people whose sole concern is generating profits for themselves and their shareholders.
Wait. Do you think it's the right thing now for the FED, ECB and other central banks to print money day and night and eradicate savings of hard working people via inflation?
I'm not sure why you bring up those companies in response to my proposal of managing your own money. But since you mention how purely evil those companies are, last time I checked they were employing real people, working on real products and services, supporting their families and contributing to the economy. I'm not a fan of big corp, bit it's not so black and white.
I didn't use the word evil so I'm not sure where that's coming from. I pay less than 45% of my income in tax to the government. With the rest I invest a large chunk in the private sector anyway. So I know it's not black and white. But in times like these I'm glad I invest in the government.
The government is already doing that for me. My tax contributions go towards pension, healthcare, public services... I don't have to worry about taking a bank loan to go to the hospital or what I'm going to do when I retire.
I used to take things for granted, now news like "I have to pay $30k for Corona virus hospital treatment" make me appreciate being born in "socialist" Europe. To each their own.
Do you think the government is managing your money better than you would? Aren't you concerned that big part of it funds the bureaucratic apparatus itself? Aren't you concerned that you are not paying for your own retirement and in our aging Europe 30 years from now there will be not enough working people to pay for yours? Don't you think that paying a lower tax (e.g. 25%) would leave you with more money to cover that 30keur for yourself or generously help others?
I recommend the new "Our Machinery" blog [1], where they write about a new engine development. Bitsquid was sold to Autodesk, rebranded Stingray and as of now seems to be discontinued [2].
Excellent, I'll check that out. As (at the risk of exposing my geriatric age) someone who did 3d engine and driver work back in the mid 90s to early 00s, I found the bitsquid blog really useful to warping my brain to the near era and the tradeoffs that matter today. Great stuff.
If you are into no-nonsense software design, Molecular Musings [1] written by Stefan Reinalter is also a goldmine. As is anything written or said on topic by Mike Acton, whose ramblings de-facto brought DOD into the mainstream [2][3]. Regarding good old days, remember Flipcode? ;) [4]
I also recently picked up "Data-oriented design: software engineering for limited resources and short schedules" by Richard Fabian, which I've not had a chance to read properly but looks like it covers things in detail.
I agree and think the solution would be to go back to a web-of-trust scheme where identities are transitively validated and reputation used to ensure well-behaved operation.
Maybe we don't really need those "trackbacks" and unmoderated comments from random anonymous users.
Maybe decentralized services should function strictly on a web-of-trust basis. In the end, if you have something valuable to contribute in a given domain, you have either joined a relevant organization or have contact with people in the field.
Maybe collaboration between complete strangers with unknown reputation, is not a good idea and explains why it doesn't function like that in the real world?
