@sir And also completely arbitrary. You can develop open source software on and using proprietary software. Not everybody drinks the FLOSS cool aid, and that's ok.
@sir We have differing opinions on what constitutes an evil corporation. I believe there are evil ones out there, but simply making proprietary software doesn't default you to being one. I see a ton of value in open sourcing software, but to make it mandatory or you're a dirt bag is a kind of wack ideology I can't get down with no matter how it is spun. Now tell me your software is secure, private, or free (as in speech) and then there isn't an alternative, it has to be FLOSS.
@Phaserune expecting users to run your proprietary software on their own computers is unethical. Doing so because it makes it easier for you to slurp up and sell their data is extremely unethical. Likewise for shuttering APIs and chasing down third-party clients for users who just want to connect on old hardware or without signing over their privacy is unethical. Subverting existing ecosystems of free and open protocols and software with capital-driven questionable marketing tactics and exploitation is unethical. Hoarding user data - which belongs to the user, and not you - and then making them pay you to get it is unethical. Gaslighting open technologies by trying to redefine their terminology to include your proprietary replacements is unethical.
Slack and Discord have both done all of these things and more.
@sir That can be all true and I still am not swayed. The reason for that, is because as a software developer myself, I don't see any other profession in the entire existence of humanity willing to be so charitable. FLOSS zealots focus on programmers and not on any other industry with their zeal. If my plumber, for example, doesn't need to essentially teach me his trade, and give me his tools, and not pay for it, then why should I, as a default option have to? The plumber isn't evil.
@sir And furthermore, you can make propreitary software and do none of the things you cited.
@Phaserune my post is scoped to "don't use Slack for _open source projects_", you'll note
@Phaserune and it's also worth pointing out that the plumber's tools have a material cost, but sharing code does not.
@sir The very real material cost is time. Just like the time it took for the plumber to learn their trade and be a professional in it. The complexity of some software is beyond rocket science. People have poured their heart and soul into code. I see a very real and tangible material cost there.
@sir However, I now better see the framing for your comments on Slack and open source projects. It makes more sense to me now.
@Phaserune aye, I'm not denying that there's a cost. But the cost does not justify the behaviors I enumerated in my post. If you disagree, then our moral frameworks are incompatible.
@sir I completely agree that the cost does not justify unjustly handling your customer or fellow human beings. We agree 100% We just don't agree that FLOSS is the only vehicle to do something about that.
@Phaserune there is a spectrum, and free software projects with free software dependencies and free software-driven communities are firmly planted on the far end of that spectrum. There are grey areas, but given that the far end is perfectly viable I'll be staying over there and encouraging others to do the same.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!