What am I supposed to say to that? Proprietary software is not slavery, or even anywhere close to it, even if we accept the argument that it is unethical. I find this entire analogy unhelpful.

Slavery is not the argument, it's an example of something you find reproachable.

Try to imagine something that you find unethical but some others do not: burqas, abortion, war, public schools, private schools, eating meat, rolling coal or whatever it may be.

If you start from the position that such a thing is unethical, you can't enter an argument with someone who asks you "how should I do X to make you happy?", because you simply won't be happy if this gets done at all.

The point is not to compare proprietary software to slavery. The point is that Stallman does not find proprietary software bad for the user, he finds it morally wrong.

That means in this case it doesn't make sense to complain and argue about his answer to the developer, as his answer makes perfect sense given his premises. If you want to disagree with his advice, you have to disagree with his moral position on proprietary software and argue about that.

Expecting Stallman to help someone make money with proprietary software is like expecting a vegan advocate to help someone kill cows more humanely.

Note that I'm not expressing an agreement or disagreement with Stallman's worldview, only that his answer is exactly what follows from his worldview, and you should argue about that and not about the answer.

> The point is not to compare proprietary software to slavery.

You did exactly that.

> The point is that Stallman does not find proprietary software bad for the user, he finds it morally wrong.

I truly hope that you are wrong and Stallman does not believe proprietary software to be an evil on par with slavery.

> You did exactly that.

You may want to reread my original post carefully.

> I truly hope that you are wrong and Stallman does not believe proprietary software to be an evil on par with slavery.

I can't claim to know the internal ranking of evil things in Stallman's mind, but nonfree software is very clearly beyond the line of unjustifiable evil for him.

"While we can distinguish various nonfree distribution schemes in terms of how far they fall short of being free, we consider them all equally unethical.", from https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

> tjader: but nonfree software is very clearly beyond the line of unjustifiable evil for him

> Stallman: "we consider them all equally unethical."

This is my whole point in a nutshell; unethical and evil are NOT synonymous words and you keep treating them that way. Wage theft is unethical and should be criminal. Slavery is evil.

> Expecting Stallman to help someone make money with proprietary software is like expecting a vegan advocate to help someone kill cows more humanely.

Many vegans are actually doing exactly that: enacting laws to improve the living conditions of animals. In the Netherlands we have the "party for the animals" in parliament for that. While their long-term goal is the elimination of meat, they also realize this is not realistic/practical in the short-term for various reasons. In the meanwhile they've been fairly successful in putting the topic of animal suffering on the agenda, making meaningful proposals to improve things, and hopefully coming closer to the long-term goals

I happen to be vegan (well, mostly anyway). Yes, you have the "extreme" vegans you might encounter on occasion, which me and my vegan friends tend to dislike as well, but most are significantly more pragmatic than you might think. It's just that you hear less from them as they're not as "loud".

If a farmer was to walk up to me and ask me "how can I improve the welfare of my animals in my factory farm?" then I'd do my best to make meaningful improvements, even though I think factory farming in general is unethical.

Now, back to Free Software: in broad lines I agree with Stallman, but just find his approach unhelpful, and I don't think that can just be hand-waved away with "but [he thinks] it's unethical".

Stallman and the game developer are completely incompatible. To Stallman and the FSF, writing proprietary software may as well be slavery.

As someone who, younger, avoided games because they were non-free and who is not into games at all anymore anyway, and as someone who explicitly when out of their way to join a company that develops free software. I hear you.

However, in my opinion, this game developer interested in doing the right thing is the kind of person the FSF and Stallman should focus on and work on finding solutions for, because they could make a difference and even move part of the industry to free software. Telling such people they are not doing the right thing without giving any trail is not going to achieve much and could even repel them. That's counter productive.

One could say that the concerned developer should instead think themself of a solution. That's partly true. I think they should if they are really concerned. However, the whole goal of the FSF is to move the world to free software. They should work to provide trails to such people, because they have all the incentive to do so, even more than the concerned developer. They should provide a welcoming climate so such developer want to join (even more).

I think Stallman should be prepared to give a kind, low effort answer to such a "basic" question. It can be low effort because sometimes the question is low effort too, or even a bit ill-intended and yes, the developer should do their homework. But a nice, positive answer could make things change and engage people.

(I say "basic", but that does not mean the problem is easy. I think it's hard.)

Did you just compare Stallman and the FSF to the Abolitionist movement, and paid software to slavery?

Why is it that people on the modern internet seem unable to grasp the concept of an analogy?

Two things don't have to be exactly as bad as each other to be analogous circumstances.

You are supposed to apply to same chain of logical reasoning to the two situations.

Just expressing faux outrage with a "How dare you compare these two things" isn't actually defeating the argument in any way.

Oh no, we all get what analogies are. This is just a shitty one.

No. I made an analogy to another behavior that I hope everyone will agree is unethical. The point is that if you accept Stallman's position that closed source software is unethical his response is not unexpected.

Unless you have a low opinion of Stallman, why would you expect him to be so dismissive of the day-to-day concerns of someone who wants to support a family?

Using extreme ethical examples to justify a statement is how Godwin’s Law came about, way back in the 90s. It’s a well known tactic to make one’s own position sound reasonable, by implying that anyone is still arguing with you may as well be saying the Nazis weren’t so bad.

It’s a good rule of thumb that rather than making a logical argument, you are in fact bringing a rational discussion to an end by invoking slavery, Hitler, or other incontrovertible evil. They are not in any meaningful sense useful analogies for most discussions.

The guy wasn’t bringing up anything like slavery. Therefore Stallman’s response is quite likely unexpected to most people.

No, this isn't an example of Godwin's law being used as a tactic to end discussion; rather he was using hyperbole - a rhetorical device - to make a point. The slavery reference is not used to suggest that 'non-free software is morally equivalent to slavery/nazism' etc but rather is used as an example of a clear, strongly held moral position in order to emphasise the (possibly more subtle) original point. The point of hyperbole is to further elucidate, not close down.

This misunderstanding tends to be caused by (1) treating the rhetorical device literally rather than as an (intentionally exaggerated) analogy, and (2) - as in this case - by assuming that the argument being made is trying to draw some moral equivalence between the analogy and the original example. It isn't.

I wasn't comparing proprietary software to slavery. I was making the point that for Stallman proprietary software is as unethical as slavery is to most people. Maybe I picked the wrong thing to make the analogy, it could have worked just as well with theft, murder, or any other unethical behavior.

I wasn't making any point about whether Stallman is right or wrong on that, I was just pointing out that people are attacking the wrong part of his argument. If you disagree with him you should attack his base belief that proprietary software is unethical.

> Unless you have a low opinion of Stallman, why would you expect him to be so dismissive of the day-to-day concerns of someone who wants to support a family?

When have you ever seen Stallman be pragmatic instead of idealist about anything regarding proprietary software?

“Murder” is a curious choice of analogy, too. Seems to me this thread is very firmly subject to Godwin’s Law.

> When have you ever seen Stallman be pragmatic instead of idealist

Pragmatism vs idealism isn’t the point. My question was why would you expect someone you haven’t met to be an asshole, if you didn’t already think they were an asshole?

I don't know what to say. Someone went to a person who is well known to have the position that nonfree software is unethical and to be an idealist to ask how to make nonfree software and somehow is surprised that the answer is that they shouldn't make nonfree software.

I would expect the same if I asked any particularly idealistic vegan how to eat meat with less impact. The idealistic vegan will just tell me to not eat any meat.

Also, in no way is any of what I said contingent on Stallman being an asshole, but it also surprises me that someone thinks finding Stallman to be an asshole at all surprising. He is a man of strong convictions that won't budge, and it's easy to find many anecdotes where people paint him as assholish.

As a one time political activist, I’ve met plenty of folks with strong convictions that are very pleasant people. The pacifist, vegan, transgender campaigner I am thinking of would never take the approach you’re describing.

I’ve been to events supporting a cause. They are full of people who, in support of their passionate convictions, try to help and persuade people to join them without reducing personal dilemmas to simplistic answers.

It makes me wonder: if strong convictions don’t cause or correlate to how you treat people, is there another explanation for why it’s so easy to find such anecdotes?

> I wasn't comparing proprietary software to slavery. I was making the point that for Stallman proprietary software is as unethical as slavery is to most people. Maybe I picked the wrong thing to make the analogy, it could have worked just as well with theft, murder, or any other unethical behavior.

Wow. There is a continuum from good behaviour to unethical behaviour to evil.

To conflate and compare and equivalate unethical behaviours like theft with true evils like slavery or murder is beyond unhelpful.

I don't see how proprietary has even been established as unethical let alone a evil equivalent to slavery.

Please stop making this argument on Stallman's behalf.

> To conflate and compare and equivalate unethical behaviours like theft with true evils like slavery or murder is beyond unhelpful.

I'm not saying those behaviors are all equally bad. I'm saying they are all bad, with an unspecified amount of evilness. I wouldn't help anyone do any of them. I won't help someone steal, even if I think murder is more wrong than it, because stealing is already wrong.

For Stallman, nonfree software is also wrong. You can argue with that, but you can't expect him to help someone write nonfree software and still hold that view.

Would it help if they had rephrased it more generically? What is something that you find unethical? How does the example feel if you slot that in, instead of slavery?

Analogies

Like a completely different argument. People choose to equivalate bad things to evils like slavery or the holocaust for a reason and all of those reasons are bad.

Sure, tell me the reasons I have for doing something I didn't even do and how they are bad.

Except there is a difference between software and slavery.

Society has moved on in the decades since Stallman started (for better or for worse), and we need to figure out a way to stay true to their vision around software and bringing new people on board with the free software movement. Having such extremist comments when someone is trying to figure out how to make their game opensource without breaking agreements for other parts they rely on isn't going to get anyone anywhere.

You are comparing slavery to writing proprietary code. It takes a cult-like devotion to perform that mental leap. Maybe it's obvious in your mind, but good luck spreading this word to wider world.