It's probably illegal too, as in many jurisdiction the public, or at least a health/food regulatory body should know the process and ingredients.
Take into account allergens, and on top of a matter of public knowledge and health, it can also be a matter of life and death.
It's like saying "Linux uses C" and now you instantly can copy Linux =)
It does however play a hugely important role in a recipe, in a way than the choice of language doesn't play in a program (especially considering turing completeness). So the analogy is broken.
Besides nobody made the point that list of ingredients makes a recipe.
Just that it's important to know the list of ingredients for a food you're gonna eat, and that it's even illegal to not disclose them (either to the public or a regulatory body) if you sell food.
Apologies if the parent comment was edited after you wrote yours but a "process and ingredients" does a recipe make.
The linked page has a clear explanation for why one might consider nonfree software to be unethical.
> If you're not interested at all, why did you even join the conversation?
Or was this a genuine question? I don't think you do those though. Are you then maybe getting tripped up on your own dumb headcanon? Cause honestly, given that this would be the third time in this thread that you're conjuring up a strawman and twisting words, you have to appreciate I have a hard time believing anything coming out of your mouth (keyboard?) at this point. It's almost as if there was a reason I went off about what I did, and it's coming back to bite you in the ass now...
To you, is a suggestion for someone to explain their own thoughts in their own words, rather than link to someone else's, a sign of no interest at all?
If you admit that they could be doing one of two things ("And sometimes ...") but you assume it's actually one of them in particular ("I think they asked for your take, not GNU's."), then this question could similarly be asked of you.
A bigger problem with my model is that it's a false dilemma. These are both just characterizations. Both can be true at the same time just fine, and so can neither.
It even does my own sentiment poorly. My actual issue with this whole exchange was not that their thoughts are unoriginal (although I'd be surprised), but that this way of responding I find extremely lazy and disrespectful, as well as generally unreasonable. They were asked for their opinion. It doesn't have to be good, it doesn't have to be rigorous, it just has to be theirs.
Linking out to some reading material and adding nothing else of substance fails even this most basic expectation. It's a discussion thread, not a newsletter. But then just like in the other subthread where the person above found me from, I'm sure they'd argue that this is just, like, my opinion. And that it sure is.
> We campaign for these freedoms because everyone deserves them. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them. When users don't control the program, we call it a “nonfree” or “proprietary” program. The nonfree program controls the users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the program an instrument of unjust power.
It seems safe to say the author thinks that one creating "an instrument of unjust power" for oneself is unethical. Though, perhaps if the commenter in question pulled that quote out of the article, it could have helped their point.
If you actually care about this, stop alienating potential allies, and ideally start making arguments to support your case instead of telling people to RTFM (which in this case is even worse because "the manual" isn't as much of an authoritative mic drop as you seem to think it is).
You still have ethics ground if you think it the same way as repairability, actively blocking ways to repairs things you bought yourself is questionable, and keeping things closed source can be seen as a way to artificially prolonge a strict dependance on your vendor by impairing your ability to resolve issues by yourself.
No, for most it's because they evaluated a number of ethical, social, and technical concerns, and think so.
I was also a dreamer once upon a time, with M$ on my email signature and all that zealot attitude, then I had to support myself and face the reality that most supermarkets don't take pull requests.
Naturally I am not counting those, given that they are paid in tainted money as per OP's complaint.
We are surely talking about ethics,
> Closed-source software is unethical regardless of any of your unsubstantiated claims on its or open-source software's security.
And in that regard, there is also something to talk about regarding some prominent figures in open-source world.
I am well aware of that, this is why I remind people that proprietary software is bad actually.
Not all closed-source software is harmful; Obsidian here is a prime example of one which is not harmful and could be even considered as beneficial, despite being closed source, because of how open and supportive it's designed in everything else.
I was just confirming the point you made -- the definition of ethical is not absolute, and there are people that consider questionable things ethical.
> Obsidian here is a prime example of one which is not harmful and could be even considered as beneficial, despite being closed source
All proprietary software is unethical. It's as simple as that. No matter whether it's free or paid, no matter whether it's useful or harmful. If you have a right to use it but are deprived of the right to alter it, it is not ethical.