drummyfish/less_retarded_wiki
5
1
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

UPDATE

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Miloslav Ciz 2021-12-22 17:37:52 -06:00
parent ed86718013
commit aa6685ba1e
3 changed files with 19 additions and 2 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

2
capitalist_software.md
View file

@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ A ridiculous example of capitalist software is the most consumerist type: [games
But how can possibly a [FOSS](foss.md) program be abusive? Let's mention a few examples:
- **Allowing [maintenance](maintenance.md) cost to be high** and prioritizing e.g. [features](feature_creep.md) leads to program being expensive to maintain which discriminizes against developers unable to pay this maintenance cost. If a rich corporation intentionally makes their program bloated and expensive to just maintain, it ensures no one poor will be able to fork the software and maintain it, which effectively removes the possibility of an ethical competition being made our of their "open source" program.
- **[Bloat](bloat.md) and intentional [obscurity](obscurity.md) may lead to de-facto (as opposed to de-jure) limitations of basic [freedom conditions](free_software.md), despite a free license**. Specifically freedom 1 (to study the software, which may be unnecessarily difficult and **expensive**) and 2 (to modify the software, which requires its understanding, unnecessarily high cost of dealing with bad code and the ability to compile it which may be non-trivial). Therefore a company may, on paper, provide the rights to study and modify their program, but keep the actual know-how of the program's working and modification private, de-facto becoming the program's owner and sole controlling entity.
- **[Bloat](bloat.md), intentional [obscurity](obscurity.md) and [update_culture](update_culture.md) may lead to de-facto (as opposed to de-jure) limitations of basic [freedom conditions](free_software.md), despite a free license**. Specifically freedom 1 (to study the software, which may be unnecessarily difficult and **expensive**) and 2 (to modify the software, which requires its understanding, unnecessarily high cost of dealing with bad code and the ability to compile it which may be non-trivial). Therefore a company may, on paper, provide the rights to study and modify their program, but keep the actual know-how of the program's working and modification private, de-facto becoming the program's owner and sole controlling entity.
- **Allowing [proprietary](proprietary.md) [dependencies](dependency.md)**, especiall in [open source](open_source.md). While free software usually avoids this, open source if happy with e.g. Windows-only programs which of course requires the users to run abusive code in order for the program to function.
- **Unnecessarily high [hardware](hardware.md) demands and dropping support for old hardware** which drives [consumerism](consumerism.md) and discriminates against poor people and people who just don't want to "consoom" hardware. A group can make "open source" software that intentionally requires the latest hardware that they just happen to sell (e.g. [gaymes](game.md) with "AAA graphics"), even if the software might in theory run on older hardware. Possible "fixes" of this by third parties can be prevented by the above mentioned techniques.
- **Allowing [bloat](bloat.md) to increase the risk of security vulnerabilities and bugs** (which may in some ares be fatal and lead to literal deaths).