| > but like all philosophies, his philosophy is inconsistent All philosophies are inconsistent? > (See the paradox of closed source microwaves) That's not a paradox. Binary blobs are okay if, and only if, there is no way to update them anyway. This means there is no way for the copyright holder of the software to force a user to cede their software freedom, so the point is moot. > software should be libre because libre software provides the most value to the most people due to the 0 marginal cost of software Software should be libre because it allows users to not be beholden to anything but their own interests. Value and cost are very secondary considerations. > even if it's less profitable to the creators That's not a criterium. > due to the security benefits of closed platforms Citation very much needed. > Stallman formed his views when he was working at MIT, with his material support from donations No. He was working, at MIT, you just stated that. > The economics of his philosophy are tainted by that foundational flaw. I think you might want to get better acquainted with "his philosophy", the economics of it, before diving head first into an argument based on nothing but ad-hoc analysis of shaky assertions. |