[HalibetLector]

I used to think this too, until I realized something I didn't thoroughly understand until I read the OP. The reason Stallman wants a "pure" system with no closed source code is because if there's even one proprietary bit of executable code, you can't guarantee your system isn't spying (or capable of spying) on you. Or tracking you or restricting how you use your data.

Seen through the argument I just made, when you say closed and controlled systems are an unstoppable force of nature and must be accepted, what you're really saying is digital spying/tracking/restriction is an unstoppable force of nature and must be accepted. It really is an all or nothing proposition at this point.

[cschwarm]

I'd like to remark that your argument is not valid: To know that your system won't spy on you, all you need is open code (transparency). You don't need it to be free.

Theoretically, you can have a completely unfree system that is completely open at the same time.

[HalibetLector]

I don't see how that invalidates my argument. I don't mention paid vs unpaid at all, just closed and open.

[cschwarm]

I didn't mention paid vs. unpaid, either. I was speaking about 'free' as in 'free software' vs. proprietary. My point was that you can have a proprietary system that is open.

For reference, this was the argument I was replying to:

> … if there's even one proprietary bit of executable code, you can't guarantee your system isn't spying (or capable of spying) on you.