Hi Matej,

Thanks for the considered response.

>I understand that it to many SV founders, this sounds like Hippie shit

Let me just clear up one thing. I am not an SV founder. I’m Irish and politically I’m quite left leaning. I believe in high taxes, public services etc. I also volunteer in my local community as a Scout Leader. I’m all for Hippie shit, and this is why I support free (as in freedom) software — when it’s appropriate. If you personally choose to use free software exclusively — I don’t have an issue with that. Of course you are free to choose whatever you like. But I do think that you may be limiting yourself unnecessarily.

>Many of the free software proponents consider free software to be the only way one can be sure software is ethical and working for its user

Software is mostly designed to do a job. Software can make you more productive, efficient and creative. Sometimes, the best choice is open source, and sometimes it is not. If you exclude software because of ideology, you are potentially limiting your abilities. Or worse, if you are choosing software for others, you are potentially limiting their ability to do their best work. This does not seem ethical to me. Surely, as a ‘techie’ who is probably involved in software selection, you have an ethical duty to provide people with the best tool for the job?

But the ethics debate doesn’t stop there. Let’s forget about Hiri for a moment. To what extent do you personally believe in FOSS? Let’s look at the concepts. For example, what does ‘free’ mean? Generally people mean free as in free speech — that code should be free for everyone to re-use. But even free speech has its limits. Most nations have hate speech laws. It could be argued that some software (like speech) is unethical and should not be shared freely. Plans for 3D printed guns being the prototypical example.

The key point here is that ethics are subjective. On a personal level, I believe we produce ethical software. We are open and honest about what we track and what information we hold. We give users the option to turn tracking off (we use Mixpanel). For non-software businesses this kind of openness works fine. We trust certain brands because they share our values. Why is software such an exception?

>Continue developing proprietary software if you’d like, (personally I’d suggest that if source-code secrecy is a major pillar of your business plan, it is flawed),

Why? The reality is that if we published our entire code base, nobody would have any reason to pay for Hiri. As I’ve outlined in the article above, the existing FOSS business models aren’t going to work for us. Some people have suggested that we open source some of our code base, which I find interesting. But for FOSS fundamentalists, it still won’t be enough. And surely you don’t frown upon us for trying to make money? It’s not about money, right?

>just don’t feel entitled to the free software userbase and instead of insulting them, try to win them over.

I’m trying to win you over by making rational arguments. The purpose of my article is to convince you that embracing proprietary software will actually help you further your goal. In particular, the widespread adoption of Linux. Linux does not enjoy the market share it should. It’s fantastic software, but it lacks the ecosystem required to make it truly flourish. If you embraced proprietary software the Linux ecosystem would grow. And more people would be exposed to FOSS software. More people would use FOSS software. More people would adopt FOSS software.

But you should be trying to convince me too. Rather than telling me I am unethical, tell me how I can still make money by embracing Open Source. Tell me what your vision is — what does a FOSS only world look like and why is that a good thing? Because I can’t see how the world can go FOSS alone. If that world can’t exist, then your view that people should only use FOSS is simply not pragmatic.