[CS-FSLUG] Morals of free software - Was: RevolutionOS Movie

[Robert W.]

On 04/15/2005 10:42:32 AM, Bob Brown wrote:
> I though Stallman had serious ethical issues with even having a
> non-free BIOS on his computer.
> I am astonished that he would allow himself to be a part of a non-free
> documentary.

Well this makes a nice segue... I was reading an article about the  
kernel's version control system, BitKeeper, going proprietary. And it  
contained this quote from Linus Torvalds:
      In my book, what matters is what you do - whether you want
      to sell things is your personal choice, but even more
      importantly it is not a moral negative or positive. I'm a
      big believer in open source as creating good stuff, but
      I don't think it's a moral issue. It's engineering.

The statement seemed contradictary. It's a moral statement that says  
it's not a moral statement. In my mind, saying something is a personal  
choice is taking a moral stand on the issue. Choosing "the best tool  
for the job" means choosing to ignore or accept the implications of a  
given license.

Isn't that a moral stance? The moral being: it helps *me*. This leads  
into the corrollary that the Bible lays out the standard for moral  
choices. Therefore, we should look at Bibilical principles when  
evaluating a software's license.

-- 
Robert W.
robertwo at access-4-free.com

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love
him, who have been called according to his purpose. -- Romans 8:28