[CS-FSLUG] TD: (Im)morality of (non)free software

[Aaron Lehmann]

On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 12:54:24PM +0000, Ciaran Hamilton wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Ooo, this is an interesting topic. I personally like the GPL, for
> reasons I'll explain below.
> 
> On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 04:09 -0500, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 01:34:02AM -0500, Don Parris wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Your characterization of the GPL as being somehow hypocritical could
> > > use some explanation.  If I release software under the terms of the
> > > GPL, then I am actually setting the example - not being
> hypocritical. 
> > > Even the OSI folks argue that there is little business sense in
> > > developing software under proprietary terms.  In essence, they argue
> > > for free software.  Even so, they do argue in favor of developers,
> as
> > > opposed to users.  Still, the GPL is meant to perpetuate freedom -
> > > which you have acknowledged.
> > 
> > I have NOT acknowledged that it actually DOES perpetuate freedom
> though.
> > To the contrary.  If A writes some software from scratch, he has the
> > right to do whatever he wishes with it.  He can sell or release it as
> a
> > proprietary package, he can sell or release it as a more open package,
> > he can keep it and use it himself.  These are his rights.  Lets
> suppose
> > he has listened to RMS's hype and he releases it under the GPL.  Now
> > lets say that developer B gets ahold of the software and improves it.
> > He has less rights than A did.  He can sell it as an open product or
> > release it for free as an open product, or keep it to himself.  He
> > cannot however, sell it or release it as a proprietary product.  The
> > terms of the GPL deny him full rights to his code.  This from a
> liscense
> > that claims to be perpetuating freedom!  It gets worse however, as B
> has
> > no choice bu to use the GPL, if he decides to release.  He has been
> > force by A's shortsightedness to deny future C's their rights of
> > potential code they might write based on B's code.  He has not only
> been
> > denied his own rights, he is forced to deny others theirs.
> 
> It's well known that RMS is a fanatic - but being a fanatic is sometimes
> what's needed. As has been pointed out further on in the thread, RMS
> views proprietary software as inherently evil and won't touch it  with a
> barge pole. Why? Because proprietary software, by its very nature, has
> an "owner", whether that's an individual or a corporate entity. This
> leads to a ton of problems, especially under copyright; it's a
> no-brainer to copy software, so unless you want to lose profits you
> more-or-less have to have some sort of copy protection in there, whether
> it's based on a serial number, CD key, or even something like Windows
> Product Activation. The owner is asserting themselves by imposing
> restrictions on what can be done with the software.
> 
> And what happens when the individual/entity dies or no longer runs as a
> business? The software will be unsupported, and in all likelyhood can't
> even be improved any longer. A perfect example of this, in my eyes, is
> the Proxomitron. Its developer died some time ago in an accident, and
> it's meant that development on it has all but ceased. Yes, there's
> patches you can get (presumably made by reverse-engineering the
> program), but no major updates. Which is a real shame, as the
> Proxomitron was really good. Of course, you can still use the latest
> version, but still...
> 
> In the example above, I'm postulating that the patches were made by
> reverse-engineering the program. It's a fact of life that people will
> reverse-engineer software, regardless of its legality; if it weren't for
> such reverse-engineering, the state of software today would be a sorry
> one.
> 
> Of course, I'm talking about closed-source software above. I realise
> it's possible to have open-source software while still not being free
> under RMS' definition. But then, those programs have no guarantee that
> the program won't be picked up, changed, and sold in the proprietary
> fashion shown above, and then we're back to square 1; sure, the original
> program's open, but any improvements made by the proprietary vendor will
> be lost.

And I suppose that that is sad, if the improvements are good ones.  But
it was the right of the improver to set his own terms for how the
program was to be used, just as it was the right of the original author
to set his.  The original author respected future programmers enough not
to step on their rights.

> 
> What the GPL does is it ensures that people cannot do this. 

I know.  And this is why I hate it.  It is a heavy handed mechanism of
stomping on coders' rights.

>This means
> that it ensures that everybody, anywhere, will be able to take up a
> version of the software and:
> 
> * run the program, for any purpose
> * study how the program works, and adapt it to their needs
> * redistribute copies so they can help their neighbor
> * improve the program, and release their improvements to the public, so
> that the whole community benefits.

But what if they don't WANT to benefit the public?  What if they wish to
be selfish?  Why should they be denied the rights over their own code
the original author had over his?  Open source liscenses guarantee the
same things, without imposing on the programmer.  When you people talk
about "the community," you're talking about the ones who didn't code the
software.  You feel it's completely proper for a programmer to have to
give up his rights so that "the community" can have priveleges.  Then
you say that this is the "graceful" way to behave.  I say that users who
insist on the GPL are selfish, and are making unreasonable demands on
software developers.  I say that the GPL system is based on the idea
that users are more important than developers, and that users have the
right to set terms about how developers develope.  That would be well
and good if it claimed to forward "code slavery" or "product communism,"
but it doesn't.  It talks about freedom, and says that it is promoting
that.  Well it isn't.  It takes away the rights of the few, so that the
many can have inalienable privelages.  It disgusts me, and I'll not
release my code under it.

> 
> That's why it's called freedom. Yes, the above four points were taken
> from the GNU definition of free software
> ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html ), but I hope you can see
> why it works. It means that not only can they improve it and release
> their improvements to the public, but they can do so without fear that
> it'll be snapped up by some enterprising company and passed off as their
> work.

I don't see why this fear should matter to someone who's only interested
in benefitting the community.  After all, if I'm truly altruistic, why
should I care whether someone closes a derivative of my code and makes
money on it?  More power to them.  It was their right as a deriver,
after all.

Aaron Lehmann