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

[Robert W.]

On 02/28/2005 04:09:34 AM, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> 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.

Developer B has no right to redistribute any work from developer A. As  
a matter of fact, developer B has no right to change developer A's code  
either. From the get go, developer B has no freedom.

Developer B only has the rights granted by developer A. B starts with  
nothing, and is given something by A. A does not take anything away  
from B, ever. B never had those rights in the first place. A granted  
rights to B. A has given B more choices than B started with.

> It doesn't perpetuate freedom.  It gaurantees users privelages they
> have no innate right to, by denying developers their innate rights as
> developers.  Now you are confusing speach and beer.  I'm not talking
> about how I can or can't make money with the GPL.  I'm talking about
> how
> it claims to cause freedom, but in fact causes a loss of rights.

Developer A writes a program in 100 hours. Then developer B makes a  
nifty improvement, spending maybe 30 hours. This software has 130 hours  
total invested. Of which, developer B put in 24%. As I understand your  
argument, developer B should be allowed to sell this product and keep  
100% of the profits? B can charge for all 130 hours, even though they  
only did 24% of the work. Is that correct?

And developer A, who spent 76% of the time, can not incorporate B's  
nifty improvement back into their version. So essentially, developer A  
did the research and development for his competitor with no hope of  
renumeration.

Also note that developer C never enters the picture. B has completely  
stopped C from ever doing anything with B's code. What happened to C's  
inate rights? If B has the right to cry foul, why doesn't C?

The above scenario is allowed under open source licenses such as the  
BSD license. How would one reconcile this situation with the principle  
of freedom? (That's not sarcastic, I'm hoping you can answer it.)

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

Enter through the narrow gate... But small is the gate and narrow the
road that leads to life, and only a few find it. -- Matthew 7:13a,14