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

[Don Parris]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 20:55:01 -0600
Timothy R.Butler <tbutler at ofb.biz> wrote:

> > While it is true that I prefer free software over open source, I also
> > consider open source to be a better alternative than proprietary.  I
> 
> 	Just a nitpick, but their really is no difference (if you go by the 
> two official definitions) between Free Software and Open Source, as 
> such. The organizations are different, but the definitions are almost 
> word for word the same in some places. Google for my article "Mere Open 
> Source" for more information. :-)
> 
> 	Sorry to be nitpicky on such an excellent response.
> 
> 	-Tim

I understand your position.  You shouldn't apologize.  I am merely
distinguishing between the terms of the licenses that has prevented a merger
of FSF & OSI.  For the sake of our argument, it is important to distinguish
between terms.  I do recognize the original intent of OSI to clarify the
concept of "free software" by using the term "open source".  I think you
probably also recognize where I'm coming from.  If given a choice between
proprietary and open source, I would much prefer open source.  However, my
real longing is for free software.

I consider it immoral to prohibit a person from modifying my code to better
suit his/her particular needs.  It's their computer, their situation.  If I
give them the tool to use, I should allow them to make modifications to it. 
If they need to optimize my code to run more efficiently on their hardware,
they should have that right.  I am not bound to support their
modifications, however.

I consider it immoral to bind my brethren legally to not help their
neighbors.  Christians especially are to love their neighbors as expressed
in giving, helping, sharing (Mt. 10:25-33).  Because most people considered
it a violation of the Mosaic Law to heal on the Sabbath, Jesus stirred great
controversy by healing a man and a woman on the Sabbath.  In doing so, He
upheld the sanctity of loving our neighbors.  For me to prohibit others from
doing so runs contrary to the Gospel.

I consider it immoral for me to prohibit the user from using the software as
he sees fit.  Whether for business or education or personal use, the use who
has obtained the software should have the right to use it.  Because I
support the idea of selling free software commercially, I support Novell,
MySQL, and other companies who make their free software available
commercially.

I also consider it immoral for me, as a user, to conspire with the developer
to not help my neighbor.  This means it would be immoral for me to use
software that prohibits redistribution.  I consider it my innate right to
ensure that software I use runs efficiently on my hardware.  I consider it
my innate right to make the software do what I want it to do.  I am the
customer, after all.  It is my computer.  It is my need that I must meet. 
If I choose to use software that does not allow me to accomplish my ends,
that's my own stupidity.

Don
-- 
evangelinux    GNU Evangelist
http://matheteuo.org/                   http://chaddb.sourceforge.net/
"Free software is like God's love - you can share it with anyone anytime
anywhere."