[CS-FSLUG] The Moral Foundation of Free Software

Sun Jan 2 23:47:38 CST 2005

On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 08:53:47PM -0500, Don Parris wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 17:12:22 -0500, Aaron Patrick Lehmann
> <lehmanap at cs.purdue.edu> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 01, 2005 at 02:19:05AM -0000, Don Parris wrote:
> > > I would like to pose a thought to my fellow clergy.  If my thinking is on
> > > target, hopefully it will be apparent to the rest of you.  If my thinking
> > > is flawed, I hope that too will be apparent, as I desire to make sure my
> > > thoughts are pleasing to the Lord and acceptable as well among my peers.
> > > Also, be advised that my thoughts may be on track, and still need "some
> > > more rails laid down", if you will.  For our purposes, free and open source
> > > are considered as roughly equivalent - both allow redistribution to help
> > > others.
> > >
> > > My encounter with RMS, in the wake of "The Penguin Driven Church Office",
> > > got me thinking about the moral issues involved in free - and open source -
> > > software.  One of the reasons Stallman decided to resign from MIT Labs and
> > > develop free software was that he could not in good conscience sign a
> > > non-disclosure agreement.  Doing so would mean he could not help his
> > > neighbor.  In our encounter, and on the WACC website, he suggested that
> > > Christians should be advocates of free software.  Indeed, his Kantian
> > > ethics advocate the Golden Rule, which is a biblical principle (even if not
> > > uniquely so).
> > >
> > > It struck me that Stallman understood - even from his atheistic standpoint
> > > - that helping our neighbors is of primary importance.        This is line with
> > > the second of the two primary commandments - namely to love your neighbor
> > > as yourself.  This love we are to have is expressed practically in giving
> > > and sharing.  Thus Paul in Gal 5:13, 14 suggests that we exercise our
> > > freedom, rather than devouring one another.  Earlier on, in vv. 1-ff, Paul
> > > is essentially admonishing the believers for giving up their freedom.  Have
> > > we, who have legally bound ourselves to not helping our neighbors (by
> > > agreeing to a proprietary EULA), voluntarily given up our freedom as well?
> > > Certainly not to the point of spiritual jeopardy, as is suggested by Paul
> > > with respect to the circumcision.  Still, we are giving up our right to
> > > help our neighbors, by agreeing to not redistribute the software.
> > 
> > This is not confined to software.  If someone had the knowhow ad the materials,
> > it would not be impossible to reproduce a Ford Econoline and call it a
> > ChurchVan.  One could sell, or give, it to churches and other worthy ministries
> > that require reliable mass transit.  Sadly we can't do that, because the Ford
> > Econoline is a a copyrighted (or patented, or both) design.  Has a church
> > violated some obscure moral principal in using an Econoline versus designing
> > their own ChurchVan?
> > 
> > >
> > > Per the incidents where Jesus stirred anger by healing on the Sabbath, the
> > > Law (or at least people's interpretation of it) not only condemned us, it
> > > was restrictive.   Jesus' acts demonstrated God's love for His creation.
> > > Consider his question in the case of the man with the withered hand - "is
> > > it lawful to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy it?"  So,
> > > too, people today (including Christians) seek to restrict our ability to
> > > demonstrate love toward our neighbors by requiring us to agree legally to
> > > not demonstrate that love.  Being the sheep we are, we blindly agree.
> > >
> > > How important is it, for us as Christians, to consider the moral
> > > implications of choosing between proprietary and free/open source software?
> > >  I believe that stewardship is one issue that drives Christians to FOSS
> > > solutions.  Technology is another.  But if morality was the driving factor
> > > behind the free software movement, then why isn't it a driving factor
> > > behind the adoption of free/open source software?  Is "ease of use" - one
> > > of the biggest objections to FOSS solutions - really more important than
> > > pleasing God, or helping our neighbors, or saving money so that we can help
> > > our neighbors even better?
> > 
> > I propose that in a vast array of situations, a closed source alternative is
> > better stewardship nowadays.  More and more, students are taught how to use
> > Microsoft's excellent suite of office tools in high school.  People are growing
> > up with a computer that runs the latest Windows, and even adults are
> > comfortable with it.  This competency is not a result of Microsoft's
> > "intuitive" interface, but of long exposure and hard work.  Be that as it may,
> > from a Church's perspective, its free (as in beer).  The church didn't have to
> > pay to train its office people, they were already trained.  The person who
> > maintains the machine already knows how to do it, as he's been doing it on his
> > home machine for years.  Almost everyone has a copy of Windows 95 or 98 around
> > someware that they aren't using if they have been following the Microsoft
> > upgrade treadmill.  Since they aren't using it, it's not breaking the EULA (I
> > don't think) if they give all copies they have of it to their church.  The
> > church now has free software that its staff is already trained on.  This seems
> > like good stewardship to me.
> > 
> I think this sort of thinking is fairly flawed.  Having seen Fred's
> comments about the need for retraining being mostly non-sense, and
> know that users typically require no more than 2 weeks to a month to
> adjust to OpenOffice.org, I can see no compelling argument to continue
> forking out $400 for an office suite, when a FOSS alternative requires
> little transition and is free to download.  Even if you choose to stay
> with MS Windows as your OS, there are FOSS alternatives that can save
> churches serious money.
> 
> If the church pays the same in retraining expenses that it would pay
> for proprietary license fees, it has still come out better off in the
> long run.  What's more, a church can do a gradual migration, enabling
> staff to have time to adjust.  That doesn't cost a thing.
> 
> Notwithstanding, I think it is nothing short of appalling to suggest
> that retraining is all that necessary.  The only things users _might_
> need to adjust to is the virtual desktop concept, and KDE functions
> almost exactly like the Windows desktop.  The biggest difference users
> will see is that it includes software in prearranged submenus.  O.k.,
> KDE offers a "Run" item on the desktop context menu.  The Start button
> is usually rendered as a logo of some kind.

What do they gain?  If KDE is equivalent to Windows, but is going to cost every
user 2 man-weeks of time to get used to, this requires substantial benifits to
justify.  If they are paid workers, you lose money, if they are volunteers,
they will (rightly, in my opinion) feel their time is being wasted.  The only
advantage to FOSS is where it is different from closed-source software, and
that is where people have to really learn a new way of thinking.  These
diferences will take far more than two weeks to undertand and appreciate.  Eh.
I'm getting to the end of my knowledge, probably.  I've never been a secretary,
and doing anything with word processors, speadsheets, or the like gives me
hives.  Possibley Open Office is better in every way to its closed source
competitor.  However, having programmed with its competitor's libraries, I doubt
it.  Whatever else it has, Microsoft's office suite has some very interesting
innards.

> 
> 
> > These things will not ALWAYS hold true, of course.  If someone wanted to have a
> > ministry somewhere where the market was not flooded with Windows (Africa,
> > South America, parts of of Asia), the OS of choice would definitely be a FOSS
> > one.  After all, since the staff of plants is going to have no experience with
> > computers anyway, they may as well learn a full OS, not a single-user toy.
> > 
> > >
> > > I believe strongly that the Church - the whole Church - needs to wrestle
> > > with this issue at some point.        I believe there are enough pastors on this
> > > list and throught the other sites of the Christian FOSS community to engage
> > > in a meaningful dialogue.  If nothing else, I hope you'll at least help me
> > > to clarify some of the issues and correct errors in my thinking.
> > 
> > As an aside, I don't believe we have the right to help our neighbors.  We have
> > the obligation to do so.  I'm not sure if it can be shown that an obligation to
> > do A translates into a right to do A.
> > 
> You are correct of course.  We have an obligation.  I will write the
> White House, and see if GW will accept a proposal to simply our legal
> code a bit.
> <> Love God
> <>Love your neighbor
> Anything that violates these rules is automatically illegal. :)  Just
> being a smart-aleck.
> 
> > Aaron Lehmann
> > 
> 
> Don
> -- 
> DC Parris GNU Evangelist
> http://matheteuo.org/
> gnumathetes at gmail.com
> Free software is like God's love - 
> you can share it with anyone anywhere anytime!
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ChristianSource FSLUG mailing list
> Christiansource at ofb.biz
> http://cs.uninetsolutions.com

-- 
Why do the Democrats complain about Nader losing them Presidential elections?
Republicans don't complain about Libertarians.