[CS-FSLUG] The Moral Foundation of Free Software

[Don Parris]

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 23:43:00 -0800, David Aikema <daikema at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 15:35:43 -0500, Aaron Patrick Lehmann
> <lehmanap at cs.purdue.edu> wrote:
> > I disagree.  I believe you overestimate the difficulty of securing computers
> > and networks.  So long as the users do not have administrative control, and the
> > administrator is competent, I don't believe there is a significant inherent
> > difference in difficulty between closed and open-source products.
> 
> That might work well for large organizations, but perhaps not for
> smaller ones that cannot find an admin.
> 
> David
> 
One other issue that churches need to consider is their current
software licenses.  James Thompson and I both seem to be familiar with
the idea that some churches may be using proprietary software in
violation of the licensing terms.  I am certain others have run into
similar situations.  I seriously doubt some churches in this
predicament would change to FOSS, even if they were told it would
eliminate the legal jeopardy.  They may not change until forced by
court order to settle for whatever amount of money.

Mostly, this aspect is about the unwillingness to change.  We all have
our excuses - pick your own.  But the leadership of the church has to
demonstrate an openness and willingness to change.  Without that,
churches will never even consider what lies across this technological
Jordan.  They won't even send the spies to check it out.

What they are doing is central to our discussion.  They are doing
what, apart from the artificial legal code - is naturally neutral or
right.  There is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with copying
anything.  I can copy something to use for good or evil purposes. 
Copying a secret letter to blackmail someone would be pretty evil.  On
the other hand, copying a poem to give to my girlfriend (especially
assuming I attribute credit where due) is a wonderful thing.  The act
of copying is really neither good nor bad.

The notion of Copyright is totally artificial and a relatively recent
legal tool.  I'm not advocating the abolition of copyright law.  The
GPL is a fine tool to guarantee what truly comes natural. 
Interestingly, this topic in another list took quite a different
track.  One person defended his right to develop proprietary code.

I then suggested that, perhaps, the issue might be a bit like the use
of alcohol.  Some Christians oppose the consumption of alcohol, while
others consume alcohol without any feelings of guilt whatsoever.  Open
& closed software may prove to be a similar situation.  Since
mentioning this, the thread has gone fairly quiet.

Frankly, some of us might agree that, just because something is legal,
doesn't mean it is morally o.k. - abortion is one example.  I remain
convinced that developing and using FOSS fall more in line with
biblical principles than developing & using proprietary software.  I
remain unconvinced that proprietary software is in harmony with
biblical principles.


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!