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

[Don Parris]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 20:51:52 -0600
Timothy R.Butler <tbutler at ofb.biz> wrote:

> > The GPL is immoral, because it forces those who extend the author's 
> > code
> > to use the GPL (or compatible?) if they decide to release their code.
> > This seems to me to be the height of arrogance.  It is essentially
> > saying, "I wrote the base for your work, so you must not close your
> > extension of it.  Further, you must put the same restrictions on anyone
> > who might extend YOUR code."  I recognize that this protects the
> > so-called rights of users to information, but at the expense of the
> > rights of developers and maintainers to make use of their own labor for
> > their own ends.  It is essentially muzzling the ox as he treads the
> > grain.  It results in people needlessly duplicating code (anathema to
> > developers) so that they won't be bound by a hypocritical and
> > restrictive liscense.  The fruit of my labor is MINE.  If I wish to
> > release it into the common domain, or otherwise allow others to profit
> > from my labor, that is my privelage.  I don't have the right to force
> > others to give away their labor, anymore than anyone has the right to
> > force me to give up mine.
> 
> 
> 	Then don't use GPL'ed code. Most of us are unwilling to make our
> 	code 
> essentially public domain (as the BSD license basically does, save for 
> the requirement of the copyright preservation and protection from 
> damages). So, I could make my code proprietary, and then you couldn't 
> use it at all, so you'd have to write your own.
> 
> 	Instead, I choose to share and ask you to share alike (to use the 
> Creative Commons' terminology). It's my code, and if you modify it, its 
> still my code. Let's do a clearer example: If you modify my book and 
> just take it, you've plagiarized regardless of if you extended my 
> ideas. They remain my ideas, not yours.
> 
> 	I don't see licenses as moral or immoral as such. What is immoral is
> 	
> to say that my work must be given to a person in a certain form because 
> that's how you want it. If I want my code to be proprietary, great. If 
> I want my code to be BSD licensed, great. If I want my code to be 
> GPL'ed, great too.
> 

I think we need to distinguish the difference between rights and morality. 
One may have the right to be greedy and selfish.  However, both are immoral.
 As I said in my previous e-mail, a lot of immoral activities are supported
as rights by various governments.  Since greed and selfishness are immoral,
and since proprietary licenses lend themselves to greed and selfishness, I
will exercise my right to refuse such contracts.  In like manner, I have
chosen to refrain from consuming alcohol, even though it is my right to do
so.

Forcing others to depend on me for modifications of the software deprives
them of their independence.  It may be my right, but is it moral?  The user
willingly surrenders their independence.  This strikes me as being similar
to the problem raised in Galatians, where Christians willingly surrendered
their spiritual freedom for the legal circumcision.  I believe it is immoral
for me to do so.  I may choose to rely on the developer if I am not an
experienced programmer.  However, that is different from giving up my
independence contractually.

Do I have an innate right to be greedy?  The US Constitution may offer such
freedom.  The Bible, however, seems to contradict such a notion.
Selfishness, either that of the developer or that of the user, is immoral.
Thus, I contribute in various ways, according to my gifts.


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."