[CS-FSLUG] Proprietary Software: Capitalism or Greed?

[Ritchie, Josiah S.]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christiansource-bounces at ofb.biz [mailto:Christiansource-
> bounces at ofb.biz] On Behalf Of Don Parris
> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 10:56 AM
> To: A Christian virtual Free Software and Linux Users Group.
> Subject: [CS-FSLUG] Proprietary Software: Capitalism or Greed?
> 
> Recently, Eben Moglen was quoted as saying that proprietary software
> wasn't
> really about capitalism, but about greed.  While that sounds good,
what is
> the
> basis for such a statement?  The statement is important because it
cuts to
> the heart of the defense of proprietary software.
> 
> This is part of my research for an article, so please consider the
> possibility
> that I may want to quote you.  Thus, if you will not be able to
control
> your
> emotions in any heated debate that may arise, or you just cannot
stomach
> another capitalism vs communism discussion, you might choose to ignore
the
> thread. ;-)
> 
> 
> The fact that software was free in the beginning does not, in and of
> itself,
> account for the nature of proprietary software.  However, proprietary
> software does circumvent our fair use rights under copyright law.  For
> example, it would be considered a fair use of Microsoft's software if
I
> modified it to run more efficiently, or added new features for my
> computer.
> 
> I do not believe that capitalism depends on circumventing user's
> freedom/rights in order to thrive.  In fact, it would seem to me that
> capitalism depends on everyone being free to produce and compete.  But
is
> this the sole basis for suggesting that proprietary software is about
> greed?
> And how strong an argument is it?
> 
> People who rent or buy houses are nevertheless restricted by HOA
(home-
> owner
> assoc.) regs and landlord-tennant agreements.  You have more freedom
if
> you
> buy a house, but you're far more free if you buy out in the country,
away
> from the HOA's.  Thus, many would argue that we trade our
freedom/rights
> every day in order to obtain things we want.  They would suggest that
> proprietary software is no different.  What positions would each of
you
> take
> on this argument.  Does circumventing the "fair-use" clause constitute
a
> grievous harm against our civil rights?
> 
> What other arguments support the claim that proprietary software is
about
> greed, not capitalism?  What are the strengths and weaknesses of such
> arguments?  What are your positions on these arguments?  I appreciate
your
> time and thoughts in advance.
> 
> Don
> --
> DC Parris

To say without reservation that proprietary software is evil or the like
is to say the equivalent that men should not use their skills to make a
living. The average American view of "making a living" is greedy in my
opinion.

I don't think proprietary software really has to do with the argument
you are posing. At the heart, this is an argument of the regulation of
capitalism which has nothing to do with whether someone else gives away
their products. It is more akin to the argument of censorship than
economics.

Besides, capitalism is driven by greed. They can't really be unwoven
from each other, as you suggest. Capitalism, in my view, is playing
people's greed to society's general benefit, which works out
surprisingly well. In reality, I think a lot of FOSS developers are
driven by greed also. FOSS development is a method to self-advancement
to many first and a set of ideals second. Ideals are quickly set aside
when a proprietary software job presents itself.

If users knew/cared of the danger of using software that is only half of
what it should be, then capitalism would suggest that the software
wouldn't be bought in favor for a more open alternative, all else being
equal.

Anyway, in answer to how strong an argument is it, I think it's a weak
one.

JSR/