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

[Don Parris]

On 3/22/06, doc <edoc7 at verizon.net> wrote:
> > Here's a question.  How long could Capitalism (at least where software
> > is concerned) last without FOSS?  In other words, FOSS ensures a free
> > market for Capitalism to survive.  But does proprietary software
> > really ensure the survival of a free market?  Given the nature of some
> > of the companies behind proprietary software, licenses would likely
> > become ever stricter and more costly.  Given that many applications
> > seem to be heading down the road toward Internet-based,
> > subscription-oriented services, the whole issue may be moot.  Even so
> > Don
>
> I am not sure how Free/Open Source Software (FOSS)
> "ensures a free market for Capitalism to survive".
>

Yeah well, my question was one of those 'loose cannon' questions.  I
think you answered well though. ;-)

Here's something Moglen wrote a few years back, that I just discovered
(thanks to an article on LXer today):

http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html

>From Moglen's article:
"But most proprietary software companies want more power than
copyright alone gives them. These companies say their software is
``licensed'' to consumers, but the license contains obligations that
copyright law knows nothing about. Software you're not allowed to
understand, for example, often requires you to agree not to decompile
it. Copyright law doesn't prohibit decompilation, the prohibition is
just a contract term you agree to as a condition of getting the
software when you buy the product under shrink wrap in a store, or
accept a ``clickwrap license'' on line. Copyright is just leverage for
taking even more away from users."

Ben Thorp, on the L4C list, suggested that license law and copyright
law are essentially two different animals.  A non-free license sits on
top of copyright, as does the GPL, and uses contractual terms that
restrict users beyond what copyright allows the author to do.

I really think that, for proponents of non-free software to try to
claim that a non-free license is a Capitalistic venture is a claim
that must be proven.  Using a license to add restrictions beyond what
Copyright allows is not inherently Capitalistic, any more than using
the GPL to void these restrictions is inherently Communist.  The claim
that non-free licenses is about Capitalism is, in fact, a sham.

The reason I say this is because software does not have to be
distributed using a non-free license in order to make money or be
profitable.  It can be, but does not have to be.  People can argue
that they choose proprietary (non-free) terms because they are
Capitalists.  However, it is not necessary to choose such terms to be
a Capitalist.  A non-free license is, generally, a way to control
users in ways that Copyright does not allow and a way to make more
money than might be made under normal copyright terms.  Developing
and/or using proprietary software does not make one a Capitalist.

Blessings,
Don
--
DC Parris GNU Evangelist
http://matheteuo.org/
gnumathetes at gmail.com
"Hey man, whatever pickles your list!"