On 11/14/06, Ken Elliott <kelliott11@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> >> It might be more accurate then to say that
> *writing* proprietary software is immoral since you could be hurting other
> people with buggy code that they cannot fix or placing people in an
> unsecure computing environment they cannot make secure.
>
> Would you also suggest that it is immoral to design a car that could cause
> people to be killed, or a lock that could not be perfectly secure?
>
> Is if moral for you to run your computer, which is made using a process that
> generates hazardous waste, and poisons the planet?
>
> If you take the argument far enough, you'll find almost everything could be
> considered immoral.
>
> Ken Elliott
There are people who believe that almost everything is immoral - that
there is exactly one perfect action for every moment of your life and
doing anything else is immoral. Alternatively there are those who
believe that morality is not black and white: there's murder, there's
sitting on your ass watching television, and there's saving someone's
life, for instance.
In any case, here's a quote from RMS, available at
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html
"As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a proprietary
(18k characters) program. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would
be wrong to refuse. Cooperation is more important than copyright. But
underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society. A
person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and
this means saying ``No'' to proprietary software."
I misread that the first time. Rereading it just now RMS is saying
that refusing to illegally copy a proprietary software program for a
friend is "wrong". So it seems to me that RMS is saying that morality
goes beyond simply not hurting your neighbor and requires actively
helping them. Putting it back in terms of free software, writing and
distributing software without at least offering the source code is not
wrong (under this line of reasoning) because it hurts the person you
give the software. It's wrong because it doesn't help them as much as
it could.
Not that I subscribe to this, mind you. I think it's OK to hold
software you've written hostage at least until you can manage to pay
your basic living expenses. Even after that it might be OK if you're
using the extra money in a positive way. What's wrong IMO is giving
your software away selectively to certain people (generally those who
pay you royalties), or holding your software hostage when there's not
a reasonable chance anyone is going to pay for it (I suppose you could
combine the two and just say "not giving away your software to someone
who can't or isn't going to pay for it otherwise").
Anthony
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:30:50 EDT