On the ethics of Open Source / Free Software

[tractarian]

To me, free software is like the razor company giving away the razor, but then selling the razor blades at a markup to make up for the cost of the “free” razors. Similarly, with free software, you give away the software, but you make up for it in the support and book writing. For example, Linus Torvalds (see here) made $20 million by giving away Linux. The group I work with is seriously considering this question right now. We have been trying to sell our product for years, and it’s been a difficult market. If we give away a subset of our product for free, that might create a groundswell of interest that could help us market the full product. Our top three competitors are all open source.

That is a *very *good real life example!

While I’ve heard some “purists” of free and open source (maybe not Stallman but those who seem to think like him) use the “movement” as a cudgel against capitalism, in my experience most of the more moderate Open Source enthusiasts are ready with many arguments and examples of why their model is actually better for capitalism, especially if one takes into account the negative effects any monopoly has on a healthy free market (ppl in the thread have said as much).

I think it demonstrates an over-simplification in my thinking about one system vs. another system; we can’t and shouldn’t trust in any mere system to guarantee profitability of our work, because that always requires some kind of creativity – in a free market more so than any other. As long as there aren’t onerous legal or structural barriers between a creative mind and his or her next lunch, maybe free (“as in free speech, not free beer!”:aok competition between different business models is overall a good thing. I don’t think we’ve yet achieved totally free competition between the models yet, however; everyone’s familiar with various dirty legal / bureaucratic tricks the Big Companies attempt, and at least some are familiar with the “viral” criticisms of the GPL (alleviated by using any of the dozens of alternative open source licenses instead).

 

[tractarian]

I don’t think we disagree that much. Fundamentally, people who invent something (say a particular type of watch), create a computer program, or create a scientific theory or mathematical method are in the same boat.

Well, that’s the main thing we disagree about: I see two (or more) boats and you see one.

I think they all deserve to be compensated for their work. It just so happens that in our societies, scientists and mathematicians tend to make money by working in salaried positions while doing their work, while inventors, programmers etc. make money by selling the products of their labor (or for the most part, by working for corporations for a salary and having the corporations own and sell their creations).

That’s mostly true; in practice, a lot of the money that goes to scientists ultimately comes from public funds and gov’t grants – whether one trusts corporate money more or less than gov’t money is definitely a political issue, though (I see problems with both).

This to me seems to be sourced in politics than philosophy (perhaps not without the influence of big business on the kinds of laws politicians make).

Or the influence of big gov’t on the kind of decisions & conclusions our scientists make? Doh! I wasn’t supposed to get into politics.

The philosophical issue to me here is whether it makes sense for a person to fully own the product of their (intellectual) work. Society has agreed that scientists cannot do this, so Newton can’t say that the idea of calculus is his, and everyone who uses it should pay him or be guilty of a crime. People can use calculus and profit from its use without paying Newton a cent.

At the same time, we have said that if a corporation develops a new drug, say, others can’t go ahead and use that research to develop and profit from it. What’s the difference? The only difference to me seems that corporations have power and have been able to secure this kind of a system since it allows them to make profits.

Fundamentally, I don’t think it makes sense for any person to fully own their intellectual work because no person works in a vacuum. Any invention/theory depends on the work that went before. Not to mention that it does not suit humanity to allow such ownership as it would slow progress (like in the case of biotech companies wanting to charge scientists for doing research on patented gene sequences).

You’ve defined “intellectual work” so broadly that it seems to me to undermine the concept of private property altogether. Or, is something “mine” if I buy it but not if I create it? That seems inconsistent and backwards to me. Your qualifier “fully own” rescues the argument. Well-written and executed patent laws (timely expiration dates being key) can assure a just balance between the jus of the inventor and the jus of society, which includes future inventors.

I have to point out yet another line that I see and you don’t. The work of scientists is not *inherently *profitable: even tho it leads to profitable things, it only does so potentially – some benefactor (rich people in the Renaissance, governments and foundations nowadays) has to do what amounts to an act of charity in order for the scientist to be self-supporting. The work of an inventor is inherently profitable; despite the frequent practical need for investor dollars or maybe even grants, inventing something useful and selling it does not require anyone else’s charity to work. It requires outside intervention and regulation by those in power (the Big Gov’t vs. Big Business conundrum yet again) to *force *ownership away from the inventor or corporation’s hands, but that ownership existed by nature.

 

[tractarian]

I am confused. It seems like every time someone has offered you an explanation of why FOSS is ok (mostly revolving around charity and free will of the person giving it away), you state that you weren’t really attacking it, and ask again for someone to defend FOSS. Once the defense is again given, you go back to denying that you were attacking FOSS in the first place and then immediately ask for someone to defend it again.

It’s called a discussion. Not very confusing.

We are all offering our ideas, critiquing them, refining them, and getting more precise about the issue throughout. When I see holes in someone’s attempted defense of FOSS (or if they subtly change the subject), I point it out. And others have been pointing out weaknesses in my points. And back and forth it goes.

I do not “immediately ask for someone to defend it again”, I think I have been giving better critique than that. I am reading, analyzing, and if I feel the need disputing many of the points given. I’ve tried to single out the points that I cannot think of any refutation or dispute (I am happiest about those, because personally I’d like to get on board with open source, just with a clean conscience).

But as for the “not so hard to understand” approach you’re trying, I think you’ve missed out on a lot of the theology of ethics, as well as quite a bit of this thread, especially the “intro” posts I wrote specifically to avoid that kind of “if I didn’t kill anyone then I haven’t done anything wrong” view of ethics. Of course, I sadly have no M.A./S.T.D. in theology either; that’s why I would need to eventually teach myself how to do real university research and locate some post-graduate or peer-reviewed writing that may have already been done on this and related issues: mine is fundamentally a philosophical-theological question, not a computer or business or political or legal question.

 

[tractarian]

plan19:
Thanks again for providing a living, breathing example of the sort of “ethic” I am trying to avoid.

If you wish to be taken seriously, could you offer some arguments that are on-topic? Because, childish remarks about technical skill aside, I have never in my life heard anyone argue that technical skill can decide ethical or theological questions. They are needed to have the relevant facts on hand with which to come to the right ethical/theological conclusions, but that’s as far as it goes. If you believe otherwise, and have something to offer besides irrelevant an un-Christian insults, please speak up.

Your profile says “Catholic” on it. Do you have anything at all to say that is grounded in Catholic teaching, or at least relevant to ethical arguments? If you want to say that ethical arguments are irrelevant, why bother posting here? You may not take me seriously as a developer, but I’m having a hard time taking you seriously as a Catholic, as a Christian, or as a person who believes in conscience and justice. I don’t know about you but if I had to be just one of the two, I’d rather be a man of God and a third-rate programmer than a Real Programmer who never mentions or thinks about God or His will for me in life. There is indeed a “basement” for that.

 

[flyingfish]

I have to point out yet another line that I see and you don’t. The work of scientists is not *inherently *profitable: even tho it leads to profitable things, it only does so potentially – some benefactor (rich people in the Renaissance, governments and foundations nowadays) has to do what amounts to an act of charity in order for the scientist to be self-supporting. The work of an inventor is inherently profitable; despite the frequent practical need for investor dollars or maybe even grants, inventing something useful and selling it does not require anyone else’s charity to work. It requires outside intervention and regulation by those in power (the Big Gov’t vs. Big Business conundrum yet again) to *force *ownership away from the inventor or corporation’s hands, but that ownership existed by nature.

The inventor would have nothing though without the work of the scientist, inventions tend to be some practical applications of theoretical science. What percentage of money earned by the inventor is owed to the scientist? Probably quite a bit, probably more than half, since it is a far greater achievement to develop the science than to apply it.

Hence we view people like Newton and Einstein as the greatest people, greatest geniuses, but not so much the people who practically applied their theories to say, designing rockets . Not to say we don’t value them, we do. But there is no question about whose contribution is greater. And if money earned was actually proportional to the value of the work, those people should be the wealthiest.

 

[plan19]

plan19:
Thanks again for providing a living, breathing example of the sort of “ethic” I am trying to avoid.

Look, dude. I’m sorry that you got into the wrong profession.

If you wish to be taken seriously, could you offer some arguments that are on-topic? Because, childish remarks about technical skill aside, I have never in my life heard anyone argue that technical skill can decide ethical or theological questions.

Your pretending to debate on the ethics of software development is a little like an aristocrat debating football strategies. Follow? You’re talking out of the side of your mouth… about something you know nothing about.

They are needed to have the relevant facts on hand with which to come to the right ethical/theological conclusions, but that’s as far as it goes. If you believe otherwise, and have something to offer besides irrelevant an un-Christian insults, please speak up.

I will take your commentary on my conduct under advisement. That said, it should be fairly obvious at this point that I’m merely pointing out how you are completely ridiculous.

Your profile says “Catholic” on it. Do you have anything at all to say that is grounded in Catholic teaching, or at least relevant to ethical arguments?

I have attempted to educate you. I am now rebuking you for speaking of things you know nothing about, and which do not concern you for the sake of bolstering your own sense of self-importance.

If you want to say that ethical arguments are irrelevant, why bother posting here?

I said that YOUR arguments about OTHER PEOPLE’S code is irrelevant, that your self-important concept of “ethics” is ridiculous.

You may not take me seriously as a developer, but I’m having a hard time taking you seriously as a Catholic, as a Christian, or as a person who believes in conscience and justice.

You’re the one arguing that you’re smarter than EVERY SINGLE DEVELOPER out there that gives their code away… and that you know what’s best for them. Of course, you have so thoughtfully taken the time to frame your egotistical ramblings within the confines of an “ethical debate”.

I’m merely rebuking YOU.

I’d watch who I go around pointing the “un-Christian” finger at… because at the moment you’re a bit of a hypocrite.

I don’t know about you but if I had to be just one of the two, I’d rather be a man of God and a third-rate programmer than a Real Programmer who never mentions or thinks about God or His will for me in life. There is indeed a “basement” for that.

I think about God all the time… as stated, I freely give away my code for the betterment of others, and choose to make a fraction of what I used to.

You’re the one obsessed with money, status, and ego.

 

[tractarian]

The inventor would have nothing though without the work of the scientist, inventions tend to be some practical applications of theoretical science. What percentage of money earned by the inventor is owed to the scientist? Probably quite a bit, probably more than half, since it is a far greater achievement to develop the science than to apply it.
Hence we view people like Newton and Einstein as the greatest people, greatest geniuses, but not so much the people who practically applied their theories to say, designing rockets . Not to say we don’t value them, we do. But there is no question about whose contribution is greater. And if money earned was actually proportional to the value of the work, those people should be the wealthiest.

I can’t really argue with any of that. Maybe in practice, fame and money have a sort of inverse relationship; scientists get the fame but not the money and [successful] inventors get the money but not the fame (that’d explain why so many people inwardly cheer when Hollywood celebrities suffer some scandal in their personal lives; it feels like a correction to some subconsciously perceived imbalance that receive so much of both…hehe).

I think my above post about creativity in the free market is, for me, the best solution to that ethical dilemma. (I would’ve been happier if *someone *else on the planet shared it, but I admit that the intersection of ‘concerned with computer ethics’ and ‘concerned with Catholic theology’ and ‘wants to use Descartes-style Skepticism on ethical questions’ isn’t exactly a huge population! When someone’s conscience bugs them in a way that happens to be uncommon, and they are accused of egotism because of it, I wonder if the accusers have any idea what a temptation that is to make it a self-fulfilling prophesy. Like saying or thinking, “I wonder if people said the same when St. Augustine wrote his Confession” and self-serving tripe like that. The danger isn’t in being too defensive but in attempting to defend myself in a way that would render the criticism suddenly true. So I generally opt not to defend myself at all; for goodness’ sakes, let everyone believe that I am a ****** programmer, a wannabe amateur theologian, a lousy human being, and an insincere Catholic to boot; forgo taking me"seriously", just take the questions and the issues seriously, no matter who presents them!)

If a scientist or inventor approaches their work with an *altruistic *attitude, it is not surprising that he or she sees little profit from their work, and probably there is no serious injustice in this case. And if they approach it from a pragmatic attitude, they are probably smart and creative enough to get their “fair share” without causing much detriment to the contribution they’d made in the first place.

Are 99.999% of actual inventors and scientist somewhere in between? Yeah I’m pretty sure about that. Do existing structures in society and models of development and business fall short of guaranteeing either the altruist or the pragmatist’s interests? Pretty sure about that too. As I said before, the answer has to be a compromise; nobody can wait around until conditions are perfect to their tastes (or even their sense of social justice) before they contribute to society, that would be to miss out on everything.

Those who do their best, both as professionals and as Christians (or simply as moral people) will always and everywhere be subject to hecklers who say they have failed in both tasks; that they are butting in where they don’t belong, that their work is futile, that they’re on the wrong side, that they “just don’t get it”, that hypocrisy and egotism are what’s really at the root of their efforts, and endless ridicules & calumnies. Though I began with some very specifically Catholic appeals to definitions of justice (which were universally ignored; that doesn’t bother me now as much as it did at first), in so much of computer ethics / cyberethics it doesn’t matter if one is a Catholic, Christian, other religion or agnostic; a vision of the common good is possible in the context of any & every profession, I really believe that with all my heart. It may well be that one agnostic IT professional has a clearer vision of that common good than a self-proclaimed Catholic colleague; if so, I hope that my mind is clear enough to follow their lead, and pursue the good above every ‘ideology’ lurking out there.

: )

 

[curlycool89]

By requiring these 4 freedoms to be irrevocable, one consequence is that Bill cannot acquire Dave’s source code, develop it further and then turn it into proprietary software; in arguments over FOSS it seems all agree that would be unjust, so I won’t consider that scenario.

That’s not really an argument over morality, it’s over legality. The GPL allows you to use software as long as you agree to the license, same as proprietary software.

Compare the two statements: “I am willing to labor, heedless of receiving any compensation, that the poor may have food and clothing.” And “I am willing to labor, heedless of any compensation, that corporations may have larger profits because they didn’t need to pay for the products I helped create.”

I don’t see any difference between the statements. If you’re willing to develop for free and are willing to let anyone use it, then you’re willing to develop for free and let anyone use it. If a poor person uses it an can spend money elsewhere, great! If a corporation uses it within the terms of the license and makes money, great!

You can sell GPL software if you want too. There’s no restriction on that (I believe that you just have to include the source code in the package if you sell it).

I am a Catholic, but the main reason I am posting these questions here and not on an IT-related forum is that our Catholic worldview is much more friendly to the idea that ethics and rights are real and not just the sum of what we decide they are. I was a big fan of GNU software, until I recently started reading the philosophy behind it …

I’ll just say it: Stallman is a bit on the crazy side, and may lean to the socialist side of the spectrum. Not everyone who produces FOSS accepts all the Stallman’s views. Most people use the GPL because it is a very standard license, it allows you to incorporate other GPL software into your program, and it has been upheld in court a few times.

had I some sci-fi ray gun that could make a copy of a car I just bought and give it to a friend, I think the car company would be within their rights to sue me or even get me sentenced for some crime.

I’m going to disagree with you. If someone were to make some instantly-copy-ray, then the car manufactures are simply out of luck. They need to evolve their business model or go out of business. It’s anti-capitalistic to think otherwise. If the market says that they no longer need to buy your cars then your business is no longer needed. That’s capitalism, when your product is no longer needed you get kicked to the curb. Anything else is unneeded government intervention into the economy and frankly inefficient (I’m currently an engineering student, efficiency is what we do).

Choosing to contribute to a FOSS project, or (to a lesser degree) to install & use free/open-source software, is more than just a decision about technology or economics: it is a decision to particpate in and further a certain ideology. I should think one must evaluate one’s own personal understanding and agreement/disagreement with that ideology before stepping off the cliff and participating in it. Am I off base here?

I’m a Catholic, Stallman is pretty crazy, and I use open source software. My thinking process is “they let me use it for free, therefore I’m going to use it”, and it doesn’t go past that. I don’t really care what their motivation is (as long as it’s not malware/steal my credit card like stuff).

The gist of my response was 1) I am not, for the 100th time, attacking free software / open source software, I am merely asking that its morality be justified, not blindly assumed

Actually, in the case of morality it is up to a person to prove that something is morally wrong, not right. We assume good, not evil. If we find evil then we go against it. When you examine if something is mortally sinful you have to say “does it violate one of the commandments?”, and if it doesn’t then it’s not a mortal sin. You have to meet the conditions of it being sinful, not the conditions of it not being sinful.

 

[tractarian]

curlycool89:

Thanks for your analysis , I think it sums up the pro & contra of the thread as good as anyone can.

Actually, in the case of morality it is up to a person to prove that something is morally wrong, not right. We assume good, not evil. If we find evil then we go against it. When you examine if something is mortally sinful you have to say “does it violate one of the commandments?”, and if it doesn’t then it’s not a mortal sin. You have to meet the conditions of it being sinful, not the conditions of it not being sinful.

Bleh, this is why I wish I had a deeper knowledge of Moral Theology. One other person I’ve talked with (in person) about this issue told me pretty much the same thing, and he was a Philosophy post-grad. I don’t fully understand why we can assume good – I feel like it’d make us too gullible. Frankly, it’s the gullibility in the open source vs. propriety debates all around that made me start this thread (so many ppl readily believe anything bad they hear about Microsoft, Oracle etc. and accept anything good they hear about open source). Now that I know that I’m confused about something entirely different it’s time for me to move on to other threads…

(Only 1 thing I wish I’d written differently in my posts: I should never have mentioned that I personally am involved in information technology or software development. It was a distraction for some and led to the misguided notion that only credentialed members of a profession have the right to ask questions about the social/ethical/theological meaning of that profession. If a question is worth asking (plenty on the thread doubted even that, which in itself is a worthwhile answer!), it shouldn’t matter who asked it.)

Thanks for everyone’s thoughtful answers and ideas. I don’t *do *forum threads very often but I’m glad I participated in this one.

 

[curlycool89]

Frankly, it’s the gullibility in the open source vs. propriety debates all around that made me start this thread (so many ppl readily believe anything bad they hear about Microsoft, Oracle etc. and accept anything good they hear about open source).

Heh, I know that one. You have to keep an open mind to both cases. Sometimes Microsoft, Apple et al do a lot of good (I’m currently writing this from my Macbook, so I can attest to that). Sometimes open-source is not all it’s cracked up to be (some of it is very buggy, some of it crashes all the time, frankly a lot of it is not for production computers), and sometimes it happens to be good (for example I use open-source document software instead of Word, a couple open-source math programs, and one for financials). Sometime proprietary software can be just as bad (I’ve never used it, but I hear Windows ME has horrible, and Mac OS before X left a lot to be desired).

It all depends where you read too. For example, if you happen to be looking at slashdot you’ll immediately notice that many of the users are slanted to pro-open source, anti-Microsoft, anti-software patents, anti-censorship, pro-privacy, and quite often anti-religion (a very overall libertarian style of thinking). Sometimes you find some interesting information from the comments, and a lot of the time it’s people spouting their own personal propaganda.

 

[erbo]

An earlier post focussed in on GNU’s “Four Freedoms” as the particular source of my (so far unique) scruples about FOSS, and I’ve noticed so far most of the counter arguments are about Open Source but not FOSS. Perhaps that’s a good thing, and it means that Richard Stallman’s Free Software Foundation is the fringe extreme of what is actually in practice a more moderate school of thought regarding intellectual property.

I think really discussing this question involves looking at the nature of software and intellectual property. Can software be considered intellectual property? Do the sovereign rights people have to private property apply to something that can be infinitely duplicated virtually for free?

Your views on these opinions will determine the morality of the ideology behind the GPL. Stallman would probably argue that software is not “property” and therefore can’t be owned. If that is true, then it seems that the GPL is just and admirably protects some aspect of our human dignity.