Hello! I'm In The Open Source Camp

Welcome aboard. I'm sure it would be good to read your points of view on certain discussions.

I am a Free Software guy, which is probably already made quite obvious anyway, but I believe in freedom to believe whatever you wish as one of the most fundamental ones and disagreement is a very normal thing.

Speaking of disagreements.. well.. here's why I disagree with the argument you posed about why do you support Open Source.

I'm with you on that, of course. People should write software when they wish to, either to scratch their own itch, to learn and practice or to attempt to scratch their own itch by trying to build a commercial business around their program.

Hey, I agree here as well, but probably in a different way than you may think, except for not providing copies at all, which I agree with completely (kept in privacy, not distributed, fine with me).

Well.. so where do I disagree? If these contracts and licenses deny the recepients who the author chose to share a copy with to make their own copies and share it with other people they choose to share with, that's what I see as an ethical problem, simply because the original author isn't deprived of his own copy any time when somebody else, using his own time and computer and network connection makes a copy.

So if the original author still has his copies of the program intact, where's the real harm? That he can't benefit from the rent?

Well, I wont go further than just saying I don't find those rents fair because they maintain a permanent position of control over those who choose to use the software they created. I refer you to this excellent quote for a good description of the concept I'm refering to. Information, knowledge, ideas, things that can be infinitely copies, are everyone's once let go. You either keep it completely private and unconveyed or let others have it too the same way you had it.

Anyway, welcome again.

There's a problem with that. There might be some program with a non-free license, which you agree I should be free not to accept. What if most people I need to cooperate with use that program, and keep sending me files I could only open with that program? Is that not forcing me to accept the license? Of course I could try to reverse engineer the file format, or to make them print their files and fax them, but those options aren't very realistic, are they?

Yes, the free and open source community has solved most of that problem by reverse engineering already, for existing file formats that is. The problem can and will be reintroduced over and over again.

And then there's (abuse of) DRM, it's uglier brother "automated censoring" and spyware. Very unethical, and not possible with free software.

Strictly speaking it's not the non-free license that is unethical, but the bad behavior that is made possible by it.

Firstly, welcome to the site! It's always great to have more people to discuss with and banter with.

Now, to your points:

Similarly, I believe that each individual should be free to decide whether or not to accept the terms and conditions under which software is offered. Neither the author nor the potential user should be denied their freedoms.

I agree too. And allow me to get to the root of why I think that non-Free software is unethical.

How would you define a computer? Most people consider a "computer" to be "Windows", so they never question things. But for those that use GNU/Linux or FreeBSD or anything but Microsoft, they consider a computer to be the physical hardware.

In order for users to decide weither they agree to a software license, they have to be aware that such software is, in fact, licensed at all. There are motherboard in existance now that have built-in software locks that prevent the system from operating if anything but Windows is on it.

Before purchasing that board and finding out the hard way, how did the user of that system have the opportunity to reject the license on that?

More so, how many people actually ever see the license they are bound by? Most PCs sold in retail stores have already been booted. Having bought 4 PC's before switching to various Free operating system, I'd not ever once seen a MS EULA, despite the fact that I was running Windows.

Laws aren't in place to prevent companies like Best Buy from doing that, though they really should be. And laws aren't in place to require that buyers be informed of the license they're bound to BEFORE purchasing a product. (In the US, opened software can't be returned, only exchanged for the same version, so the "You can return it" arguement doesn't work.)

Until laws are in place to prevent companies from "hiding" their licenses, and as long as companies do "hide" their licenses, such licenses, in my view, are unethical.

The second reason I find non-Free software to be unethical, using your own point, is that in addition to licenses companies are weilding patent portfolios like Excalibur, mowing down competition.

In a perfect world, where both Free and non-Free drivers (or applications, or artwork, or anything) existed, I wouldn't consider that an ethical problem. However, in this world, hardware makers have sued (or threatened to the point of killing the project) Free Software developers for reverse engineering. To allow a Free driver to exist is something some companies want to fight.

This kind of action also eliminates a person's ability to choose freedom.

Finally, for someone who speaks of freedom so much, your ideas may actually be more close to Free Software than you think. It's not a bad thing. We're not all nutcases like RMS, but some of us are close. I used to be a huge fan of the BSD license, because of the "freedom" I saw it granted. However, I began to see companies find loopholes in the GPL itself, which very much made me fear some of the implications that more "liberal" licenses. Perhaps, over time, you'll see something that makes you re-evaluate freedom and join the Free Software movement.

Even if you don't, you're respectful, so you're welcome by me.

Thank you for the warm welcomes! :-)

Yes, I'm very close to being in the Free Software movement, as I do believe that we should all be free to use our computers as we choose. Indeed, I'm strongly opposed to so-called software patents, DMCA type stuff, governments using undisclosed file formats for public documents, and that sort of thing. The only real sticking point is the stuff about proprietary software being unethical - though I certainly agree that there's lots of unethical stuff that's associated with proprietary software!

Turning to the matter of the freedom to decline licences:-

Are they obliged to cooperate with you? Or are they free to decide whether or not to cooperate? If they are under no obligation to cooperate with you, then you must surely respect their freedom to decide what, if any, cooperation to offer you. It doesn't even get as far as whether or not proprietary software licences are ethical.

If, on the other hand, they do have some sort of obligation to cooperate with you (such as when they're a government department with obligations to provide you with information), I'd certainly agree that they should not provide such files in non-public formats. But that's a matter of open, public formats, rather than proprietary software licences.

But then, of course:-

Indeed, there's a lot of ignorance out there; ignorance that Microsoft (and others) take abusive advantage of, and I'm not at all happy about that.

But the core of my disagreement with the Free Software movement is basically to do with this:-

It's nice we agree on where we disagree :-) I'm sure there's a lot more that we agree on, though.

The problem I see with that is that, firstly, the author is under no obligation to provide any copies of the software in the first place, and secondly, the potential recipient is (or certainly should be) free to decline the offer if they find it unacceptable.

For example, let's suppose Alice writes a piece of software, and offers a copy to Bob. When she offers that copy, she says, "Bob, you can have a copy of this software, as long as you agree to these terms and conditions." She hands Bob a document listing the terms and conditions.

Bob reads the document. "I do not find these terms and conditions acceptable," Bob tells Alice.

"That's okay," says Alice, "you don't have to accept those terms and conditions. And I don't have to provide you with a copy of this software!"

:-)

Bob, of course, is left exactly where he started; nothing has changed for him. The result is no different to how things would have been if Alice had never written that software in the first place, or if Alice had never offered Bob a copy. If we accept that Alice was never under any obligation to write that software, or offer copies to others, then surely we have to accept this outcome. Nothing unethical has occurred, since Bob was free to decline the offer Alice made anyway.

Had Bob accepted Alice's offer, it would (and should) have been of his own, free will. I'd say it's Bob's responsibility to decide whether or not the terms and conditions are ethically acceptable. If Bob decides to accept such an offer, I don't think it makes much sense to conclude that Alice was being unethical in making that offer.

So, either way, it seems clear to me that proprietary software fails to be unethical. (Denying Bob the freedom to choose, however, would be unethical, but that's a distinct matter, and, I believe, an important distinction.)

:-)

Anyway, thanks again for the warm welcomes!

You're missing the point here. They don't have to be obliged to cooperate with me, but I'm obliged to cooperate with them. Therefore, I'm obliged to use the same non-free software even if they don't care what software I use as long as it reads the documents they send me.

Open standards and free software aren't separate things. The proprietary first implementation could have intentional "bugs" that make it use a format that looks a lot like the standard but isn't the same. Guess who gets to spend lots of time to prove the proprietary software is the one with the bugs and not the free software? Also, the standard could be so huge it's practically impossible to finish a free implementation before the next version of the standard arrives.
In practice, the only way to stop lock-in is to make the software free. In theory, proprietary software by itself isn't unethical, but in practice it is.

Still, I don't think there needs to be a law against proprietary software. We already have antitrust laws that can be used against the same bad behavior.

No, I'm not. If they're not obliged to cooperate with you, then they're not even obliged to send you those files in the first place. If they send you those files in formats you can't read, it's as if they haven't actually sent you those files. But since they're not obliged to even send you those files (since they're not obliged to cooperate with you anyway), the issue of whether or not proprietary software is ethical doesn't even come into it.

If, despite them not being obliged to cooperate with you, you're obliged to cooperate with them, then there'd be some sort of contradiction there. That's a different problem to the issue of whether or not proprietary software is ethical. If they're not obliged to cooperate with you, their refusal to cooperate could manifest itself in a way that has nothing to do with software - what sense would it make to blame proprietary software for that? In the example you gave, their use of proprietary file formats was just a manifestation of the real, underlying problem of that contradiction between your obligation to cooperate with them, and their lack of obligation to cooperate with you. The issue of whether or not proprietary software is ethical is actually irrelevant.

Of course, it's still mighty annoying when people do send files in proprietary formats as if everyone can access them!

Eh why do I feel everything but your last sentence is a stretch?

Remove proprietary software from the equation and you've got people who can cooperate with anyone. We've got a situation with no problem that is described here by Taco.

All else seems to me like a stretch to justify proprietary software. In some cases it really cannot be justified.

Because I wasn't attempting to justify proprietary software there.

The example that tbuitenh gave was where other people, who weren't obliged to cooperate with us in the first place, were sending files to us in proprietary formats. My point was that, since they're not obliged to cooperate with us, they're not obliged to send us those files in non-proprietary formats anyway. As they're not obliged to send us those files in non-proprietary formats in the first place, we can't reasonably conclude from that example that proprietary software is unethical. That was my point.

To clarify further, consider a similar example which doesn't involve anything to do with software, computers, etc. Suppose, again, that they aren't obliged to cooperate with us, and, being free not to cooperate with us, are uncooperative by sending us Swiss cheese instead of Cheddar. But remember: they aren't obliged to send us any kind of cheese, or any cheese at all! Shall we now conclude that Swiss cheese is unethical? Can we draw any such conclusions, given that they aren't even obliged to cooperate with us in the first place?

What I'm testing there is the logic applied to the proprietary software example. If the logic is duff, then it's duff, no matter what it's applied to. If it's duff when applied to Swiss cheese (and it clearly is), then it's duff when it's applied to proprietary software, because the logic itself is duff.

:-)

If I'm obliged to cook something that contains Cheddar for someone, and that person gives me Swiss cheese instead, I'll use the Swiss cheese and they will have themselves to blame if their food tastes odd. Cheese isn't licensed, and so I'm not forced to enter any kind of deal with a third party. Bad example.

Hi Simon.

I think the difference in positions here may be down to differences in translating value systems to practical measures based upon varying perceptions of the prevailing reality rather than a case that only one position can be supported by logic.

Once we embrace free will our ethics stem from the philosophical question "what is just?". Some people see relationships featuring the dominance of might as part of life and something to accept, for me that doesn't pass muster, there are things we can control and things we cannot, and the former indicate a choice.

As you say we have a choice, in fact we can resist an option even if the alternative is a bullet in the head. This raises an obvious question, do we accept the level of coercion we experience as just?

Is it fair to assume we have a just free market for software here, are anti-trust laws effective enough? Microsoft has repeatedly broken the law in this regard, and various jurisdictions are taking measures against them. The problem is, by the time action is taken it's too late, years have passed, competitors are neutralised and the monopoly expanded.

This 'justice-lag' strategy among other things has led to a virtual global desktop monopoly and adversity for those who would wish to freely engage with their fellow man without having to pay proprietary software vendors. I work in web development and despite the availability of W3C standards am compelled to pay Microsoft just to ensure pages render ok for IE users. Consider the implications for my livelihood of choosing otherwise. That to me is an unjust level of coercion, and it needs to change.

Imagining a future where the situation is reversed, proprietary software is down to 10% of desktops, your question remains, would I still be against proprietary software and why? Though I wouldn't be as annoyed or focussed on this question as I am today, the answer is still yes.

The core ethic for me and I may be in a minority among free software supporters in this, is that I don't see the predator-prey relationship as something a sentient civilisation should deploy beyond absolute necessity such as our dependence on the food chain. Otherwise it's just polite savagery.

This has profound implications for the wealthocracy of course, but the obvious proviso is, where there is a practical alternative, deploy the option delivering justice over that delivering injustice. In the software and content worlds we certainly have those just options. I keep an open mind, maybe I'm wrong for opposing the freedom to give up freedom, but unless convinced otherwise my vote will always go to having justice enshrined in law.