Dear friends,
It is already a good deal of time since I started wondering about computer software.
And since that time I could not answering the question to myself why software should not be owned, like Stallman suggested. By the way, who is the owner? I think it can be either the engineer or the company (the client) who pays the engineer. Or?
Stallman seems to say that software should not be owned. Please consider these two quotations:
1) "Should development of software be linked with having owners to restrict the use of it?"
2) "I have shown how ownership of a program - the power to restrict changing or copying it - is obstructive. Its negative effects are widespread and important. It follows that society shouldn't have owners for programs." (Stallman, 1995, p. 193 & 196)
I have to say that I disagree with Stallman at this point. Society needs good software (more than ever). And individuals should be allowed to claim rights in their products - this should be their freedom, too. This is from my point of view the main ethical conflict. It is a question of justice, freedom, and valid claims.
What Stallman is trying to defend is non-ownership. But this makes people un-free. The concept of freedom has in social philosophy two meanings: (1) to be free from something (negative freedom) and (2) free to do something (positive freedom). Basically, we are un-free when our wants are denied their satisfaction.
However, both kind of freedoms have to be defended in a political theory. I cannot see how one could defend a non-ownership in software.
I would argue that freedom has to be ensured; and that's why the individual freedom to ownership in software cannot be abolished. The claim for the abolition of ownership in software, as I would say, too weak.
Stallman listed in his article some good arguments for non-ownership. But I am not completely certain if the claim embedded in the argument cannot be fulfilled by other means, e.g., with FREE (GPL'ed) software, too. If it could - why deny the (positive freedom) of other people to claim rights (of authorship) in their products? How could one justify such a claim?
Stallmans argument is sound when it comes to patents. "1-click-patents" do not bring any advantage for society and make ALL types of software un-free. From a moral point of view this is indeed a good reason for denying the applicability of patents to software. The problem in practise is, to point the risk of patents in software for society. (I know, I am taking trees into the forest here.)
The GPL and the whole idea of FREE Software is very sound. This is a valid claim.
Now, please tell me if I am on the right track. I do not tell me I am not ;-) (Just kidding) I am really looking forward to your comments. I think I will learn a lot from you.
Thanks in advance!
best regards, Axel
Literature: Stallman R (1995): Why Software Should Be Free, In: Nissenbaum/Johnson: Computers, Ethics, And Social Values, Prentice-Hall, pp. 190-200
Note: (*) I am not a software developer. That's why this question might sound to you a little strange.
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 16:32 +0200, Axel Schulz wrote:
I have to say that I disagree with Stallman at this point. Society needs good software (more than ever). And individuals should be allowed to claim rights in their products
I'm sorry, but I fail to see any connection between both statements.
Do you mean that without ownership there is no good software? I wouldn't say so.
Do you mean that if people claim rights to their products software is better? I wouldn't say so either...
What Stallman is trying to defend is non-ownership. But this makes people un-free.
hmss? Ownership causes loss of freedom to others and gives power to some. You're confusing having freedom with using power.
In an abstract world (as it is the digital world) ownership is detrimental to society.
Imagine that a Star Trek food replicator exists. So, for a marginally zero cost, you can have any food you want, whenever you want. Hunger could be abolished but... your phrase could be rewritten (mainting all logic):
| I have to say that I disagree with Stallman at this point. | Society needs good food (more than ever). And individuals | should be allowed to charge for their products.
As you can see, it makes no sense. It is even more evident since the evil of physical hunger is easier to understand than that of intellectual hunger, for we see people actually dying of hunger.
If such a thing existed, replication of food would probably cost as little as replication information in the digital world now does. Creating food would be as easy as creating software, all you would need is imagination and an instrument.
Does it make any sense to claim ownership of food, restricting the possibility to end physical hunger?
Does it make any sense to claim ownership of software, restricting the possibility to end intellectual hunger?
The concept of freedom has in social philosophy two meanings: (1) to be free from something (negative freedom) and (2) free to do something (positive freedom). Basically, we are un-free when our wants are denied their satisfaction.
(...)
Stallman listed in his article some good arguments for non-ownership. But I am not completely certain if the claim embedded in the argument cannot be fulfilled by other means, e.g., with FREE (GPL'ed) software, too. If it could - why deny the (positive freedom) of other people to claim rights (of authorship) in their products? How could one justify such a claim?
Because to satisfy that "freedom" for a few individuals you restrict freedom for society as a whole, for instance? Because it is evil to act your power in spite of others?
However, both kind of freedoms have to be defended in a political theory. I cannot see how one could defend a non-ownership in software.
I hope now you can, even if a food replicator may not be, in the near or immediate future, a reality, software replication exists.
The GPL and the whole idea of FREE Software is very sound. This is a valid claim.
Free Software... http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
... has little to do with the GNU GPL in particular.
The GNU GPL is one (of many) Free Software licenses and, I think, the one most used. It's primary purpose is to use copyright law to prevent appropriation of Free Software, making it un-free.
The GNU GPL gives you: * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
But adds a restriction on freedoms 2 and 3: those who receive copies or improvements must also have all 4 freedoms (yes, recursively).
Literature: Stallman R (1995): Why Software Should Be Free, In: Nissenbaum/Johnson: Computers, Ethics, And Social Values, Prentice-Hall, pp. 190-200
Maybe you should add other relevant articles on http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/ ?
Note: (*) I am not a software developer. That's why this question might sound to you a little strange.
A little, but not that much. What do you do, by the way?
Hugs, Rui
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 21 Apr 2004 at 17:44, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
Does it make any sense to claim ownership of food, restricting the possibility to end physical hunger?
It's very interesting you raise this point. The free software community are too often blinded by logic and "niceness" which is why they continue to shoot goals wide of the mark.
Food production has outpaced population growth in every part of the world except some regions in Africa. There is NO REASON why there should be anyone starving at all in the world. Yes as a percentage of the world population, it continues to grow worse with time. Why?
The reason why is that claiming ownership of things like food, misappropriating it and using the control of it to make others do things you want is how the western European countries took over the world. It is so ingrained into the political & business ways of thought that it seems *obvious* that it's "natural" and all things should work similarly. That council of ministers who are about to ratify software patents lock, stock & barrel are rejecting the EP amendments because they seem "strange" and "not in line" with how they think the world works. And that's why such small voices as Nokia's patent department have been so successful - they are appealing to these politicians on grounds they trust.
Does it make any sense to claim ownership of software, restricting the possibility to end intellectual hunger?
Yes, because he who controls the information controls the world. Information, especially timely information, is more valuable now than at any other point in human history to date. It's obvious that the powers-that-be will want to control it and use it to extort things out of the general population whose sole purpose after all is to consume as much as possible and not bother anyone at the top.
Stallman listed in his article some good arguments for non-ownership. But I am not completely certain if the claim embedded in the argument cannot be fulfilled by other means, e.g., with FREE (GPL'ed) software, too. If it could - why deny the (positive freedom) of other people to claim rights (of authorship) in their products? How could one justify such a claim?
Because to satisfy that "freedom" for a few individuals you restrict freedom for society as a whole, for instance? Because it is evil to act your power in spite of others?
No I think this is too much "you're with us or you're against us". It seems clear to me that both paradigms can coexist - both software ownership and non-ownership.
What's wrong with software ownership at present is that the owner is not fully liable for faults in their products (unlike almost any other industry). If Microsoft were fully liable for the general crappiness of most of their software, I guarantee it'd either be withdrawn from sale or made much better very quickly. The fact that this isn't the case has led to our present malaise.
If the EU really wanted to fine MS properly, they'd make all software manufacturers fully liable for all damages caused by misoperation of their software. Every single virus infection in a copy Windows would require MS to pay compensation etc.
For non-owned software I don't see a problem either. If an individual or company chooses to use communally owned software they understand that there is no recourse and you get precisely what you pay for, which usually is nothing. This means that they take on the liability of damages - which is fine, because since they have access to the source they can actually fix the problems themselves if they choose to or at least find someone cheap to do it for them. This is impossible with closed source software.
Both have sufficiently strong merits the other does not that I think both will be the future. Eventually. When the politicians wake up and after we've born the billions of euros in stupid patent litigation costs.
The GNU GPL is one (of many) Free Software licenses and, I think, the one most used.
I would bet that in terms of millions of lines of code, it wouldn't be. Also, to be fair you should point out that the GPL imposes restrictions some may find onerous.
Cheers, Niall
On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 00:17 +0100, Niall Douglas wrote:
Food production has outpaced population growth in every part of the world except some regions in Africa. There is NO REASON why there should be anyone starving at all in the world. Yes as a percentage of the world population, it continues to grow worse with time. Why?
I don't know. Food degradation during the time to transport it from one place to another could explain at least some part of it, but I find it interesting that the EU pays us (Portugal and other countries) to produce _less_ food. Pretty weird, considering all the hunger huh? Why not buy that food to farmers and send it someplace else?
Does it make any sense to claim ownership of software, restricting the possibility to end intellectual hunger?
Yes, because he who controls the information controls the world. Information, especially timely information, is more valuable now than at any other point in human history to date. It's obvious that the powers-that-be will want to control it and use it to extort things out of the general population whose sole purpose after all is to consume as much as possible and not bother anyone at the top.
I know, but I'm not talking about 'making sense for the profit of evil people'. Instead, I'm talkin about 'making sense for society'.
No I think this is too much "you're with us or you're against us". It seems clear to me that both paradigms can coexist - both software ownership and non-ownership.
I don't, because there is no ownership. There is a *temporary*monopoly*right* called Copyright :)
What's wrong with software ownership at present is that the owner is not fully liable for faults in their products (unlike almost any other industry). If Microsoft were fully liable for the general crappiness of most of their software, I guarantee it'd either be withdrawn from sale or made much better very quickly. The fact that this isn't the case has led to our present malaise.
Of course. But it makes sense. Software is to be covered by copyright law, according to international treaties signed by many countries: TRIPs.
Are authors liable for faults in their products? Books carry no warranties either... you could buy a book written by a competent author that effectively taught you something, and you could buy a book that might as well be written by an infinite number of monkeys :)
If the EU really wanted to fine MS properly, they'd make all software manufacturers fully liable for all damages caused by misoperation of their software. Every single virus infection in a copy Windows would require MS to pay compensation etc.
I still think that forcing royalty free full access to all documentation on their file formats and communication protocols, failing to do that penalty of temporary (10 years, for instance) exclusion from the common-market would be much more effective than a miserous one time 1% of their cash reserves and mandatory RAND licensing.
The GNU GPL is one (of many) Free Software licenses and, I think, the one most used.
I would bet that in terms of millions of lines of code, it wouldn't be.
I don't know. A project may have millions of lines of code and not very usefull at all.
Also, to be fair you should point out that the GPL imposes restrictions some may find onerous.
That doesn't make sense. They are not forced to use GPL'ed code inside their derivate programs, so how could they find it onerous? They can instead write their own solution, or would the real problem be doing it *their*way*?
Hugs, Rui
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 22 Apr 2004 at 0:41, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
Food production has outpaced population growth in every part of the world except some regions in Africa. There is NO REASON why there should be anyone starving at all in the world. Yes as a percentage of the world population, it continues to grow worse with time. Why?
I don't know. Food degradation during the time to transport it from one place to another could explain at least some part of it, but I find it interesting that the EU pays us (Portugal and other countries) to produce _less_ food. Pretty weird, considering all the hunger huh? Why not buy that food to farmers and send it someplace else?
The EU tried that in the eighties but it actually made the hunger worse. Why? Because free food to poor countries means local farmers go bust, land goes out of use and gets its mineral content blown away in the dust. The EU courageously stopped this (unlike the US which uses it deliberately as a form of warfare) and now pays EU farmers to not produce - this makes sense, because the agricultural subsidy has nothing to do with food or the production thereof, it's 100% a vote buying measure and always was. We basically pay our farmers a kind of welfare to stop them flooding the cities.
It's obvious that the powers-that-be will want to control it and use it to extort things out of the general population whose sole purpose after all is to consume as much as possible and not bother anyone at the top.
I know, but I'm not talking about 'making sense for the profit of evil people'. Instead, I'm talkin about 'making sense for society'.
But that's the point you and most free software advocates miss - we are and always have been ruled by evil people. Or as many would say, in order to rule you must be at least partially evil. Wishing it weren't so is a fool's dream - it will always be like this. The question really is how to play/fix the system to reduce the consequences of this.
Therefore advocating reform shouldn't be because it's the right thing to do (though it helps), it should be in terms of: (i) this will make you (not us) more money or (ii) this will prevent a popular revolution removing you from power. The latter I don't see happening over software patents :)
No I think this is too much "you're with us or you're against us". It seems clear to me that both paradigms can coexist - both software ownership and non-ownership.
I don't, because there is no ownership. There is a *temporary*monopoly*right* called Copyright :)
This is like saying no one owns their land in London. It's true in that everyone rents for 99 year leases from the Duke of Westminister, but to all intents and purposes it's ownership in that the lease can be subletted, bought, sold etc.
Same goes for software. Obviously no one can own it, just as much as no one can own anything past their body. But it's a societal convention we use for better or for worse and it's not going away anytime soon.
Are authors liable for faults in their products? Books carry no warranties either... you could buy a book written by a competent author that effectively taught you something, and you could buy a book that might as well be written by an infinite number of monkeys :)
There's a difference - for a book to cause damage it must pass through a human who chose to accept or reject it. Software can cause damage without any human involvement because it's a tool as well.
I'm not saying that malconfigured software should cause liability as this implies human error. I am saying correctly configured software causing damage should incur the full costs on its manufacturer. This seems right because if you can become the world's second richest man through profit by ownership, you sure as hell should be liable for bad products.
If the EU really wanted to fine MS properly, they'd make all software manufacturers fully liable for all damages caused by misoperation of their software. Every single virus infection in a copy Windows would require MS to pay compensation etc.
I still think that forcing royalty free full access to all documentation on their file formats and communication protocols, failing to do that penalty of temporary (10 years, for instance) exclusion from the common-market would be much more effective than a miserous one time 1% of their cash reserves and mandatory RAND licensing.
Actually I'd make source disclosure mandatory. While occasionally there is some advantage to closed source, it's of small enough proportion it's an acceptable loss.
The GNU GPL is one (of many) Free Software licenses and, I think, the one most used.
I would bet that in terms of millions of lines of code, it wouldn't be.
I don't know. A project may have millions of lines of code and not very usefull at all.
I'd really like to find out how many freshmeat projects are under the GPL versus other licenses. That would answer this question once and for all (esp. if they can weight them with activity).
Also, to be fair you should point out that the GPL imposes restrictions some may find onerous.
That doesn't make sense. They are not forced to use GPL'ed code inside their derivate programs, so how could they find it onerous? They can instead write their own solution, or would the real problem be doing it *their*way*?
As in, when choosing a license there are other licenses available which are GPL-compatible which may be more appropriate to their requirements.
Cheers, Niall
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 01:38:22AM +0100, Niall Douglas wrote:
On 22 Apr 2004 at 0:41, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
The GNU GPL is one (of many) Free Software licenses and, I think, the one most used.
I would bet that in terms of millions of lines of code, it wouldn't be.
I don't know. A project may have millions of lines of code and not very usefull at all.
I'd really like to find out how many freshmeat projects are under the GPL versus other licenses. That would answer this question once and for all (esp. if they can weight them with activity).
You've got lies, damned lies and statistics, and here they are: http://freshmeat.net/stats/#license
69% use the GPL, and a good second is the LGPL with 5.58%. The third, the original BSD license, has 3.85%.
On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 11:54 +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 01:38:22AM +0100, Niall Douglas wrote:
On 22 Apr 2004 at 0:41, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
The GNU GPL is one (of many) Free Software licenses and, I think, the one most used.
I would bet that in terms of millions of lines of code, it wouldn't be.
I don't know. A project may have millions of lines of code and not very usefull at all.
I'd really like to find out how many freshmeat projects are under the GPL versus other licenses. That would answer this question once and for all (esp. if they can weight them with activity).
You've got lies, damned lies and statistics, and here they are: http://freshmeat.net/stats/#license
69% use the GPL, and a good second is the LGPL with 5.58%. The third, the original BSD license, has 3.85%.
And at sourceforge (which unfortunately also supports proprietary software, and is a banner for some of it): http://sourceforge.net/softwaremap/trove_list.php?form_cat=14
GNU GPL'ed projects are almost 36840 while the second most used, the GNU Lesser GPL is at little more than 5619. The third best is BSD license with somewhat more than 3704, bla bla bla.
These sites may not register _all_ projects, but they have larger samples than most "credible" surveys I've seen.
Rui
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 22 Apr 2004 at 11:22, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
I'd really like to find out how many freshmeat projects are under the GPL versus other licenses. That would answer this question once and for all (esp. if they can weight them with activity).
You've got lies, damned lies and statistics, and here they are: http://freshmeat.net/stats/#license
69% use the GPL, and a good second is the LGPL with 5.58%. The third, the original BSD license, has 3.85%.
And at sourceforge (which unfortunately also supports proprietary software, and is a banner for some of it): http://sourceforge.net/softwaremap/trove_list.php?form_cat%14
GNU GPL'ed projects are almost 36840 while the second most used, the GNU Lesser GPL is at little more than 5619. The third best is BSD license with somewhat more than 3704, bla bla bla.
These sites may not register _all_ projects, but they have larger samples than most "credible" surveys I've seen.
I'm amazed it's so large. I was concerned that many of the GPL projects might be unfinished so I fetched all production/stable from freshmeat - out of 8218 stable projects, 5216 are GPL which gives 63%. On Sourceforge the same is out of 10031 there are 6669 GPL which gives 66%.
I tried finding out the percentage of licenses in the FreeBSD ports collection as they're all active & useful packages and most importantly they carry dependency info. Unfortunately, it would seem their description doesn't carry license info :(
However, the above isn't as it seems. Libraries such as zlib are heavily reused and so their weight should be much higher and I think total source lines under the license should also be taken account of - therefore, every copy of the Linux kernel would have portions removed as they're under a more permissive license than the GPL (eg; zlib).
However I think it's safe to say at least 50% of all most popular OSS is GPLed.
Cheers, Niall
Niall Douglas wrote:
However, the above isn't as it seems. Libraries such as zlib are heavily reused and so their weight should be much higher and I think total source lines under the license should also be taken account of - therefore, every copy of the Linux kernel would have portions removed as they're under a more permissive license than the GPL (eg; zlib).
Well, if you count according to frequency of use, I think the GPL wouldn't fare too badly: Linux (kernel; except for zlib if you will), bash, GNOME, KDE, GCC. What else do most users use at all (just kidding)? ;-) Perhaps glibc and X11 would be the most serious competitors.
Frank
On Wednesday 21 April 2004 14:32, Axel Schulz wrote:
And since that time I could not answering the question to myself why software should not be owned, like Stallman suggested. By the way, who is the owner? I think it can be either the engineer or the company (the client) who pays the engineer. Or?
The owner is the society, that educated the enginneer, that gave him oportunity, that gave his job and life. The inventor has always a great DEBT to the society, because he had access to the information, but a lot of others didn't. Guys, do you have access to the internet and LOTS of information, but in my country 50% are below the poor line. Don't you think you have a big debt? How can you pay all the information you have? Giving it back!
I have to say that I disagree with Stallman at this point. Society needs good software (more than ever). And individuals should be allowed to claim rights in their products - this should be their freedom, too. This is from my point of view the main ethical conflict. It is a question of justice, freedom, and valid claims.
GNU-Linux is a "good software" and nobody owns it. It's a "proof-of-concept" that stallman is right and you are wrong. ;-)
What Stallman is trying to defend is non-ownership. But this makes people un-free. The concept of freedom has in social philosophy two meanings: (1) to be free from something (negative freedom) and (2) free to do something (positive freedom). Basically, we are un-free when our wants are denied their satisfaction.
Any lawyer or judge will teach you that freedom only exists with a lot of restrictions. Freedom IS NOT what you read at the dictionary.
I would argue that freedom has to be ensured; and that's why the individual freedom to ownership in software cannot be abolished. The claim for the abolition of ownership in software, as I would say, too weak.
Hum... I will give you an exagerated example, but it is good to think about the problem. Imagine if when you arrest a killer he says "oh, you can't arrest me! I have freedom to do what I want!". See, society can create limits if decides that an action is prejudicial (the word is correct?) to it. Proprietary Software can cost lives, it's just like patents on medicines. Do you know a company finished genoma project three years earlier and sell the genoma during these three years? Can you imagine how many medicines would be invented in these three years, and how many lifes vanished just because a company's ambition? Stallman is trying to say, just like creative commons, that INFORMATION should be free.
Now, please tell me if I am on the right track. I do not tell me I am not ;-) (Just kidding) I am really looking forward to your comments. I think I will learn a lot from you.
Maybe you are on the right track, and I'm on the wrong, but I really think this way. The fact is people that don't donate money will never understand this, because they are only worried about their noses. 8-P
[]s, gandhi
For a couple of centuries we've accepted that there's no ownership on literary works. Could you tell me why do you think that's wrong? I can see no strong argument for ownership of software.
Your argument seems strange:
You say we need good software, and you claim that's possible by limiting our ability to correct bugs and to maintain a program beyond its creators wishes to fit our purposes. That's seems strange to me.
You say it's a matter of justice, freedom and valid claims. I completely disagree. I see no justice nor freedom in being restricted to do something by others. I don't believe any restrictions on my freedom to do things to be valid claims without a great explanation. I hope you have one.
Dear Axel,
You are right in one thing: you try to think by yourself on all these questions to make your very *own* opinion and not just stick to a fundamental text that would be just like a holy bible for the free software supporters.
But I really think you missed two points in your thinking.
1. What is ownership and what is authorship ===========================================
The first is what is ownership on software, and the fact that it is really different from the authorship. Copyright is what in law is the closest to the notion of ownership of software, although it is limited in time. So the one who is the closest to be the "owner" of a piece of software is the copyright holder.
As for something you own, you can sell and buy copyright ("ownership"). But you cannot buy or sell authorship (hiring a writer to write a book and putting your name on it is punished by law, at least where I live, in France). The author is just the *original* copyright holder ("owner") of the work.
Suppose you are hired to write (proprietary) software for a company. In fact you will be hired not only to write it, but also to cease your copyright ("ownership"). You won't be the copyright holder anymore, but you will still be the author (you are still the that wrote the software, whoever is "owner" is).
So authorship and "ownership" are two very different things as you can, at the same time, have one and not the other.
2. What is freedom and what is power ====================================
The second point I think you really missed is what is a freedom and what is a power.
It seems you started your thinking by reading "Why Software Should Not Have Owners" (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html). You should go on reading "Freedom or Power?" (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html).
Short quoting:
"Freedom is being able to make decisions that affect mainly you. Power is being able to make decisions that affect others more than you."
Before we continue, let's have a look on how far the notion of ownership can apply to immaterial things, like information, and software which is a kind of information (can you agree with this?). The prerogative of the copyright holder ("owner") is to edict at which conditions the software can be used/copied/modified. He can even decide to prevent anyone from using/copying/modifying it (and that is unfortunately a common practice).
Claiming the freedom to do so is in fact claiming a power. You are just claiming a *power* to prevent others to do what they want, what their *freedom* should grant them, even with "your" software, or more accurately the software you are the *author* of.
So there are no two kinds of freedom that oppose, the one of the copyright holder and the one of the users. There is a quest for freedom of the users against the manifestation of a power of the copyright holder.
This power granted by law at this time, which some of us feel is wrong. And in this point of view, the GPL (and beside it, the notion of copyleft) is just a workaround for this. You can see it as a temporary and realist solution to the problem.
The true and final solution would be that law stop granting such a power to copyright holders => software don't have owners.
-- Guillaume Ponce http://www.guillaumeponce.org/