On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 11:26:02AM +0000, Ian Clarke wrote:
Fergal Daly wrote:
On Monday 26 January 2004 14:34, Ian Clarke wrote: I'm not sure about it personally but it most certainly _is_ the philosophy of the FSF.
I stand corrected, in which case I disagree with whoever wrote that FAQ answer.
I do somewhat agree with that FAQ answer. I think, if I have written GPL code and someone else has improved it and is letting other people use that improved version remotely then I think those improvements should be available to all in source form. Otherwise, the person is taking my GPL work and publicly benefitting without giving anything back.
There are many things which might benefit the public interest were they not secret. For example, if my e-gold password was not secret then my money could be distributed to the masses, which would probably benefit the public interest. Does this mean that the FSF should advocate the disclosure of my e-gold password? Should the FSF refuse to use the software of anyone who doesn't disclose their e-gold password?
Your password would not benefit the public interest because then you would not keep any money in your account, in fact it would be a net loss as now people would be forced to transfer money to you by some less convenient means. Property is only valuable to society because people can be sure that what's theirs is theirs and won't suddenly disappear. Generally, me owning a chair has no impact on where you can sit. Things are very different with software. If chairs were like software, I could sell you a chair and tell you you're not allowed sit with your legs crossed and that you'll have to pay extra to swing back on 2 legs. The other big difference is that software chairs have almost zero marginal cost, so I can get a monopoly on software chairs much more easily than with real chairs.
I think most people would agree that this extra control and the ease with which a monopoly can develop are not good for society. It's a question of how bad are they. The FSF believe that they're so bad for society that users should have the same rights as owners.
The argument that I should know what someone else's software is doing with my hardware is strong and defensible, but the argument that I have a moral right to know what someone else's software is is doing with someone else's hardware (and they have a moral obligation to disclose it) is isomorphic to arguing that nobody should have any secrets about anything - which is silly.
It's not isomorphic.
Keeping passwords secret...
Good: we get a trustable system of property transfer Bad: ??? (assuming you believe in private property there is no actual bad here, people just wouldn't keep any money in there accounts)
has a very minor impact bad effect (we don't get your limited money) and a very large good effect on society.
Keeping source code secret...
Good: companies can take a bigger reward for their work, thus encouraging more work to be done.
Bad: if Word was free then the number of people who could save 300 quid is effectively unlimited, also people could customise the software to meet their needs and never worry about being held to ransom by a monopoly
The FSF would argue that the bad actually outweighs the good in the second case. It might be true but it's not good news for the dot commers,
F