[Fsfe-ie] Re: ethical interpretations of FS

Alexandre Dulaunoy alexandre.dulaunoy at ael.be
Tue Jan 27 12:47:39 CET 2004

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, 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.
> >
> > http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnreleasedMods
> I stand corrected, in which case I disagree with whoever wrote that FAQ
> answer.
> 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?
> The thing that makes source code different to my e-gold password is that
> source code controls what my computer does.  I have a  right to know
> what software is doing to my computer, just as I have a right to know
> what a plumber is doing to the pipes in my apartment.  But I have no
> more right to know what a plumber is doing to my friend's pipes than I
> do to know his bank PIN.  This is true even if I occasionally visit my
> friend's apartment.
> 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.

On the other  side, the creation of the Affero License  was to close a
hole in  the GNU GPL  in case of  distribution. As more  software (not
directly  on your  computer)  is running  outside  the user  classical
scope but for the use (you  know well the 'ASPware' stuff) of the user
itself, the user should have access  to the software (of course in the
the case that the software claims to be free software).

** Alexandre Dulaunoy (adulau) **** http://www.foo.be/ **** 0x44E6CBCD
**/ "To  disable the  Internet to  save EMI  and Disney  is  the moral
**/ equivalent of burning down the library of Alexandria to ensure the
**/ livelihood of monastic scribes." Jon Ippolito.

More information about the FSFE-IE mailing list