I.
William P Evens
ACSG 575
Essay #2 – Ethical Considerations in Open-Source Software Usage
II.
Introduction
Open-source software isn’t free. Just as your mother used to tell you that nothing is free
in this world even open-source software comes with a price. Open-source software does
not require a monetary investment however the recipient is required to use the software
responsibly and legally.
Until the late 1990’s open-source software was referred to as the free software
movement. The name was later changed to open-source software to make the software
licensing more inline with the corporate world. [1] Unlike proprietary software which is
copyrighted and legally requires the purchaser to pay a dollar amount to receive a
software license, open-source software is licensed through GPL and allows anyone to
receive a copy of the software free of charge. Another difference from proprietary
software is the fact that open-source software will also include the computer code used to
compile the software to allow for further software modification by the end-user. Opensource software requires recognition to the software authors when applying the software
for public use. In addition to publishing the original software authors, the code from any
changes made the software need to be available to the public. These changes may be as
simple as fixing a software bug to implementing a new advanced feature.
The GPL is a unique type of copyright license that requires derived works to be
distributed under the same license terms. GPL uses copyleft to grant the recipients of a
computer software rights to use the software but it also requires any modifications to the
software to be licensed as GPL as well. [2] Copyleft (first used by Richard Stallman for
the GPL) is a method for making a program free, and requiring all modified and extended
versions of the program to be free as well. [3] This clever type of licensing prevents
software developers from legally using GPL licensed code to create proprietary software.
No matter what changes or modifications are made to a GPL licensed software
application, the resulting software and code are now also bounded by GPL.
If open-source software is monetarily free and the developers and organizations do not
make a profit from the distribution of the software then how do they afford to protect
their software rights? What legal resources are available to them? Perhaps even more
interesting, who defends and protects the GPL license and copyleft freedoms from
organizations that use open-source software irresponsibly?
Armijn Hemel, a technology consultant from the Netherlands is one of many volunteer
watchmen that donates time for the open-source community. Armijn spends several
hours a week testing electronic devices to determine whether or not these gadgets use
software based on open-source code. If the device is found to use open-source software,
Armijn verifies that the software developers are properly credited and any software code
modified is readily available to the public. The GPL license that binds open-source
software requires both measures to occur to be legally used for distribution. Open-source
software is found in many different devices including smartphones, exercise bikes, and
even entertainment consoles found in some automobiles. Armijn often receives reports
of possible licensing violations and investigates each of these devices on his own.
Fortunately for Armijn and the rest of the open-source community he is not alone in his
efforts. In addition to Armijn, the gpl-violations.org organization has numerous
volunteers working to detect and report GPL violations.
Recently the volunteers that enforce GPL licenses have been surprised by the number of
industries that either ignored their GPL responsibilities or are simply not aware of the
give and take the open-source community requires. Armijn and others have discovered
that a number of organizations, including several highly technical organizations, do not
fulfill the GPL license requirements of posting any open-source code modified for the
open-source community. These organizations also often fail to credit the authors of the
open-source code used to create their products. Armijn finds that a few calls to the
organization’s call center will normally resolve the legal issues however sometimes he
finds himself needing to contact the legal department of the organizations to resolve the
GPL compliance requirements. If Armijn feels that he is not succeeding with the legal
departments he will request a cease-and-desist letter to be sent to the company. In cases
where volunteers find organizations unresponsive and in neglect toward GPL compliance
a law suit may take place. Unlike proprietary software law suites, open-source lawyers
usually do not hard-charge and the case is settled quickly out of court. [4]
This paper attempts to raise the core ethical issues involved in organizations using opensource software as the foundation of their own products which they intend to sell for
profit. Rather than debate the merits of the GPL licensing and copyleft, this paper
attempts to determine whether organizations acting in complete compliance with the
open-source community is still acting ethically with help from the tools and logical
arguments provided by two major ethical theories; Utilitarianism, and Deontological.
III.
Stakeholders
Organizations using open-source code to produce proprietary products create several
stakeholders with a vested interest, two groups in particular standing out as primary
stakeholders. The organizations and open-source software developers have the most at
stake as free open-source code is finding its way into everyday products. The hardware
and software organizations have an opportunity to reduce the time and cost to develop
software applications for their products by utilizing existing open-source code for no
monetary cost. This process of modifying existing software to complete a product
quicker will also come with some risk. By utilizing open-source code to speed up the
process of developing new applications, the hardware and software vendors risk law suits
if they fail to credit the authors properly and make the modified code freely available.
Although this would appear to be a small risk considering the ease of GPL licensing the
New York Times article clearly demonstrates that even the most technological
organizations are struggling to stay in compliance. Large organizations also risk their
reputation in terms of quality and creativity if they become known for simply standing on
the shoulders of other developers without giving them the courtesy of acknowledgement
and conducting business legally.
The open-source community has much to gain by large organizations using their
software. With proper credit being applied to the authors, the open-source developers are
able to capitalize on the attention of their software and become more noticed as their
products are adapted by organizations with a large reach. As the authors to the opensource code become more recognized, they will potentially have greater opportunities to
use their technical skills toward traditional proprietary software and even sell portions of
their unique code for a profit. Open-source software can be beneficial not just for the
further of software development but it also serves as a platform for code writers to
become discovered and recognized.
Unfortunately there are great risks for the open-source developers if GPL licensing is not
enforced. The open-source software distribution process is generally wide open and
creates opportunities for misuse. Access to the open-source code may be misused by a
few individuals attempting to save time and money on developing software to meet their
needs rather than starting from scratch. This can also occur by well financed global
organizations which simply overlook their GPL licensing obligations and assume that the
open-source code is completely free to take and use at their will. Open-source developers
risk losing out on recognition and possible future opportunities if large organizations
capitalize off of the work of open-source developers and do not properly acknowledge
the software authors. The open-source developers also have an uphill battle in the court
room when dealing with large organizations unless they have several volunteers like
Armijn assisting them.
Additional stakeholders in organizations using open-source code include the general
open-source community, attorneys, proprietary software developers, and the numerous
end-users. Many individuals in the open-source community are volunteers who help
protect the rights of the open-source developers. If the number of GPL violations
continue to grow, more volunteers will be necessary to protect the rights of the opensource authors. Unfortunately, if volunteers are not successful in enforcing GPL license
compliance a number of organizations regardless of size may overwhelm the open-source
community with blatant violations and a collapse of the open-source community may
result.
The use of high priced attorneys may increase if the number of GPL license violations
does not decrease soon. This will likely occur to get the attention from well financed
organizations which to this point appear to be content on violating the open-source
developer’s rights at will. Unfortunately, the result of increased GPL license violations
may end up hurting open-source developers, organizations, and the resulting products for
end-users while only enriching a number of high priced attorneys.
The final stakeholder in hardware and software vendors using open-source code is also
the most important, the countless end-users. If open-source code is misused by
organizations and numerous law suits begin to take place the end-users will ultimately
suffer the most as the development for new cutting edge software slows while the future
of the open-source community becomes in question. End-users only benefit when opensource software is respected and proprietary vendors do not take advantage of software
code produced by several bright individuals.
IV.
Utilitarian Analysis
A utilitarian analysis of organizations using open-source software would require a
consequential stakeholder costs and benefits breakdown. Several stakeholders in
organizations using open-source software would see immediate benefits. Organizations
can minimize the cost to produce applications by utilizing open-source software rather
than starting from scratch. In some cases, organizations can find open-source code that
will meet that majority of their software requirements and only need to make minor code
changes to apply the technology to fit their needs. This not only saves organizations
money, but also creates the opportunity for potential applications and devices to go from
concept to market much quicker. The acceptance for organizations to use open-source
code as the foundation of some of their own software and devices also comes with risk.
If the organizations do not follow the law concerning open-source software, specifically
the GPL license agreement, the organizations risk reputation damage and lawsuits that
may result in a large financial loss. Organizations also run the risk of losing their
competitive edge (or technical skills) by essentially contracting out the core software
development of their products. By taking development shortcuts the organizations may
find differentiating itself from competitors more difficult.
Organizations using open-source code also benefits the software developers. In many
cases the open-source authors are not affiliated with large software organizations and use
open-source software as a method to demonstrate their technical talents and to get
noticed. A successful open-source developer may find more job opportunities and
sometimes they can use the buzz created by their software development to start their own
software business. Open-source software isn’t just for the advancement of software but
also the advancement of the software developers. On the other hand open-source
developers also run the risk of losing out on a positive reputation and any possible
monetary gain if others don’t play by the rules. Specifically, when other software
vendors or organizations take their code and do not acknowledge the original coders
work. Although the GPL leftcopy license was created to protect software developers, not
all recipients of the software are complying. The open-source developers can dedicate
significant time and resources on a project and not gain any respect or monetary gain in
the open-source community if an irresponsible organization takes their work and treats it
as their own.
A utilitarian would likely view organizations utilizing open-source code as more
beneficial to the stakeholders and ethical sound. The potential cost to the open-source
developers by irresponsible (and illegal) organizations would not overcome the potential
benefits the software authors, the organizations, and the end-users will receive by this
arrangement. The amount of stakeholder benefits over any potential cost would lead a
utilitarian to conclude that organizations desire to use open-source software as a
foundation to their own products is ethical.
V.
Deontological Analysis
A deontological view on the other hand would not be concerned with the consequence of
organizations utilizing open-source software but the outcome of the categorical
imperative and the organization’s duties to the open-source developers and end-users.
Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative states that a reasonable person is to act morally
by treating people as ends and never only as means to an end. To determinate if the
organization’s actions are ethical we need to explore the organization’s motives. The
organizations appear to be utilizing the open-source software to cut down on the time and
costs to develop new software solutions. The organizations do not appear to be
implementing open-source code for the benefit of the authors or the end-users. Applying
the categorical imperative on organizations actions to use open-source code would
require it to be morally acceptable for all organizations (and for that fact all software
developers) to use open-source code as the basis of their software. A deontological
theorist would confidently find this action would not pass the categorical imperative and
therefore be unethical.
A deontological analysis would also require a review of the organization’s duty to the
open-source community. Kant believed that to act morally you must act from duty rather
than the expected outcome of a circumstance. Organizations have a responsibility and
duty to respect the works of the open-source community. If a organization acknowledges
the software authors and meets all other GPL license requirements then it is meeting its
duty requirements by respecting the open-source authors. A deontological review of this
agreement in terms of duty concludes that a organization using open-source code while
meeting the requirements of the GPL is ethical.
Unfortunately a deontological theorist would be conflicted with an ethical answer to
organizations using open-source code. Although the action of the organizations meets
their duties toward the software developers, they do not pass the categorical imperative.
Most deontological theorists would likely find the organizations to be acting unethically.
VI.
Conclusion
The use of open-source software by organizations is ethically sound. Although the
deontological analysis concluded differently, the utilitarian argument best fits this ethical
situation. The utilitarian view concludes that the actions of these organizations to be
ethical because the outcome benefits to the organizations, the open-source developers,
and end-users far outweigh the costs. Under strict GPL compliance the stakeholder with
the greatest risk, the open-source developers, is reasonably limited.
A deontological analysis on the other hand would conclude that organizations while
acting within the limits of the GPL are honoring its duty to the open-source developers.
Organizations complying with the GPL license are not using open-source developers but
in fact are promoting their products and skills. In terms of the categorical imperative, the
primary principle in these organization’s actions cannot be universally reapplied to all
organizations. This conflict within the deontological analysis makes its argument weaker
in comparison to the solid cost/benefits utilitarian conclusion.
Code of Ethics (in reference to open-source software)
Developers



Developers must respect the work of other developers. Consent must be obtained
when using code of another developer.
Developers must acknowledge the work of other developers in their software.
Developers must make the code of their open-source software freely available to
the public.
Organizations



Organizations must never disrespect developers. The GPL licensing agreement
on open-source software must be respected.
Organizations must acknowledge the original authors of code that is included in
their products.
Organizations must make the code of their derived software freely available to the
public.
Users



Users must honor the GPL licensing agreement.
User must never sell open-source software, only distribute it freely.
Users should report known GPL violations to the proper organizations in the
open-source community. (i.e. gpl-violations.org)
References
[1] Raymond, Eric S. (1998-02-08). "Goodbye, free software; hello, open source".
[2] The History of the GPL, http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history
[3] What is Copyleft?, http://www.gnu.org/copyleft
[4] The Defenders of Free Software, New York Times, 09-26-2010