Professional Issues in
Computing:
Free Software Movement
Kevin Macnish (IDEA CETL)
Topics to Cover
• Definitions, claims and background of the FSM
• Rationale of FSM
• Objections
– Developers go out of business
– Intellectual property
• Broader argument
• Control
DEFINITIONS, CLAIMS AND
BACKGROUND TO FSM
Definitions
(0:00-1:59)
• Proprietary Software
– Paid for by users
– Full commercial license agreement
– Source code invisible to users
• Freeware/Shareware
– Payment optional or at end of trial period
– License agreement limits modification and distribution
– Source code invisible to users
• Open Source
– Often free from any charge
– License agreement meets open source definition
– Source code is publicly available
What is Free Software?
(2:00-2:35)
“Free” as in “free speech” not “free beer”
• Often (but not always!) free from any charge
• No license agreement or restriction on use,
modification or redistribution
• Source code is publicly available
Copyright and Copyleft
(2:00-2:35)
• Copyright is a legal mechanism for protecting
ownership rights over intellectual property.
• Copyleft is an attempt to use copyright legislation
to ensure any piece of free software stays free.
– a copyleft license uses copyright law to ensure that every
person who receives a copy of a work has the same rights
to study, use, modify, and also redistribute both the work,
and derived versions of the work. Such licenses typically
do so by requiring that the same license terms apply to all
redistributed versions of the work.
Key claims of FSM
(2:35-3:26)
• Free software respects the user’s freedom
• It is best to act so as to make (and keep) software free
• It is unethical to make or keep proprietary software
• All software should be free to be shared and modified
• The law should not support the practice of using licences to
restrict users from studying, modifying, copying software
Background to FSM
(2:35-3:26)
http://www.gnu.org/
Key names: Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds
• 1985 GNU Manifesto & start of the Free Software Foundation
• 1985 “Copyleft” coined by Stallman
• 1989 GNU General Public Licence
• 1984-1991 GNU/Linux OS developed – entirely free software
• 1998 Netscape source code
Free vs. Open Source
(3:15-5:16)
• Open Source arguments:
– More powerful
– More convenient
– More reliable
• Free Software Philosophy arguments:
– Freedom more important than “it works”
– Bigger issues at stake - ethics
The Meaning of “Free”
(5:16-6:00)
• Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
• Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works,
and adapt it to your needs. Access to the source code is a
precondition for this.
• Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can
help your neighbor.
• Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release
your improvements to the public, so that the whole
community benefits. Access to the source code is a
precondition for this.
RATIONALE
Rationale for FSM
(6:00-09:19)
Stallman’s Arguments:
• Free Distribution
– Makes co-operation possible
– Society based on co-operation
– An attack on co-operation is an attack on society
• Control
– Allows users to change software so it does what they want
– Allows co-operation in developing software
– Democratic means lead to universal benefits
• Alternative is the developer as dictator
OBJECTIONS
Objection: Developers Would Go
Out of Business
(11:59-13:51)
Stallman:
• Not gratis, can still charge
• Developers already being paid for free
software
• Most developers working on software which
will never be released to public
• Not legitimate to trample other people’s
freedom to earn a living
What is at Stake?
(13:51-19:07)
Future of Society
Education
• Schools shouldn’t waste money on licenses
• Schools shouldn’t teach dependence
(analogy with drug pushers)
• Education of developers
• Schools should teach habit of helping
neighbour
Objection: Intellectual Property
(23:35-26:10)
• Stallman: No such thing as IP
• Difference between software and music,
medicine, etc.
• Arguments do extend to other areas insofar
as free, non-commercial distribution is
concerned
– Justified by importance of social solidarity
Licences and the Law
• Law should reflect ethics of free software.
– Only if people are (morally) entitled to the use of
licences, should they be upheld.
– A legal arrangement might be justified if in the
public interest, even if it has other ethical flaws.
• Lawmaking is complicated by issues of
consistency (for example, with other areas
where copyright & patents are involved),
enforceability, and public acceptability.
Intellectual Property
• Most FSM advocates deny that developers or their
employers own software as IP
• Ownership brings entitlement to certain controls on
use
– I am entitled to lend my tennis racket to Jo for playing
tennis, but to refuse to lend it to Phil for him to use to
beat up his little sister
– I am entitled to make it a condition of lending my camera
to Gillian that she doesn’t let it out of her sight
Intellectual property rights over software would constitute a
major obstacle to the FSM’s impermissibility claim
Intellectual Property
IP not decisive for FSM ethics:
• Even if owners have property rights over
their software, it might still be best for
them to make their software free
• Even if owners have no property rights over
software, it still may be legitimate for
authors and companies to use licences to
restrict software use
BEYOND FREEDOM
Beyond Freedom:
Broadening the Argument
• What reasons are there in favour of making
software free?
• What reasons are there against having
software restricted by licences?
• What disadvantages are there of making
software free?
• What are the advantages of copyright?
FSM Case:
Advantages of Free Software
•
•
•
•
•
•
Improvements to software
Educational value of access to source code
Low-cost availability of software to all
Customisability
Enables you to “help your neighbour”
Collaborative projects much easier with
shared source code
FSM Case:
Disadvantages of Licences
• Intrusive control of private transactions
between users
• Prevents collaboration, etc.
• Puts a financial obstacle between people
and software that may help them
• Discourages understanding of computing
• No sufficient reason to restrict noncompetitive goods.
Alternative:
Disadvantages of Free Software
• Reduced incentive for programmers
– the right sort of software won’t get written
without such incentives
• Reduced reward for writing good programs
• Reduced investing in programming
• Removes the benefits of financially-fuelled
competition from the software market
Alternative:
Advantages of Licences
• Defends entitlements authors have over IP
• Facilitates credit to software producers for
their achievement
• Supports those who need to recoup large
up-front development costs
Free Software: Better? Viable?
• What would happen if incentives removed?
• Are licences necessary to give developers
what they deserve
• Plausible that free software better
– Harder to argue that licensed software is
ethically illegitimate
CONTROL
Licences as Control
“Control over the use of one’s ideas really constitutes
control over other people’s lives” (GNU Manifesto)
• Implication that control is bad
• Control isn’t necessarily illegitimate
– Are you entitled to it?
– Even if not, is the method of control legitimate?
• Licenses are an exercise of control that operates by
allowing use of software if the user makes certain
promises.
– It is not obvious that control via freely-made promises is
illegitimate
Defending Control using Licences
• I do some research and find out some information (though I
do not have property rights over it)
• I am not under an obligation to tell anyone what I find out
• If someone will pay me to tell what I have found out, there’s
nothing impermissible about divulging information for money
• If I want to make my telling conditional on the recipient
making promises about what they will do with the
information, then that is up to me – it is not impermissible for
me to do so
• Importance of consent
Possible Responses?
• Promises made by licensees result from
exploitation by licensers, i.e. are
illegitimately attained
• Harm caused by licenses so great that
property rights do not extend to a right to
issue software using licences
• Other strategies?
Recap
• Definitions, claims and background of the FSM
• Rationale of FSM
• Objections
– Developers go out of business
– Intellectual property
• Broader argument
• Control
How Important is FSM?
(26:10-end)
• Bigger issues to deal with
• Not my thing – I care more about, e.g.
human rights
• What difference can I make?
• Not my responsibility
For Monday
• Read handout!
Questions?