[aclug-L] Free software and warez

[John Goerzen <jgoerzen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Wesley Simon <wsimon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> I'm not aware of anyone's position on cracks, hacks and warez, but I
> believe that in order to mature, the group should adopt some
> zero-tolerance attitudes of such behavior.  I used to think it was cool,

OK, you have hit on a prime topic of interest for me.  I love talking
about this, so I suspect I'll be a bit verbose, but hey.

Let's split up those things because they are not necessarily in the
same boat.

Cracks are often things like registration codes or devices to break
copy-protected software.  My personal opinion is that copy-protected
software is a bad thing anyway, and that the creation of both
copy-protected software and non-free software is unethical.  However,
this doesn't mean that copying or cracking this software is
necessarily ethical; more on that below.

Hacking is a broad area.  I have no problem with discussion of ways to
break in to machines and the like.  The reason is that open discussion
is fundamental to ensuring security.  As has been said, "Security by
obsecurity is no security at all."  This is the model Microsoft uses.
When somebody finds a problem in Windows, they try to make sure that
nobody else knows about it.  This means that if somebody does discover
a problem, Microsoft doesn't publicize it, and machines throughout the
world may be vulnerable to attack.  Contrast this to Unix/Linux where
"full disclosure" rules the day.  This enables any security problems
to be fixed quickly -- often within minutes or hours -- and system
administrators and users alike are aware of the problem and can
protect themselves.  Publicizing details about ways to get around
security of software is vital to protecting the public, and it is
legal.  Often times the best or only way for administrators to test
their security is to try to hack into their own machines.  This is one 
reason why Unix/Linux is so much more secure than NT.

This is one aspect of it, and I see it as positive.  Another is that
of hacking into a company's database to steal credit card numbers, for 
instance.  This is not good, and certainly should not be condoned.  I
also would have bad feelings towards people that hack into others'
machines even if they don't steal credit card numbers or something
else important.  However, I don't think that anybody would really
advocate doing this since it clearly is illegal.

Security attacks, though, are not really a focus of the ACLUG lists
and are better handled by other lists like Bugtraq, so I don't see
much impact of this here.

Warez (or copying of commercial software) is a current hot topic in
the free software community.  Most free software advocates such as
myself view it as unethical to make proprietary software with a
copyright that does not give out source and prevents the end user from 
utilizing the software fully or finding out how it works.  We can
discuss exactly why this is unethical if you want -- suffice it to say 
that a very convincing argument can be made for it in most mainstream
ethical doctrines.  Given this, some free software advocates see
nothing unethical about violating the overly-restrictive license that
should not have been imposed in the first place.  On the other hand,
other free-software advocates say that it is unethical to copy
software not because of the license but because it contributes to the
popularity of non-free software in the world, and contributing to this 
popularity is unethical.  I would tend to agree that it would be
unethical for this reason, however I can understand the other point of 
view as well.

> but then one day I was browsing the web and found something I wrote. 
> Some guy had taken every reference to me off it and made it his own.  He
> was taking credit for something that I spent precious time creating.  It

I don't think that anybody would say that the behavior of this third
person was right or justified.  If you put your software under the
GPL, what he did is flatly illegal and he could be successfully sued
for violating your copyright.

> doesn't feel very good when you discover that someone has stolen your
> pet project.  Even though it was freeware, I didn't like it.  People
> just like you and I are trying to help the Linux community along.  I
> believe that it would be undermining the Linux movement to bite the hand
> that feeds us, even if it is large companies like Corel or small
> companies like 4 front technologies.  As a group we can't stop it, but
> we can prevent the meeting and the mailing list from participating.

Corel, 4front, etc. are somewhat of an odd position.  Most people,
including myself, won't lose a lot of sleep over it if they continue
to make non-free software.  I am very glad that Netscape is now
releaseing the source code; their product will be much better because
of it.  However, the fact is that just as Windows has been obsoleted
by free software, WordPerfect and Word will be obsoleted by free
software too (and to a large extent, this has already occured).
4front's OSS has already been obsoleted by completely free projects in 
Linux to a certain extent, and will probably be totally obsolete
within a year.  KDE had already been surpassed by Gnome, and older
non-free technologies such as Motif are already virtually dead, having 
been surpassed by the free Gtk.

Once Corel realizes that the only way to really compete against
Microsoft is to free their software like Netscape has done, the
development of WordPerfect, Ventura, etc. will take off.  Netscape's
browser development has received a tremendous infulx of new features
due to its newfound freedom, and WordPerfect surely would receive the
same.

As a good example, look at the Gimp.  It has been under development
for less than a year, if I remember correctly (versions prior to 0.5
were before the complete code rewrite, so they don't count.)  In that
short time, it has already surpassed in many ways all the commercial
photo editors that have been around for years -- PhotoShop, Paint
Shop, Corel Photo Paint, etc.  Sendmail is another good example -- the 
most powerful mail server on the planet comes only as free software.

As the person running the mailing lists, I am often in difficult
situations like this.  My general policy is that nothing is banned
because of expressing a distaste with current laws and the like.  (eg, 
I don't think that anybody can argue successfully that it's ethical to 
restrict exportation of crypto from the US but it is illegal
nonetheless).  That said, there are certain things that will not be
tolerated: spam, foul language, personal attacks, and the like.
However, nobody will be chastised for expressing what may be an
unpopular opinion.  After all, things that once were unpopular
opinions (like democracy, for instance) may end up being superior to
existing commonly-held opinions.

I'd be interested to hear what you think of all this.


John

-- 
John Goerzen   Linux, Unix consulting & programming   jgoerzen@xxxxxxxxxxxx |
Developer, Debian GNU/Linux (Free powerful OS upgrade)       www.debian.org |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Visit the Air Capital Linux Users Group on the web at http://www.aclug.org
---
This is the Air Capitol Linux Users Group discussion list.  If you
want to unsubscribe, send the word "unsubscribe" to
aclug-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx.  If you want to post to the list, send your
message to aclug-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx.