Re: [aclug-L] Free software and warez

[Bob Deep <bobd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John Goerzen wrote:
> 
> 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.

I guess the old addage "Two wrongs don't make a right" applies. 
Although I disagree that protecting intelitctual property is always
wrong from a moral view, I do agree that breaking the law by copying
property that is protected is wrong.  The two issues are not directly
related.

<Snipped stuff on hacking..>
> 
> 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.  

I beleive that you can construct such an argument, but it still does not
change the facts.  Copying commercial software in the US is illegal, and
thus un-ethical from the start.  The "ends do NOT justifiy the means"
and in this case could land you in court, fined and servering jail
time.  Not that Micro$oft is going to drag you into court for copying
that 98 CD for your buddy (But they would take notice if you started
distributing their software from an FTP site or something, even if for
free...)  

> 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.  

Again... Two wrongs don't make a right.  It is up to the owner of the
software to license it as they see fit and leverage their property for
personal gain.  This is a fundamental right in the United States, milage
at your house may vary should you live in another country.  Copying
software is a violation of someone else's rights.  I may choose to
release my software as "open source" for free or with restrictive
licenses for a fee, it is my choice and my responsibility to decide what
is the best use for my software.

If I dream up some massivly useful software tool that everybody wants
(yea right!) then I have the right to sell it or not, allow you to use
it, or not.  I may do the right thing and give it away, source and all,
or sell it to Micro$oft for a few million dollars...After all, it's mine
to start with.

I sure support the efforts of the many open source developers in the
world and enjoy the fruts of their efforts daily.  I'm personally
working on a way to use my "Sound Blaster" like sound card that really
is something else and will gladly give the results (should I be able to
do it) to the Linux community.  For me it's cheeper than paying the $20
for the needed driver, and a whole lot more fun. (Yea I'm one of those
kernel hacker types, although I'm just getting started with Linux...).  

I have other projects brewing in the back of my mind that my have wider
appeal and may actually be "worth something" in a corprate world.  These
may or may not be released to the linux community for free.  I may
choose the triditional license/copywrite and perhaps patented approachs
but it will be my choice.  I may decide that making things free under
the GPL is what I want to do, but it remains my choice.  I may choose
the wrong path in your mind, but that does not give anybody the right to
steal my work just because they will not (or perhaps cannot) pay for it.

We can debate the pros and cons of the GPL and open source in general,
but we cannot advocate the violation of another's rights to protect
their property through restrictive licenses and fees.  It is a much
better solution to help in the development of a free replacement for
that neat program you want to use than just making a copy. Why?

        1.  It's leagal
        2.  It's Ethical
        3.  You would be making a contribution,
        4.  You would likely learn something in the process.

The open source community should stress "Help us build a better version
to replace the expensive one" and activtly discurage the "It's wrong to
restrict software, so just copy it anyway".  Free software for the
masses is a great goal, but we must advocate leagal means to obtain our
goal.  The open source community has a great ability to produce quality
software for free.  We must do just that and do it the *right* way or be
tossed aside like so many punch cards.

In the mean time, we can (and should) advocate the use of as many free
solutions as we can, provide access to these solutions, privide as much
technical support for the users with questions as we can and improve
what's available as much as we can.  I mean, why use Crisp when we have
Xemacs?  Who wants Internet Explorer when Netscape is free? But we
should also PAY for the solutions we require but cannot find for free. 
It is the ethical, leagal and right thing to do, even if the owners of
these tools are moraly wrong in our own eyes.

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

My $.02 worth at least.

-= bob =-
---
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.