Re: [aclug-L] Free software and warez

[Bob Deep <bobd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John Goerzen wrote:
> 
> (You'd be surprised how much we agree on)

We actually agree on most of the issues.  Looking at the GNU license
concept, it does seem to be a very good way to develop software.  It
allows the development of common software tools which are exceptional
and very useful for a price that anybody can afford.  It also does not
preclude folks like me from making money doing software development for
those situations that are unique to coustomers needs, so all us
software developers won't go hungry (as some advocates of the other view
would claim.)

However, all is not greener grass on this side of the fence either, and
the protection of inteletctual property rights is deeply entrenched in
the laws of the United States.  (I've edited down the discussion to the
debate on this topic for the most part).

> 
> I am not stating that I believe that all non-free intellictual
> property is bad.  What I am saying is that non-free software is bad.

So retaining a restrictive license on intellictual property is *always*
bad?  Not so quick there...  Perhaps the drug makers in this country
would disagree....  Who in their right mind would invest the millions of
dollars needed to develop, test, and get approved a new drug if anybody
could just take the formula and sell it?  It would be impossible to
recover the costs of R&D.  Look at Intel.  They have spent billions
developing the processers that run most linux installs, and have managed
to get their development money back by up'n the price of their
processers. (Which, by the way, cost perhaps tens of dollars each to
produce).  Without the protection of intellectual property, neither of
these industries would exist as we know it today.  Nobody would spend
money in R&D and if they did, massive efforts would be made to keep the
advances seceret until the R&D costs could be recovered which would
further drive up the costs of new inovations.

I don't beleive then, that we can then make the blanket statement that
"non-free intellictual property is bad".  There are times when the
protection of intellictual property rights actualy is very helpful and
does more good than harm.  So, there may be times when intellictual
property rights (over software) may also be a good thing. 

> The reasons are many.  Software is generally an "idea", not a
> manufacturing process as patent has been defined.  Imagine what would
> happen if people would patent other ideas -- the theory of evolution,
> Calculus, or Einstein's laws of relativity.  One would think that
> attempting to patent this is silly, and this would be the correct
> assumption because there is no way to prevent somebody from thinking
> about an idea, and indeed we should not attempt to do so.

Copywrited software does not mean you cannot write your own code that
does the same thing.  The idea is *not* protected per say.  How eles do
we have "grep" for linux?  Many of the standard Unix utilities we depend
upon, are really clones of software originally written by ATT (Or at
least copywrited by ATT).  None of them use any ATT owned code (that I
know of) yet we have basicly the same utilities in Linux that many
comerical Unix OS's have, they are just under the GPL.  So even if I
could write some super GUI Word Processor that did it all (and then
some), you would be free to clone it (and even reverse engineer it) as
long as you did not violate my rights by using my code in your version. 
You would be free to develop the wiz bang super duper GUI Word Processor
that did all mine was used for and made coffee too..

> One of the prevelant theories on ethical behavior is the "utilitarian"
> theory.  What this says is that you ought to act in such a way that
> you produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number
> of people.  (Sometimes, this means that you must cause the least amount
> of unhappiness.)

This theory of ethical behavior lacks an absolute standard so your
determination of "moral" and "ethical" may differ from mine due to view
point, and understanding.  Let me tell you up front, without digressing
into a religious argument, that I beleive that there are absolutes,
moraly and ethicaly.  Some things are wrong, despite any arguments I may
construct about how moral the act may be.  Current events in the news
are a prime example.

The utilitarian view is basicly a re-package of a economic theory that
has been shown to fail.  The current situation in the formar Soviet
Union is a direct result of such thinking (though poorly executed)
driven to a the logical extream.  The concept of maximizing the good may
make a good rule of thumb, but it is not a viable system for the
moralist or in the determination of ethics because it is not absolutly
always right.  Just ask the poor and starving masses in the former
USSR.  It sounds good on paper, but it does not work in the larger
scheam of things.

> Non-free software discourages innovation. 

Not always, in some ways it allows for the payment of the costs of
innovation.  There are times when advances cost money.  True, it is now
possible for individuals to own a computer that has the processing power
that Engineers only dreamed about having 50 years ago.  Can you imagine
what would have happened in WW2 if somebody had a Cray parked in the
corner of the basement working on decryption of communications?  (Alas I
digress...)  Gone are the days when it took the money of a large
corporation to fund software development efforts.  It used to cost
millions just for a simple computer, now you can get a used one for
dollars at a yard sale, that would run rings arround the hardware
available 20 years ago.  So now you can sit at home, and develop
applications that where impossible to run just a few short years ago. 
It is the availble hardware that allows software to be freely
developed...  And NONE of this would have been possible without
intelectual property rights.

Just looking at the inovation that the USSR produced, agnist the
inovation of the free world should be a heavy blow to this argument. 
True, they produced some things that are quite interasting... They can
throw heaver things into space than we currently can for example... But
in raw technology they had to run their economy into the ground in an
effort to keep up with the capitlistic west.

Intelectual property rights encourge the development of things that
otherwise would not even be attempted without a goverment funded
program, so these rights should be retained for the common good (to use
your
argument..)

> This is because one cannot
> build upon the steps of those that have come before. 

But you can, these days, write your own version, make it better, and
give it away for the good of everybody.  The way to beat closed source
is to provide a better "open source" solution.


> Now consider what would have been possible had all those programs been
> free.  All of the time wasted recreating that which others had already
> created could go to new features.  
<snipp>

Point taken, but open source is not always efficent either.  The open
source community uses up a lot resources with duplicated efforts and
coordination tasks.  It is not a perfect solution either.

 
> I cannot necessarily equate the law with morality.  We see many cases
> where the law does not equal morality.  The punishment for slaves
> escaping from oppressive conditions last century is one good example.
> Repression and executions for political speech in modern China is
> another.  Simply because the law is laid down does not mean that it is
> morally justifyable, and indeed, if we cease to question and analyze
> the laws, then society fails to progress -- after all, lawmaking is
> often the amendment of previously-enacted laws.  For instance, we have
> the much-touted tax reform this year that claims to fix previous legal
> mistakes.

Slavery is agnist the law in the US at this time, and political speach
is allowed too. (Bad examples I fear). Neither of these issues are even
close to inteletual property rights (Which BTW are not really enforced
in China..)  Are there bad laws?  Yes.  Then the question becomes, how
do we go about changing the laws?  By breaking them?  Sometimes, but it
depends upon specific law in question.  Many brave men and women have
died defending the US and our system of making laws.  One of the major
issues the framers of the constution had with England was private
property rights (as well as taxes...)  Because it is necessary, we also
have intelictual property rights (being a form of private property). 
You want my software?  I may want your car, computer, and house... You
are
not free to copy my software, I'm not free to use your car, computer or
live in your house... Same issue.
 
> I cannot understand how one can make the leap from being illegal to
> being unethical.  Can you elaborate please?
> 

Being illegal, it is unethical to copy software beyong what the owner
has allowed given our current system of laws.  The examples you site are
examples of imoral laws.  You will have to prove that all intelectual
property laws are not moral or useful before you can choose to sudgest
ignoring them and before such comparisons are valid.

Ethics - The study and philosophy of human conduct, with emphisis on the
determination of right and wrong.
legal - Created or permitted by law

In the eyes of the law, copying software with out the permission of the
copywrite owner is wrong. (or unethical to put it another way.)
 
> The problem is that, by threatening monetary or personal harm,
> non-free licenses restrict the ability of others to expand and enhance
> pre-existing work without reinventing it.

So drug companies should forget profits?  Intel should just give to it's
competition the hard won aspects of it's design?  Forget the stock
holders, forget finding the money to inovate further, lets give it
away?  Force them to give up their rights, and forget inovation.  In
these two cases, it would be over without the goverment paying the tab
for all the R&D. (I shudder to think of the waste that would cause...)

The laws that make inovation profitable encourage inovation by compaines
and indivduals with ideas.  They should be kept arround for everybodies
good.

> When somebody makes an innovation that could benefit humanity -- let's
> say a new way to more highly automate the monitoring and control of
> airplanes in the skies -- they do a disservice to humanity if they
> restrict it from future enhancement by others.

(Hmm.. Bad example, but we will run with it).
 
> There are several reasons for this.
> 
> 1. There is a loss of the ability of peer review.  Your program may
>    save or lose tens of thousands of lives.  You better be darn sure
>    it works right and doesn't crash. <snipp>

There is no perfect system of testing software of any useful complexity,
open source or not.  There are "bugs" in many open source programs and
no development team is above making mistakes no matter what their moral
views are about intelectual property rights.  True, there are companies
that field software that is less than stable, but they do so at their
own risk.  True the process used to develop software can greatly affect
the defect rates observed, but the quality and experience of the
developers has a greater effect.  This is not an area where open source
always has an advantage.

> 2. There is a loss of the ability for future enhancement.  We are
>    at the mercy of the original authors for any possible future
>    enhancements.  (snipp)

True, but you are free to develop a better mouse trap... Who knows, you
just might end up with a better product.  Competition can be a large
force towards inovation... Let's compete with them, leagaly.

> 
> > 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
> 
> I say that restricting software is (in most cases) a violation of
> EVERYONE else's rights.  

Not in the US and most of the world.  Private property (including
intelectual property) is a basic right protected by law in most places.

> There are a few cases where one could justify
> keeping software source secret, generally relating to certain
> highly-sensitive national security projects, for instance.

So you accept that there are exceptions to the open flow of information,
to the "maximum good" test?  For the benifit of one country, you deny
the "open" flow of all information, yet you deny the individual the
right to protect their inovation?  How is this differant from
intellectual property rights for corporations and individuals?  

> Another good question is whether or not it is good to give arbitrary
> software developers the right to make their software non-free or
> obtain patents on it.  At one time, they did not do this and they
> could not be granted patents.
> 
> (I better watch it or else I will open up so many cans of worms that I
> will spend hours replying to the next reply to this reply <g>)

I'll refrain from comment then...

> > or sell it to Micro$oft for a few million dollars...After all, it's mine
> > to start with.
> 
> Indeed it is yours, and if you want to sell it for millions, who am I
> to complain?  Since it is presumably under the GPL (since you are an
> ethical guy, right? <g>), it does not restrict my ability to enhance
> it.
<snipp>

I would not presume to defend Micro$oft busniess practice and their
beat'm, buy'm, bribe'm, bury'm ways, in the same way you would not
attempt a defense of the "copy at will" folks who routinely post
registration keys and such.

> > 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...).
> 
> One hint: if you hack the ext2fs code, make backups first.  I learned
> the hard way -- twice.  :-)

Hopefuly, sound card drivers won't be as ready to scramble my file
system, and my backups will be up to date if somehow it does.  But I
know I can count on you to help me recover should something bad happen. 
(BTW.  I lost my whole disk just doing a RedHat 5.0 to 5.1 upgrade
because the partition table got really hosed by disk druid... So kernel
hackers are not the only ones who should keep good backups...)

> > 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
> 
> Also keep in mind that it is possible to release a single piece of
> software that you hold the copyright to under multiple licenses
> concurrently.  This is Netscape's plan.  Due to restrictive Java
> licenses, they cannot release the OpenSource version with Java in it,
> but they can release such a version in a more traditional Netscape
> license.  L. Peter Deutsch releases a commercial GhostScript under a
> commercial style of license and a GPL'd version of a slightly older
> program under an older license.  There are occasionally small
> grumblings, but on the whole, this sort of thing is accepted.

And as more and more companies figure out that Netscape is making money
doing this, I see it happening more and more.  I don't expect Micro$oft
to jump on the band wagon though.  I think they have too much stolen
stuff they would have to hide and having the open source comunity
reviewing their code and antitrust leagal activities would not be good
for them. (Though I would love to help the case agnist them by reviewing
the source code myself...)

<snipp>
> So we see that the need to avoid reinventing the wheel is so great
> that the major non-free players ignore the law and treat the software
> as free anyway.  Therefore, one could argue that a major new
> advancement, if released in a non-free fashion, could hurt you in the
> long run because others will copy the technology without giving you
> attribution.

But they steal more than just software, and folks go to jail doing
this.  It's wrong (usually) no matter what we are talking about. 
Because companies engage in the practice, does not make it acceptable
for individuals to do it too.  You may have the latest 600Mhz Pentium II
box in your house, but I'm not supposed to pick the locks and move the
computer to my office so I can use it. I cannot even find the key under
the rock in your flower bed and enter your house w/o your permission.

 
> I'm not sure if supporting the non-free
> paradigm is good or not -- perhaps it depends on the company.  Corel,
> for instance, has used revenues from some non-free products to produce
> a free port of Linux to the ARM processor -- a very valuable
> contribution to Linux.  Companies like SCO and Microsoft do not assist
> the free software community in any [financial] way.  Should we feel as
> worse about purchasing something from them than from Corel?  My gut
> feeling is "Yes", but I haven't thought this one through either.  Lots
> of new things to think about, so little time :-(

Personally, I'm trying to talk one of SCO's main coustomers to switch to
Linux.  What do you think SCO would do if 3-6 thousand licenses worth of
tech support stopped paying? (A few million a year I understand.) We
have been re-compiling the coustomer's whole system and running it under
Linux.  (It acutlly runs better at times too..)  And the price is much
better (as well as the available support).

Open source software is approaching it's hayday... Not because it's open
persay, but because of lowering hardware costs, the internet and the
hard work of past developers which have given us some great development
tools to use.  Lacking any of these things, open source software would
not work... But most of these things are available because of inovation
fostored by the intelectual property rights protection and grew in the
hot bed of captilisim.  We should carefuly consider the implications of
these laws and the effect they have on society as a whole, and remember
that open source has it roots firmly planted in the inovation brought
about by these laws.  Are we ready to thrive outside of the green house
of intelectual property right laws?  Perhaps, but are all the other
areas of inovation ready to be transplanted too?  I don't think so.

-= 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.