Re: What's so important about the ethics of free software?

[Paul Boddie]

On Monday 19. December 2016 21.14.22 Charles Cossé wrote:
> 
> I was not referring to legalities, but responding to your claim that I was
> somehow forbidding them to learn how the program works.  If you have the
> complete source in-hand then you have the ability to learn how it works.
> Your statement remains factually incorrect.

But perhaps the point is that learning how something works may not be 
sufficient. What if you want to apply that knowledge?

What if you want to modify a program teaching letters and words, for example, 
to teach a different alphabet or a different language than the one supported? 
Will the author let you do this or will they bring a case of copyright 
infringement? What if you ask the author to support those things and they 
refuse?

What if you want to write your own program to do the same thing because there 
aren't any others that might? Does the author then claim that you are 
infringing their copyright, or failing to prove that, do they threaten you 
with infringement of their "special patented techniques"?

Yes, it's great that humans are creative and can make things that educate and 
entertain others, and it is possible to learn things from using proprietary 
software. But proprietary software can have a corrosive effect, tempting 
people into acquiring it and then obliging them to continue doing business 
with companies that exercise the control in the relationship.

Is it ethical to bind educational institutions to purchasing policies that 
they cannot easily escape, and to see them having to spend money on things 
because people (teachers/parents/children/management) expect a particular 
piece of software and then insist on it, regardless of whether it remains the 
right choice?

Paul
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: What's so important about the ethics of free software?

[Charles Cossé]

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:45 AM, J.B. Nicholson 
wrote:

> Charles Cossé wrote:
>
>> Not necessarily.  If I license it with a proprietary license, yet still
>> publish the complete source, then your statement it factually incorrect.
>>
>
> Giving someone a copy of a program's source code doesn't grant them
> permission to create derivative works, distribute said source code, or
> distribute modified copies of the program (to name a few of the freedoms of
> free software).


If you are going to quote me then please quote the relevant context, which
was:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 10:48 PM, J.B. Nicholson 
wrote:

A proprietary program's license is designed to offer no permission for its
> users to learn how that program works. Thus proprietary software forbids
> that education.


I was not referring to legalities, but responding to your claim that I was
somehow forbidding them to learn how the program works.  If you have the
complete source in-hand then you have the ability to learn how it works.
Your statement remains factually incorrect.


> Your use of the word "should" is, again, overstepping.  It is not for you
>> to tell anyone what they "should" find outrageous.  Regarding your point,
>> I
>> believe that it is unlikely that any educator would concur with your
>> assertion that they are "telling a student that their education ought not
>> include" such understanding.  If the goal of the educator is to get the
>> job
>> done and teach the kids math then they are probably not concerned with
>> such
>> fine-grained philosophical subtleties.
>>
>
> Sounds like an educator that isn't doing their job very well. You are
> clearly trying to dismiss software freedom as a necessary factor in
> computer use when real-world examples keep pointing out the need for
> software freedom.


Are there any educators reading this who would like to defend against the
above criticism?  Please explain what gives you the authority to level a
blanket criticism against any and all educators who fail to  ensure their
students' right to re-release the source code of an application teaching
them, say, how to spell 3 letter words, to use another asymptotic case.  If
something is a moral / ethical imperative then it stands for all cases,
kindergartners included.  I think I am clear that I am suggesting not to
make such controversial claims because 1) you can't prove it, 2) not
everyone agrees, and 3) some people will find it downright offensive,
thereby making it more difficult to convince those you seek to enlist.


> Once again, I take issue with your use of the word "shouldn't".  My
>> intentions can be whatever I decide my intentions are.  Keyword: "my".
>> "My
>> intentions", as in "freedom of intent".  You actually believe that the
>> user's "rights" exceed mine as the author?
>>
>
> There's your problem: you're looking at software freedom as excessive or
> being somehow superior to the copyright holder's power instead of treating
> the program's users as equals in that they should all be free to develop
> the program in any way they wish.


If I write a 2 line program that prints "hello world" and don't license it
under a FLOSS license, the user is still free to use it or not use it.
According to FSF(E) doctrine, however, I am "unjust" and "immoral".  Read
the links you sent some posts back.  FSF(E) makes no exclusion for
asymptotic or trivial cases.  As for you telling me what "my problem" is, I
think you know how I feel about that by now.


They certainly are a blanket solution and alternative to actual compelling
>> reasons.   Invoking God, or ethics in this case, is hardly convincing
>> these
>> days.  What does the rest of the FSF community have to say on this?  It's
>> okay to challenge sacred beliefs, it happens all the time.
>>
>
> I see no invocation of any gods in anything I've written on this thread
> and I'm unaware of any such invocation in the FSF's distributed materials.
>
>
Well, at least you quoted the full context this time.  And if you read it,
you can see that I did not say that you invoked God.  I did, however,
compare your un-proveable ethics-based arguments to such.





> ___
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
> https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>



-- 

Linkedin  | E-Learning




On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:45 AM, J.B. Nicholson 
wrote:

> Charles Cossé wrote:
>
>> Not necessarily.  If I license it with a proprietary license, yet still
>> publish the complete source, then your statement it factually incorrect.
>>
>
> Giving someone a copy of a program's source code doesn't grant them
> permission to create derivative works, distribute said source code, or
> distribute modified copies of the program (to name a few of the freedoms of
> free software).
>
> Your use of the word "should" is, 

Re: What's so important about the ethics of free software?

[J.B. Nicholson]

Charles Cossé wrote:

Not necessarily.  If I license it with a proprietary license, yet still
publish the complete source, then your statement it factually incorrect.


Giving someone a copy of a program's source code doesn't grant them 
permission to create derivative works, distribute said source code, or 
distribute modified copies of the program (to name a few of the freedoms of 
free software).



Your use of the word "should" is, again, overstepping.  It is not for you
to tell anyone what they "should" find outrageous.  Regarding your point, I
believe that it is unlikely that any educator would concur with your
assertion that they are "telling a student that their education ought not
include" such understanding.  If the goal of the educator is to get the job
done and teach the kids math then they are probably not concerned with such
fine-grained philosophical subtleties.


Sounds like an educator that isn't doing their job very well. You are 
clearly trying to dismiss software freedom as a necessary factor in 
computer use when real-world examples keep pointing out the need for 
software freedom.



Once again, I take issue with your use of the word "shouldn't".  My
intentions can be whatever I decide my intentions are.  Keyword: "my".  "My
intentions", as in "freedom of intent".  You actually believe that the
user's "rights" exceed mine as the author?


There's your problem: you're looking at software freedom as excessive or 
being somehow superior to the copyright holder's power instead of treating 
the program's users as equals in that they should all be free to develop 
the program in any way they wish.



They certainly are a blanket solution and alternative to actual compelling
reasons.   Invoking God, or ethics in this case, is hardly convincing these
days.  What does the rest of the FSF community have to say on this?  It's
okay to challenge sacred beliefs, it happens all the time.


I see no invocation of any gods in anything I've written on this thread and 
I'm unaware of any such invocation in the FSF's distributed materials.

___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: What's so important about the ethics of free software?

[Alessandro Rubini]

Charles:
> You actually believe that the
> user's "rights" exceed mine as the author?  I'm willing to bet that there
> is at least one other person out there in the FSF(E) community that is
> willing to stand-up and publicly challenge that assertion.  Anyone?

Here. As an individual, not representing any organization.

Still, as a user I have the right to not read (or run) what the author
writes.  Just like I willingly choose not to read some books because I
know they are politically flawed and not to watch most of TV stuff
because it has no value for me.

What I'd love to see is more consciousness about the potential dangers
in running proprietary stuff. And not because people can and will
modify the program: nobody does these days, because it's awfully
difficult. It is not "as simple as possible" any more.

The worst danger in my opinion is lock-in and monopoly. Here and now,
not 20-30-40 years ago. And to prvent that we should get as many
allies as we can, even when we differ on the details.  There's only
one person that is perfectly aligned with my political view; working
only with perfectly-aligned people makes each of us fight alone
against the world.

I agree with J.B. about free software in education not being limited
to computer science, but I also agree with Charles about the child
learning the alphabet.   The main problem, in my opinion, about software
in schools is that teaching a proprietary tool (e.g. a CAD suite, or
math software) is directing future purchases, helping current
incumbents preventing competion -- worse, they usually count those
"no charge" copies as direct expenses to detract taxes from real
business.  Education should never direct purchases (yes Charles,
this "should" is very strong and ethical for me).

> "Great value" and "moral obligation" are quite different.  I urge FSF(E)
> members to consider modifying the FSF(E) doctrine to make it more realistic
> and inclusive.

We try to. And sometimes we fail in that.

/alessandro, speaking only for himself
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion