is free, open source software ethical?

That crosspost list indicates a pure troll.

On 4 Mar, 19:34, Mark Tarver <dr.mtar...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> A long time ago...

(...could we please rename this group in 'Philosophical Hypotheses and
Incidental Spamming Group', as the 'Practical Common Lisp Questions'
here are going down every moment coming...)

If you agree, please stay quiet, many "thank you"'s!!

-JO

On Mar 4, 11:00=A0am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> [I'm not sure where this discussion belongs, so I don't know where to set
> followups. A philosophy group, maybe?]
> Mark Tarver said: 
>
> The world does not owe software company shareholders a living.

However, the world puts up a government which steals taxes from the
pockets of those shareholders, and then XXXXs them over a second time
with unfair competition funded by subsidies from that money, which
devalues their holdings.

Mark has a good point regarding the subsidies.

If you fund that free software with your own capital that wasn't
stolen from anyone, then it's fair and square.

What is the difference between dumping, and offering discounts?

Should the US government try to prevent Walmart from holding price
rollback events? Is that dumping?

What about proprietary software houses that offer evaluation versions
of their software that do not ever expire?

On Mar 4, 12:00=A0pm, Kaz Kylheku <kkylh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 10:34=A0am, Mark Tarver <dr.mtar...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> 
>
> If you have the cash to absorb the cost of dumping, then it's fair and
> square. Nobody has the right to tell you how you wish to spend your
> money.
>
> If you want to ``buy'' customers, and can afford it, you should be
> able to do that. You're competing with your cash base.
>
> You're obviously better than that other company, because you can sell
> below cost for the next couple of years, and still make the payrolls,
> pay the leases on capital, service debts---in short, do everything
> else required to stay afloat.
>
> It's not like you're drowning puppies, or dumping toxic waste.
>
> Ultimately, the choice is up to the customer. It's the customer's
> behavior that they want the cheapest thing. They buy it knowing that
> they are undermining competition, which will reduce their choice in
> the future. The undercutting company will wipe out the others and then
> jack up prices. Since the consumers are willing to live with that, let
> them live with it.
> 
>
> This is something that many other almost equally staunch supporters of
> free software are not willing to do. Stallman is not representative of
> everyone.
> 
>
> Ah, if there is a subsidy, that is unethical. That is to say, the
> subsidy itself, not what you do with it. (Government) subsidy means
> stealing wealth from one to give to another. Using stolen wealth for
> any purpose is unethical. Instead of being used for dumping, the
> subsidy money could be used for improved advertizing. That would make
> the advertizer more competitive in the marketplace. Or the subsidy
> money could be used for research and development, which would give the
> subsidy benefactor an edge also. Or the executives could take the
> money and go on luxurious vacations. All of these uses are equally
> unethical since they are connected to stolen property.
> 
>
> That depends on whether it was done while on duty. What that staff
> member does with his or her evenings and wends is his or her
> business.
>
> The unethical part is accepting a salary, which is understood to be in
> exchange for your work for the university, but actually spending the
> time doing your private work.
>
> If that GPL-ed algebra tutor was developed on university time, then it
> in fact belongs to the university, and not to that staff member. It's
> unethical for that staff member to be releasing software which doesn't
> belong to him or her.
>
> It could be the case that he has the university's permission, even
> approval, to do so. If that university is privately funded, then there
> is nothing wrong. It has chosen to spend its rightfully owned money on
> an employee who is mandated with the task of producing this program
> and releasing it under the GPL.
>
> If the univerity is funded by government money, well, that is theft.
>
> Once we can can assign an unethical attribute the root node of an
> economic tree, there is no point in evaluating the ethics of the child
> nodes; the unethical property flows out from that root toward the
> leaves. Stolen money taints all derived transactions.

This is a very interesting post and I agree with almost everything.

I think that there is at least one exception to the dumping rule,
though.

If I am in an economic position to destroy all of my opponents, with
an *intention* to corner the market and raise my prices later, then I
may have committed a crime.

Somehow, the gas wars of the 1970's in the US were legal (e.g. large
oil companies would sell their gas at 8 or 10 cents per gallon for a
few months until the independent companies went under, and as soon as
all of the independents folded, the prices shot up to above where they
were before. -- That was apparently legal since nothing was done about
it, but I am not sure that it should have been).  At any rate, if you
are in a position of power, and the temporary benefit you provide is
intended to cause harm to your opponents and eventually the customers
also suffer, then it is illegal (or perhaps it should be if is
isn't).  See (for instance):
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p...torydumping.asp

On Mar 4, 11:18=A0am, Mark Tarver <dr.mtar...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> The guy who spoke thought that programming forums were not just narrow
> technical ghettos for asking g questions, but also forums where we
> could discuss the important social aspects of what we do and I agree
> with him. =A0This is a social aspect of programming.

But is there a social aspect of programming in functional languages
(comp.lang.functional) or in Lisp (comp.lang.lisp) which is separate
from that of programming?

I don't mind this troll thread because these newsgroups don't carry
that much volume. Besides, your work on Qi gives you kind of a troll
waiver. Not a full season pass, but, say, a tear-off sheet of five
tickets, dispensed for every new release.

:)

Mark Tarver wrote:
> A long time ago, sometime in the 70s I believe, a friend of mine used
> to work for RCA.  Right at that time Japan was expanding its
> electronics market in the Pacific and the Japanese were capturing the
> market from RCA by selling below cost.  My friend bitterly condemned
> these practices as unethical.
>
> This practice, called 'dumping', is generally condemned, and can often
> be prosecuted under law.  It has been used and criticised as such on
> several occasions e.g. w.r.t. the dumping of subsidised EC surplus
> produce on poor African nations, on Rockeller's ruthless expansion of
> Standard Oil by undercutting.
>
> In the defence of open source software, Richard Stallman was willing
> to condemn closed source software as unethical.  Now here is a
> thought.  Is it rather *free software which is unethical* because the
> supplier is dumping a free product from the position of having a
> subsidy?
>
> To put some flesh on the bare bones of this proposition.  Imagine if
> someone were to use their comfortably paid university position to
> produce, (e.g), a free GPL algebra tutor, thus putting out of business
> a struggling company trying to sell their own version.  Would this be
> ethical?  Is it not the ethical equivalent of dumping?
The difference is that the GPLed algebra tutor can be taken up by anyone
(including the struggling company), and used, modified, updated, resold.
You can't do that with material goods.
>
> This is posed as an open question, and a fairly important one (hence
> the cross post).  You should not assume that I'm against free/open
> source from my posing this question, although I'm willing to 'play
> black' (attack OS/free) in this thread if the responses are too one
> sided.
Fair enough, always in for a good discussion.

Daniel.


--
Daniel Pitts' Tech Blog: <http://virtualinfinity.net/wordpress/>

"Richard Heathfield" <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote in message
 news:aKCdnagGXOmtOlDanZ2dnUVZ8qLinZ2d@bt
.com...
> user923005 said:
>
> <snip>
> 
>
> No. You *never* lay out the frets properly, and you don't seem to be able
> to get the bridge height right. Frankly, it's unplayable. Unless someone
> wants it for firewood, I guess. Yeah, that might work.

Which is, actually, a good thing -- giving the guitars away, not the firewoo
d
part.
To continue this analogy:
A lot of people 'd like to strum one at some time, but don't want to fork ou
t
big bucks for a Gibson. When they *do* have a lot of training on that piece 
of
firewood and still like it, they are prepared to pay for the real job.

[Jongware]

Kaz Kylheku <kkylheku@gmail.com> writes:

> What is the difference between dumping, and offering discounts?

I'd say that it is that dumping is when you use your capital (or
subsidies etc.) as a "weapon" in the marketplace. I.e. it's not the
act of giving (or discounting) something away that constitutes
dumping, but doing so with the intention (or just effect) of driving
someone else out of business (or less drastically just change consumer
habits etc.) so that you establish yourself as a market leader not on
the merit of your products but rather based on the size of your wallet
(i.e. how long you can hold out while losing money).

--
Frode Vatvedt Fjeld
(Can you tell that I like parens?)

On Mar 4, 12:25=A0pm, Ron Garret <rNOSPA...@flownet.com> wrote:
> In article <QK-dnWj3R9L6BlDanZ2dnUVZ8vKdn...@bt.com>,
> =A0Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> 
> 
s" 
le 
 
>
> Not that I really want to fan these off-topic flames, but this is just
> factually incorrect. =A0People generally do not write open-source software=[/color
]

> out of altruism. =A0They do it because they are hoping for some form of
> compensation, like the ability to use other people's open-source
> software, professional recognition and respect, or monetary compensation
> in the form of employment, contracts, or investments in some commercial
> venture. =A0Whether this motivation is wise or ethical is a separate
> question, but the fact is that most open-source developers do have a
> profit motive, even if only indirectly.
>

Then you should perhaps concentrate on Free software, not "Open
Source", which are different things. (Although Free software is
also "open source", "open source" need not be "Free software".)
Free software _is_ about freedom (although it might be about
business as well, freedom is the main issue.). Open Source is about
business.

On Mar 4, 11:34=A0am, Mark Tarver <dr.mtar...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> A long time ago, sometime in the 70s I believe, a friend of mine used
> to work for RCA. =A0Right at that time Japan was expanding its
> electronics market in the Pacific and the Japanese were capturing the
> market from RCA by selling below cost. =A0My friend bitterly condemned
> these practices as unethical.
>
> This practice, called 'dumping', is generally condemned, and can often
> be prosecuted under law. =A0It has been used and criticised as such on
> several occasions e.g. w.r.t. the dumping of subsidised EC surplus
> produce on poor African nations, on Rockeller's ruthless expansion of
> Standard Oil by undercutting.
>
> In the defence of open source software, Richard Stallman was willing
> to condemn closed source software as unethical. =A0Now here is a
> thought. =A0Is it rather *free software which is unethical* because the
> supplier is dumping a free product from the position of having a
> subsidy?
>
> To put some flesh on the bare bones of this proposition. =A0Imagine if
> someone were to use their comfortably paid university position to
> produce, (e.g), a free GPL algebra tutor, thus putting out of business
> a struggling company trying to sell their own version. =A0Would this be
> ethical? =A0Is it not the ethical equivalent of dumping?
>
> This is posed as an open question, and a fairly important one (hence
> the cross post). =A0You should not assume that I'm against free/open
> source from my posing this question, although I'm willing to 'play
> black' (attack OS/free) in this thread if the responses are too one
> sided.
>

Free software is released _by it's creator_ as such. The creator
makes a decision that that is what they want to do with their
creation, and they do it. I do not see how that is "unethical".
Perhaps
you could explain that? Why can't the creator allow his/her creation
to be used in the manner given for Free software?

Furthermore, you seem to equate "Free" in "Free software" with "free"
in "free beer". This is wrong: "Free" as in "Free Speech" is the more
appropriate interpretation.

According to your code of ethics, everything must be distributed for
a high price to avoid "hurting" someone else's business. I do not
see the reason for this.