is free, open source software ethical?

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 11:39:38 -0800, user923005 wrote:

> Oh, wait, they
> don't sell the CD -- that's a violation of GPL -- they sell a service
> contract

How does anyone on the Internet still have this misconception? You can
sell GPL code on a CD. You just have to make sure that the source code is
available for a reasonable cost.

--
Sohail Somani
http://uint32t.blogspot.com

user923005 said:

<snip>

> Can I make a guitar and then give it away?

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.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

Sohail Somani wrote:

> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 11:39:38 -0800, user923005 wrote:
> 
>
> How does anyone on the Internet still have this misconception? You can
> sell GPL code on a CD. You just have to make sure that the source code
> is available for a reasonable cost.

Doesn't the source have to be freely available and accessible without
undue difficulties?

dave_mikesell@fastmail.fm said:

<snip>
 
>
> Do you feel the same way about Microsoft v. Netscape?

I don't see the connection. They both wrote terrible browsers. :-)

> Are you against antitrust legislation altogether?

I don't even know what it is. It sounds very American. Personally, I'd
rather write programs. If it's an anti-monopoly thing, well, that's daft.
Nobody has a monopoly on browsers (and I presume you're talking about
browsers - and possible mail/news clients - since I don't think Netscape
did anything else, did they? - well, nothing else famous, anyway). I could
write a browser today if I had ten minutes spare, and be selling it
tomorrow. (No, really I could - C++ Builder has a sort of componenty thing
that you drag - a sort of dehydrated Web browser, just add clicks. Yu too
can be a sofwear genus.)


> After all, the world does not owe
> anybody the right to make a living in any business.  If a monopoly
> squeezes them out by giving away product or undercutting them, too bad
> for them.

Absolutely.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

On Mar 4, 12:34 pm, 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.  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?
>
> 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.
>
> Mark Tarverwww.lambdassociates.org

Not a troll, this was a good question.

I think the difference in this case lies in the cost of reproduction.
If Standard Oil or whatever physical product company "dumps" at a loss
to gain market share, then they're crushing competition under a pile
of cash.  For free software, someone could create it for their own
interest or purpose, or open source it to get help with development
and debugging.  Once it's developed, there's no additional effort
required for more people to use it.  Indeed, not sharing it would be a
loss (in the economic, not monetary sense) for the developers, because
then potential contributors wouldn't know about it.  In Open Source,
you trade exclusive control of source for help in development and
debugging.  Since you're not selling the software, then access to
source is your next most valuable asset.  Software businesses have
developed other resources (a strong brand, better documentation or
support, graphic design, a sales force, etc) that help them pay for
development without having to share source.  But it's still something
they can share later, if they choose.

It's a complicated question, and while rms or anyone else can argue
that this is immoral or that is immoral, it's really up to the laws of
the land.  And if there's some issue so important and decisive, then
those laws may be redefined.

-Peter
http://www.pchristensen.com

On Mar 4, 1:34 pm, Mark Tarver <dr.mtar...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> ...Is it rather *free software which is unethical* because the
> supplier is dumping a free product from the position of having a
> subsidy?

No. *plonk*

On Mar 4, 10:34=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.

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.

> In the defence of open source software, Richard Stallman was willing
> to condemn closed source software as unethical.

This is something that many other almost equally staunch supporters of
free software are not willing to do. Stallman is not representative of
everyone.

> Now 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?

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.

> 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?

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.

In-Reply-To: <aKCdna4GXOnyOFDanZ2dnUVZ8qLinZ2d@bt.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <47cdab9e$0$25032$607ed4bc@cv.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.187.122.229
X-Complaints-To: abuse@cv.net
Bytes: 1706
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.lisp:250449 comp.lang.function
al:67257 comp.programming:248527



Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Mark Tarver said:
>
> <snip>
>
> 
>
>
> That response, more than anything, convinces me that this discussion is
> rapidly heading nowhere useful.

Let's decide on the shape of the table before deciding if the discussion
to decide if free open software is ethical is going anywhere.

kenny

--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/

"In the morning, hear the Way;
in the evening, die content!"
-- Confucius

> We would prefer that vendors compete on the merits of their products,
> not the depth of their pockets.  If a company makes really great
> gadgets, and they become rich selling those gadgets, this is deserved.
> But if they decide that they also want to corner the market on widgets,
> but they don't make very good widgets, it doesn't seem right that they
> should use all their gadget profits to undercut the other widget vendors
> and drive them out of business.

Would you complain if the company was able to undercut its competitors
due to a manufacturing/technological breakthrough (i.e., increased
productivity)?

Of course not.

So why complain about a company that is able to undercut its
competitors by  giving away money? Money is just a store of
productivity. Why does it matter that the productivity gain was not
made in the same industry/in the same time period/by the same
company?

> You say this is the consumers' fault -- they knowingly bought the
> inferior widgets.  But they make a reasonable economic choice at the
> time, buying something 90% as good for 85% the price.  The problem is
> that once the competitors are gone, GadgetCo can raise the prices of
> their widgets, while not improving on their quality.

No company can sell a product for more than what it is worth.

If they try to sell it for more, they will draw competitors. And the
competition need not be in the same industry.

The lesson here is that the marginal utility of the product is what
determines prices. Nothing else.

Mark Tarver wrote:
> 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...

Imagine this*: http://www.geogebra.org/cms/

Bartenders school, here I come...

:)

kenny

* Not sure about that name, tho. k

--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/

"In the morning, hear the Way;
in the evening, die content!"
-- Confucius