Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Morality of Linux

Rate this topic


Phlegmak

Recommended Posts

So those are parts of what defines Open Source, according to the "community-recognized body for reviewing and approving licenses as OSD-conformant."* I don't know anyone involved in this initiative, but the "good of the community" and anti-discrimination sections above don't give me warm-and-fuzzies about it.

I wouldn't take anything they say too literally. From their own website http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category there are at least a few licenses listed that don't nearly meet the definition you quoted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for a programming environment, I prefer Linux over Windows. I tend to think Windows is better for end user activities like browsing the web or typing a document. But when it comes to getting "real" work done, such as programming or setting up a server I think Linux is superior. I will say, however, that if you are very new to programming it would probably be better to learn on Windows with .NET and then later move to Linux. That's because I think Linux is more complex and assumes the programmer really knows what he's doing.

I'd say thats why its better to learn on Linux: there are more mistakes to learn from. It depends on what you hope to gain from it, if making actual software is the primary purpose, Windows is clearly better. If understanding a computer system in its entirety is what you value then Linux is superior because you get more of a chance than ever to "look inside" the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one ever said it "MUST" me shared for free.

Nope, Richard Stallman expresses that it MUST be shared for free and that it is immoral to do otherwise. His case for free software, unlike others, is based on morals and not simply practicality. Richard Stallman is pretty unpopular, the most common case made for open source is based on security mostly (Open Source is more likely to get fixed rather than exploited when a flaw is found, is essentially the argument there)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't take anything they say too literally. From their own website http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category there are at least a few licenses listed that don't nearly meet the definition you quoted.

I already saw no value in seeking their recognisation of my open source licence as such, but now I am more sure of that opinion. An inconsistently applied definition is one of no value to me, especially one as bad as they gave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just have to say this is a really bizzare thread. There might as well be a topic called "The Morality of Wikipedia." People contribute to open-source projects because they want to. There's no other reason.

Saying that Linux or any other cooperative project is "collectivist" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just have to say this is a really bizzare thread. There might as well be a topic called "The Morality of Wikipedia." People contribute to open-source projects because they want to. There's no other reason.

That is over-simplifying matters. The reasons vary. Some want to contribute and improve the program, some want to help others, some do it for other reasons. Some do one-man open source projects (like I will eventually).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say that everyone had the same motivation for contributing. I just said they all wanted to -- meaning of their own free will. Boiling an argument down to it's essentials isn't over-simplifying.

Well, you didn't boil it down to the essentials. That was the point of, "Some do one-man open source projects (like I will eventually)." Thatisn't "contributing". Since not all contribute therefore that is not the reason of all, making your statement untrue and thus not the essentials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just have to say this is a really bizzare thread. There might as well be a topic called "The Morality of Wikipedia." People contribute to open-source projects because they want to. There's no other reason.

People evade because they want to. There's no other reason. Would that make a thread discussing the morality of evasion bizarre?

I do not mean to compare open source to evasion, but what I find really bizarre is a post that basically declares that the mere choice to do an action automatically renders that action morally OK.

Edited by Capitalism Forever
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, Richard Stallman expresses that it MUST be shared for free and that it is immoral to do otherwise.
Stallman and his fans, and much of the GNU/GPL stream is anti-profit, anti-IP rights, anti-capitalist. From the viewpoint of moral philosophy they are definitely the worst of the open-source movement.

Stallman even objected to Rowling's insistence -- enforced by courts -- that booksellers not release her Harry Potter books before a particular date.

I use some open-source software as part of my work -- much more than the average corporate, commercial software-developer does. However, we're careful not to use software licensed under GPL except as stand-alone tools, where the licence does not poison anything else. The moment you integrate GPL-licences software with other software, the conditions of GPL might apply to the other software. One has to watch out for this legal contamination.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People evade because they want to. There's no other reason. Would that make a thread discussing the morality of evasion bizarre?

I do not mean to compare open source to evasion, but what I find really bizarre is a post that basically declares that the mere choice to do an action automatically renders that action morally OK.

It's ironic that you bring up evasion, since that's what your entire post consists of. Evasion of the context of the discussion, evasion of how morality applies to it, and evasion of the content of my post you are supposedly replying to.

I never once said "that the mere choice to do an action automatically renders that action morally OK." Not even close.

What I actually said was that the fact that men freely choose to collaborate with one another on a project does not mean it is "collectivist." If you classify something as collectivist in nature you are casting a moral aspersion on it. The fact that people "want" to collaborate, contribute, or build on freely accessible code is the crux of the issue. No one coerces anyone to work on Linux or Wikipedia or any other open source project. The "collective" is not the standard of value -- the quality of your work is.

If you can't be bothered to actually read and understand what I posted, then please don't respond to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one coerces anyone to work on Linux or Wikipedia or any other open source project.

No one accused anyone of doing so. (Or, using your style, "Evasion of the context of the discussion. Evasion of the contents of the thread. If you had bothered to [... etc. etc.]")

But it seems to me that the fact of this non-coercion is your argument for why having such a thread is bizarre. The implication being: If no coercion is involved in something, it's bizarre to ask whether or not it's moral. That is how I read you--if I have misunderstood you, please do enlighten me where.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stallman even objected to Rowling's insistence -- enforced by courts -- that booksellers not release her Harry Potter books before a particular date.

Did you read that link? The thing he's actually objecting to (the reading ban, not the selling one) is absurd. Rowling has the right to prevent bookshops from selling her novels if this was written into the terms of the contract under which they bought them, but a ruling which prevents customers from reading the books after theyve bought them is nonsense. The correct action here would have been to sue the bookshops which sold the books before the correct date, not to claim that the people who bought them didnt have the right to read them - the buyers had entered into no contract with Rowling (or anyone else) and they should have no legal obligation to her.

Edited by eriatarka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the novels are still her intellectual property.
Yes and noone has the right to make any copies of them (which is what copyright involves). But theres no right to prevent other people from reading your intellecual property assuming they havent broken any laws to obtain it.

If I unknowingly buy a second hand book that had been stolen then the theif should be prosecuted and perhaps the book returned to its owner, but saying that intellectual property laws should make it illegal for me to read the book while I'm in possession of it seems very wrong.

Edited by eriatarka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...the buyers had entered into no contract with Rowling (or anyone else) and they should have no legal obligation to her.
You're wrong. Check the law related to the transfer of stolen goods. (BTW: the law does handle ignorant/innocent receivers of stolen goods differently from those who act with full knowledge; but, don't confuse the presence of an intermediary with innocence or ignorance.)

Stallman wants a "right to read". To read what, provided by whom? Blank out.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stallman wants a "right to read". To read what, provided by whom?

I guess in his ideal world, people would have the to right to read the Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital, and whatever else the Central Planning Committee decides is best for their education...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it seems to me that the fact of this non-coercion is your argument for why having such a thread is bizarre. The implication being: If no coercion is involved in something, it's bizarre to ask whether or not it's moral. That is how I read you--if I have misunderstood you, please do enlighten me where.

I thought the point 'Myself' was making was not that it doesn't require coercion for something to be immoral. He was saying that just because something is Open-Sourced, that is, is offered up for anyone to use and edit, does not necessarily make it immoral. It is only the intentions behind the collaboration/Open-Sourcing that could be immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stallman and his fans, and much of the GNU/GPL stream is anti-profit, anti-IP rights, anti-capitalist. From the viewpoint of moral philosophy they are definitely the worst of the open-source movement....

The moment you integrate GPL-licences software with other software, the conditions of GPL might apply to the other software. One has to watch out for this legal contamination.

That is why I don't like the GPL (especially version 3.0, which makes matters worse). I am going to write up my own very short and to the point licence for my own software. Others will be free to use my licence for there own software if they want, but the main point is to provide a licence that isn't long winded and doesn't have that sort of thing for use in my own software.

But the novels are still her intellectual property.

Only the content. The indvidual copies are the property of those that buy them and as such the only valid restriction on the rights of those sellers comes from a contract entered into when buying it. The people that bought those copies from those bookstores didn't enter into such a contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is only the intentions behind the collaboration/Open-Sourcing that could be immoral.

Let's put it another way then. let's say a group of people volunatrily go off and start a commune (regardless of whether their intentions are for the "greater good" or "collaborative effort", "Mutual benefit", etc.) that states that none of them "own" the work they produce and have to share everything that is produced - and they all agree willingly. Are they still outside the pervue of morality? Or are they still immoral because they are living against man's nature?

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's put it another way then. let's say a group of people volunatrily go off and start a commune (regardless of whether their intentions are for the "greater good" or "collaborative effort", "Mutual benefit", etc.) that states that none of them "own" the work they produce and have to share everything that is produced - and they all agree willingly. Are they still outside the pervue of morality? Or are they still immoral because they are living against man's nature?
So are (eg) partnerships against man's nature too?

Theres nothing wrong with wanting to contribute to a community, I'm not sure what point youre making. Pretty much everyone who is involved with computers benefits from the open source movement; projects like linux/emacs/latex/apache/python/etc are fantastic achievements.

Edited by eriatarka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the point 'Myself' was making was not that it doesn't require coercion for something to be immoral. He was saying that just because something is Open-Sourced, that is, is offered up for anyone to use and edit, does not necessarily make it immoral.

But the use of the word "bizarre" (or "bizzare," which I suppose means the same...) implies much more than "does not necessarily make it immoral." It implies that it necessarily and obviously makes it morally OK--so obviously that having a thread on it is comparable to having a thread on whether the Earth is flat or round. And I still don't quite follow why the fact that they want to do so is offered as an explanation for all this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's put it another way then. let's say a group of people volunatrily go off and start a commune (regardless of whether their intentions are for the "greater good" or "collaborative effort", "Mutual benefit", etc.) that states that none of them "own" the work they produce and have to share everything that is produced - and they all agree willingly. Are they still outside the pervue of morality? Or are they still immoral because they are living against man's nature?

That isn't relevant to this debate. Even when you don't own the work you do in an open source project it isn't necessarily similar to that. If you work for Microsoft and write some code for Windows, Visual Studio, Office, or some other Microsoft product you don't own your work and have no right to it. You entered into a contract where Microsoft would own the code just as a McDonalds worker owns the burgers their workers make. With both the code and burgers the company owns the workers' work. Is that wrong? No because the worker agrees to it and is compensated wih payment.

Now is what is different with contributing to an open source project? The lack of pay is the only important difference here. The fact that others can use your code isn't relevant; who gets to use the code and how many isn't the issue here; the issue is whether it can ever be moral for others to own your code and not you. SO the question is, is it ever moral to give ownership of your code to others without being paid for it? The answer is that it can be depending on the context. You might get a benefit from doing so even without pay. The most obvious benegit is a better program. But in short, if you agree to hand over ownership of your code to an open source project in a mutually beneficial contract then it is perfectly moral to do so.

Also, as has already been stated, open source is in no way collectivist. Inidividual open source advocators and movements may be collectivists, but the projects themselves are not neccesarily so even if those that run it are collectivists.

Finally, submitting code to an open source project does not automatically mean you don't own the code. It might just be that you are granting them permission to reuse code you own. It depends on the context of the situation. For example, if someone else used my open source code when I make it they would not have ownership of it, just the right to reuse it. I will see to that when I write my open source licence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...