Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Morality of Linux

Rate this topic


Phlegmak

Recommended Posts

But the novels are still her intellectual property.

Only the content.

Well, the content is what they read, isn't it?

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.

So would it be OK for them to, say, copy the content? They didn't enter a contract that prevents them from doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Indeed. Even Microsoft has benefited from python via IronPython, which while started as a third party port to get Python to support .NET, Microsoft now includes official and direct support for IronPython in .NET. This means they can now tap into the python developers in addition to the C/C++, VB, and C# developers. This in quite beneficial to them.

Well, the content is what they read, isn't it?

Yes, but she has no right to stop someone from reading a copy of the book they unwittingly bought to0 early. If they knowingly done so, well that is a different matter. But the former is innocent.

So would it be OK for them to, say, copy the content? They didn't enter a contract that prevents them from doing so.

Given that you totally miscontrued me without making any effort to understand me I am not going to dignify that with an answer.

Edited by DragonMaci
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't quite follow why the fact that they want to do so is offered as an explanation for all this.

That's not what I'm saying, nor what I think Myself is saying.

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?

Again, that's not what I think either of us are saying. What I am saying is that it is not inherently immoral to open-source your work. THAT IS ALL! I'm not saying that no matter the reason, it's moral. I'm saying it depends on what the reason is, and until you have the justification and intention of the action, it is completely amoral. The choice to Open-Source is like any choice - it is amoral until applied to a context.

Shooting a gun is amoral; shooting your wife for shits and giggles is immoral; shooting her because she's going to attack you with the carving knife is moral. What the hell is it about this forum, that people want to assume that someone means something beyond their words, rather than just simply questioning exactly what they're saying? I'm really sick of this attitude.

"Oh, well, I don't think that an abortion is necessarily the right thing to do."

"What?! YOU THINK A WOMAN DOESN'T HAVE A CHOICE?!"

"No, I just think she should think wisely about..."

"A WOMAN ALWAYS HAS A CHOICE!"

"Yeah, I know, and I'm just saying there's always things she should..."

"WHAT THE HELL?! You want to BAN abortions don't you! You sick low-life mystic, immoral, etc etc etc".

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.

I absolutely agree with you 100%, which really pains me to say this. RMS' whole "selling software is immoral" viewpoint really irritates me. BUT in my experience with UNIX in general, a lot of GNU software is really top notch. If you are a programmer on Linux, chances are you use *some* GNU software: gcc, make, emacs, flex, bison are all tools I use on a regular basis and I'll probably never use anything else.

Where I draw the line on that is GPLv3, which starts to venture into the realm of restricting how you use software (Digital Rights Management). That's also the reason why Linus refuses to migrate to the new GPL for the Linux kernel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where I draw the line on that is GPLv3, which starts to venture into the realm of restricting how you use software (Digital Rights Management). That's also the reason why Linus refuses to migrate to the new GPL for the Linux kernel.

Yeah, I was glad he made that call because I draw the line with GPLv3 as well. Not that I like v2 all that much anyway. Or the LGPL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not what I'm saying, nor what I think Myself is saying.

Then what is the reason for his including the words

People contribute to open-source projects because they want to. There's no other reason.
in his first post?

He called the thread "bizzare," and then right after that he wrote those words. So I took them to be the explanation for why he thought the thread was bizarre. If they are not the explanation, why are they there and what are we supposed to conclude from them? And why does he think the thread is bizarre?

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. 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)

That's true, but the guy is a total nutcase.

Let's all agree that it depends on each individual. Open source is a tool, what you do with it and why is what counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He called the thread "bizzare," and then right after that he wrote those words. So I took them to be the explanation for why he thought the thread was bizarre. If they are not the explanation, why are they there and what are we supposed to conclude from them? And why does he think the thread is bizarre?

People eat sandwiches because they want to. There's no other reason.

Do you have a problem with the above statement?

Making a thread about "The Morality of Linux" is equivalent to making a thread about "The Morality of Eating a Sandwich." If you don't understand why I would consider the latter bizarre then I guess you won't understand my opinion of the former either.

Edited by Myself
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People murder because they want to. There is no other reason.

Do you have a problem with the above statement?

Making a thread about "The Morality of Linux" is equivalent to making a thread about "The Morality of Murdering."

(I'm not actually making the above equivocation since it has been argued that there may be some cases where it is and some cases where it isn't. I am just pointing out that it IS a legitimate topic to discuss.)

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Making a thread about "The Morality of Linux" is equivalent to making a thread about "The Morality of Eating a Sandwich." If you don't understand why I would consider the latter bizarre then I guess you won't understand my opinion of the former either.

No, but I would be curious to find out.

What is your definition of morality? What do you think is its purpose and its role in man's life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People murder because they want to. There is no other reason.

Do you have a problem with the above statement?

Making a thread about "The Morality of Linux" is equivalent to making a thread about "The Morality of Murdering."

(I'm not actually making the above equivocation since it has been argued that there may be some cases where it is and some cases where it isn't. I am just pointing out that it IS a legitimate topic to discuss.)

Actually, Linux is just an operating system. It's open-source. The reasons that it is open-source depends on the creator. The morality of those decisions is questionable. But, the thing in and of itself, regardless of why it exists, is not the same as 'murder'. Neither is the sandwich. A murder, properly defined, is already a moral issue. You're already bringing in that someone robbed another man of his life. The fact of eating a sandwich or using/editing Linux do not constitute morally appraisable activites until they have a context - i.e. I ate a sandwich because it was my co-worker's and I wanted to get back at him; I use Linux because I don't want to be part of the 'corporate machine'. But the morality of Linux, in and of itself, is not a moral issue. And neither are sandwiches. Leave my god damn lunch alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact of eating a sandwich or using/editing Linux do not constitute morally appraisable activites until they have a context - i.e. I ate a sandwich because it was my co-worker's and I wanted to get back at him; I use Linux because I don't want to be part of the 'corporate machine'.

Yes, but as your examples show, as soon as you do have a context, morality is applicable. So the proper response to a question on the "Morality of Linux" is not to dismiss it as bizarre, implying that the questioner is stupid, but to explain that there is some more context that needs to be filled in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but as your examples show, as soon as you do have a context, morality is applicable. So the proper response to a question on the "Morality of Linux" is not to dismiss it as bizarre, implying that the questioner is stupid, but to explain that there is some more context that needs to be filled in.

The person who started this thread asked about the "Objectivist" stance on Linux. There is no such thing. Then KevinDW78 thought the entire idea was collectivist. It isn't. Some other posts were about the morality of Linux under certain licenses. But that was just used to comment on the supposed immorality of the whole enterprise.

There's no such thing as the "morality" of an open-source operating system or open-source anything in and of itself. There was no context, no one had supplied a proper context, but somehow you guys filled up a couple pages of a discussion with no real topic.

That's what's bizarre.

Edited by Myself
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Linux is just an operating system.

Actually, it is not. It is a kernal. Linux based distributions like Kubuntu, Slackware, Gentoo, Fedore, etc are operating systems, but Linux is the kernal and nothing else.

There's no such thing as the "morality" of an open-source operating system or open-source anything in and of itself. There was no context, no one had supplied a proper context, but somehow you guys filled up a couple pages of a discussion with no real topic.

That's what's bizarre.

It would of been had you been correct, but you are not. We debated silly comments like the one's Kevin made. That is a topic by the way. We also mentioned contexts and general ideas relating to the topic of Linux and open source. As I just stated Linux and open source are topics. Now I am replying to your silly comments about this thread being bizzare. That is a topic. So your statement is totally false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People eat sandwiches because they want to. There's no other reason.

Do you have a problem with the above statement?

Making a thread about "The Morality of Linux" is equivalent to making a thread about "The Morality of Eating a Sandwich." If you don't understand why I would consider the latter bizarre then I guess you won't understand my opinion of the former either.

I don't really agree with the sandwich thing, but I do agree that this thread is bizarre, because it's consisted of a bunch of people who know very little about Linux and open source coming to sort of inaccurate conclusions. For example:

Do you have a problem with the above statement?

Making a thread about "The Morality of Linux" is equivalent to making a thread about "The Morality of Murdering."

(I'm not actually making the above equivocation since it has been argued that there may be some cases where it is and some cases where it isn't. I am just pointing out that it IS a legitimate topic to discuss.)

Generally speaking, Linux and open source are perfectly moral. Yes, there are people like Stallman out there, but that's the exception, not the rule. Huge companies like IBM and Novell have invested heavily in open source because it results in better software and works for their business models. Individuals often make improvements that they want to see, and if they want to see those improvements expanded upon in future releases of the code, it makes sense to contribute back to the community. Besides, that's a way of gaining feedback on your code and networking with people.

So... to say "well it's moral sometimes, and it's immoral sometimes" doesn't really convey any information. Linux is not special in this regard; that statement is true of it only to the degree that it is true of any generally good thing, like eating a sandwich (e.g. one wouldn't say "I'm just claiming that eating a sandwich could be good, or it could be bad").

I'd like to try to correct a few other bits of misinformation I've seen...

(1) Linux probably doesn't contain UNIX code, and if it does, it's not a significant amount. Look up Unix on Wikipedia and read about the SCO lawsuits. I don't believe there's any reason to say Linux is "government subsidized" in any direct sense.

(2) Linux is a great platform for personal computing, even apart from programming. I've set up Linux for my mother, who is disabled, because, basically, it's easier to use. This will not be the case if you have hardware problems, but that is less and less common these days - and many major PC manufacturers (e.g. Lenovo/IBM, Dell) now offer Linux pre-installed instead of Windows.

An additional interesting tidbit: Apple's OS is based on open source - specifically BSD, which is "more" government subsidized than Linux.

Edited by BrassDragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really agree with the sandwich thing, but I do agree that this thread is bizarre, because it's consisted of a bunch of people who know very little about Linux and open source coming to sort of inaccurate conclusions.

That is true for some of the people here, but not all (eg: myself, and Prometheus98876).

(2) Linux is a great platform for personal computing, even apart from programming. I've set up Linux for my mother, who is disabled, because, basically, it's easier to use. This will not be the case if you have hardware problems, but that is less and less common these days - and many major PC manufacturers (e.g. Lenovo/IBM, Dell) now offer Linux pre-installed instead of Windows.

I would agree with that if only it wasn't so buggy for me. And this includes new versions of Linux distributions, not just the old versions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and others as well - thanks to everyone who has been knowledgeable... and no problem for those who aren't...

Yes, others. That is why I said me and him were examples. And I second your thanks. Without those knowledgeable this thread would of been of no value at all. So thank you to the knowledgeable people for saving this thread and making with worthwhile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(1) Linux probably doesn't contain UNIX code, and if it does, it's not a significant amount. Look up Unix on Wikipedia and read about the SCO lawsuits. I don't believe there's any reason to say Linux is "government subsidized" in any direct sense.
Government regulation pushed AT&T into giving UNIX away. This helped its adoption tremendously and helped make UNIX a (hardware) vendor-independent OS. Hardware-independence, in turn, made it more attractive. The point is not that LINUX actually contained someone else's code. The point is that the API and commands he coded had already been made popular by government regulation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is not that LINUX actually contained someone else's code. The point is that the API and commands he coded had already been made popular by government regulation.

I don't think that has any bearing upon the morality of Linux (though I don't think you claimed that it does).

In addition, I think Linux and Unix adhere to a certain design philosophy that's really independent of the way they've developed historically. I think even if Unix had never existed, an open source operating system not unlike the Linux-based OSs of today would have been developed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition, I think Linux and Unix adhere to a certain design philosophy that's really independent of the way they've developed historically. I think even if Unix had never existed, an open source operating system not unlike the Linux-based OSs of today would have been developed.

With a different kernal no doubt, but otherwise, yes I agree with that. Afterall Linus Torvalds would mostly likely still of created his kernal. It would of been different if he had had to start from scratch, but I am sure he probably still would of done it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Hello,

Richard Stallman says that Rearden Metal formula must be publically available if Rearden is to use the metal outside of his lab. The copyright on the formula can continue to say "Rearden invented it", and perhaps, "who-ever uses the metal must pay Rearden a royalty of a $100 per kg of the metal". So Stallman is not against selling, he is against witholding information.

To transfer the analogy to software, the source code and the documentation and the good will must travel together in one bundle. The bundle may cost money, though.

He states that software is a new kind of machine, that is not physical, and hence is different from previous products that had to be rebuilt in order to be duplicated.

Do you see anything wrong with this ?

I have created a website for supporting Open Source software. It is called online-tipjar.com

I have read Atlas Shrugged and "Capitalism: The New Ideal" and it all makes logical sense. The Online-TipJar website is inspired by my understading of the objectivism philosophy. I come in where Richard Stallman leaves off -- at the money stage. Programmers making small but meaninful contributions to open source software, that benefits thousands of people, should have a way to make money. That is the idea about Online-TipJar.

The concept of online-tipajr was actually suggested by Richard Stallman in his lecture in New York a few years ago. He said that, for instance, a game company can publish a tipjar on its website, and people who enjoy the game can come and leave tips in the tipjar.

I thought that this is a good model to allow the individual poeple to make money from micro-donations. Making their software payed is often impossible. For example, consider a patch to Linux that fixes a bug. The patch can't really be sold, because it must be merged with the main body of the source code, and a particular version, and then it dissolves inside it, like a drop of water in a cup of water. Therefore, there is no objective way to sell that bit. I propose the use of tipjar like I have created to monetize this kind of work.

I also think that Bitcoin is equivalent of the Gold standard, and decided to implement it on the Online-TipJar site.

Would be interested to hear feedback.

Thanks,

Boris

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...