Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

SCO vs. IBM, FSF, RedHat, et al.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Open letter from SCO

So, anyway, I was reading the above letters, and they got me to thinking...

First of all, they constitute a ridiculous example of what happens when you start from unclear or contradictory premises. In the first half, SCO seems to be advocating that Congress should, for reasons of "the common good," unilaterally invalidate the GPL (Gnu Public License.) When in fact, the same property rights that copyright laws protect give creators the ability to give away their product, if they so please. SCO's current litigation contends that IBM inserted proprietary code, licensed from SCO, into Linux, thus placing it under the GPL. If this is the case, which has been, is and will continue to be the subject of a rather protracted legal battle, then SCO's property rights were violated and they are entitled to damages. But it's not the GPL that's at fault, as they seem to contend.

The second half contains a slightly more cogent argument in favor of property rights, but maintains the fallacious conclusion that the GPL somehow violates these rights. It even defends the profit motive, albeit only as a means to "the public good." What I found particularly striking was Justice Breyer's dissenting opinion in Eldred v. Ashcroft that the clause empowering congress to enact intellectual property protections "does not exist to provide spcial private benefit, ...but to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good. The 'reward' as a means, not an end." The intellectual mess of the altruist ethic. The majority opinion was little better, justifying the "reward" merely as a necessary prerequisite to "artistic creativity for the general public good."

If, in fact, FSF and RedHat are lobbying for the abolition of all IP rights in the form of software, then I couldn't disagree more strongly with their position. That doesn't make SCO's opposition to GPL any more valid, for precisely the same reasons.

Lost in all of this is the only moral basis on which the discussion must proceed: the protection of private property rights, not for the altruists' standard of "the general public good," but in recognition of the fact that they are a necessary feature of life qua man, that each man must be free to keep or to dispose of (including to trade value-for-value) what he creates as he sees fit. Once that is accepted, the proper course, the right and the wrong, in all of the above arguments becomes clear. Certainly moreso than the current confusion brought on by a lack of any principled basis for argument.

Just had to rant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If, in fact, FSF and RedHat are lobbying for the abolition of all IP rights in the form of software, then I couldn't disagree more strongly with their position.

The Free Software Foundation does indeed advocate the abolition of all intellectual property. It was founded by Richard Stallman, a Marxist who opposes all forms of IP, including copyrights and patents. He is regarded as somewhat of a joke and an “impractical idealist” by most of Open Source community. I recommend that you read his take on the term “IP” for a great example of intellectual dishonesty:

http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/words-to-avo...lectualProperty

The GPL license itself is outwardly hostile to intellectual property – but since it imposes strict limitations on your use of GPL’ed code, it effectively engages in concept stealing. Truly “free” software would allow you to do whatever you please with it, including making modifications to sell at a profit.

Btw, this forum runs on commercial forum software that is available for free use with a number of limitations. However, the main site runs on GPL’ed Open Source software. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with using GPL’ed code, but it’s something I’ve given a lot of thought to and would love to have a discussion about – unfortunately there’s not that many capitalist geeks to debate it with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don?t think there?s anything wrong with using GPL?ed code, but it?s something I?ve given a lot of thought to

That is an interesting question. More broadly speaking, it could be asked: Is it OK to use a product that an altruist has given away to you? I think the answer is definitely yes, as long as you merely use the product and don't cherish it, or hail the altruist for making it. For example, it is fine to edit some text in Emacs when it is the best-suited editor for the purpose, but it wouldn't be so fine to say to a friend, "Have you seen Emacs? It is my favorite text editor. It was written by Richard Stallman, who makes a lot of great stuff." The former does not imply a moral sanction, while the latter does.

Also, there may be a number of valid, selfish reasons for wanting to publish your code under terms similar to those of the GPL, so the fact that some code is GPLed does not necessarily imply that the author is an altruist. A developer who is familiar with the philosophical issues involved should avoid publishing his code under the GPL, though; instead, he should write his own license text, or invoke a pre-written open-source license other than the GPL.

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...