Professional Issues in Computing: Free Software Movement Kevin Macnish (IDEA CETL)

Topics to Cover Definitions, claims and background of the FSM Rationale of FSM Objections –Developers go out of business –Intellectual property Broader argument Control

DEFINITIONS, CLAIMS AND BACKGROUND TO FSM

Definitions (0:00-1:59) Proprietary Software –Paid for by users –Full commercial license agreement –Source code invisible to users Freeware/Shareware –Payment optional or at end of trial period –License agreement limits modification and distribution –Source code invisible to users Open Source –Often free from any charge –License agreement meets open source definition –Source code is publicly available

What is Free Software? (2:00-2:35) “Free” as in “free speech” not “free beer” Often (but not always!) free from any charge No license agreement or restriction on use, modification or redistribution Source code is publicly available

Copyright and Copyleft (2:00-2:35) Copyright is a legal mechanism for protecting ownership rights over intellectual property. Copyleft is an attempt to use copyright legislation to ensure any piece of free software stays free. –a copyleft license uses copyright law to ensure that every person who receives a copy of a work has the same rights to study, use, modify, and also redistribute both the work, and derived versions of the work. Such licenses typically do so by requiring that the same license terms apply to all redistributed versions of the work.

Key claims of FSM (2:35-3:26) Free software respects the user’s freedom It is best to act so as to make (and keep) software free It is unethical to make or keep proprietary software All software should be free to be shared and modified The law should not support the practice of using licences to restrict users from studying, modifying, copying software

Background to FSM (2:35-3:26) Key names: Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds 1985 GNU Manifesto & start of the Free Software Foundation 1985 “Copyleft” coined by Stallman 1989 GNU General Public Licence GNU/Linux OS developed – entirely free software 1998 Netscape source code

Free vs. Open Source (3:15-5:16) Open Source arguments: –More powerful –More convenient –More reliable Free Software Philosophy arguments: –Freedom more important than “it works” –Bigger issues at stake - ethics

The Meaning of “Free” (5:16-6:00) Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose. Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor. Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

RATIONALE

Rationale for FSM (6:00-09:19) Stallman’s Arguments: Free Distribution –Makes co-operation possible –Society based on co-operation –An attack on co-operation is an attack on society Control –Allows users to change software so it does what they want –Allows co-operation in developing software –Democratic means lead to universal benefits Alternative is the developer as dictator

OBJECTIONS

Objection: Developers Would Go Out of Business (11:59-13:51) Stallman: Not gratis, can still charge Developers already being paid for free software Most developers working on software which will never be released to public Not legitimate to trample other people’s freedom to earn a living

What is at Stake? (13:51-19:07) Future of Society Education Schools shouldn’t waste money on licenses Schools shouldn’t teach dependence (analogy with drug pushers) Education of developers Schools should teach habit of helping neighbour

Objection: Intellectual Property (23:35-26:10) Stallman: No such thing as IP Difference between software and music, medicine, etc. Arguments do extend to other areas insofar as free, non-commercial distribution is concerned –Justified by importance of social solidarity

Licences and the Law Law should reflect ethics of free software. –Only if people are (morally) entitled to the use of licences, should they be upheld. –A legal arrangement might be justified if in the public interest, even if it has other ethical flaws. Lawmaking is complicated by issues of consistency (for example, with other areas where copyright & patents are involved), enforceability, and public acceptability.

Intellectual Property Most FSM advocates deny that developers or their employers own software as IP Ownership brings entitlement to certain controls on use –I am entitled to lend my tennis racket to Jo for playing tennis, but to refuse to lend it to Phil for him to use to beat up his little sister –I am entitled to make it a condition of lending my camera to Gillian that she doesn’t let it out of her sight Intellectual property rights over software would constitute a major obstacle to the FSM’s impermissibility claim

Intellectual Property IP not decisive for FSM ethics: Even if owners have property rights over their software, it might still be best for them to make their software free Even if owners have no property rights over software, it still may be legitimate for authors and companies to use licences to restrict software use

BEYOND FREEDOM

Beyond Freedom: Broadening the Argument What reasons are there in favour of making software free? What reasons are there against having software restricted by licences? What disadvantages are there of making software free? What are the advantages of copyright?

FSM Case: Advantages of Free Software Improvements to software Educational value of access to source code Low-cost availability of software to all Customisability Enables you to “help your neighbour” Collaborative projects much easier with shared source code

FSM Case: Disadvantages of Licences Intrusive control of private transactions between users Prevents collaboration, etc. Puts a financial obstacle between people and software that may help them Discourages understanding of computing No sufficient reason to restrict non- competitive goods.

Alternative: Disadvantages of Free Software Reduced incentive for programmers –the right sort of software won’t get written without such incentives Reduced reward for writing good programs Reduced investing in programming Removes the benefits of financially-fuelled competition from the software market

Defends entitlements authors have over IP Facilitates credit to software producers for their achievement Supports those who need to recoup large up-front development costs Alternative: Advantages of Licences

Free Software: Better? Viable? What would happen if incentives removed? Are licences necessary to give developers what they deserve Plausible that free software better –Harder to argue that licensed software is ethically illegitimate

CONTROL

Licences as Control “Control over the use of one’s ideas really constitutes control over other people’s lives” (GNU Manifesto) Implication that control is bad Control isn’t necessarily illegitimate –Are you entitled to it? –Even if not, is the method of control legitimate? Licenses are an exercise of control that operates by allowing use of software if the user makes certain promises. –It is not obvious that control via freely-made promises is illegitimate

Defending Control using Licences I do some research and find out some information (though I do not have property rights over it) I am not under an obligation to tell anyone what I find out If someone will pay me to tell what I have found out, there’s nothing impermissible about divulging information for money If I want to make my telling conditional on the recipient making promises about what they will do with the information, then that is up to me – it is not impermissible for me to do so Importance of consent

Possible Responses? Promises made by licensees result from exploitation by licensers, i.e. are illegitimately attained Harm caused by licenses so great that property rights do not extend to a right to issue software using licences Other strategies?

Recap Definitions, claims and background of the FSM Rationale of FSM Objections –Developers go out of business –Intellectual property Broader argument Control

How Important is FSM? (26:10-end) Bigger issues to deal with Not my thing – I care more about, e.g. human rights What difference can I make? Not my responsibility

For Monday Read handout!

Questions?