ethical ubuntu

[Peter Garrett]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:03:57 +1000
Alexander Jacob Tsykin <stsykin at gmail.com> wrote:

> Never share this
> > software with anybody, even with your friends! If you accept such a
> > proprietary license, you will face the "moral dilemma" as soon as a good
> > friend of yours asks you for a copy of the software: either tell him
> > "no", or infringe the license.
> >
> by this logic is wrong to sell anything instead of giving it away. All secrets 
> or things not disclosed to absolutely everybody are wrong by definition. When 
> there is actually somebody who lives like that let me know.

Actually, you can't legally "sell" your copy of Win XP, or many
other proprietary programs either - you are "licensed" to use them.
usually only on one machine. In other words, quite often you don't even
own the software yourself.

So you don't even have the alternative of saying "Well, if you want it, it
will cost you $X", unless at the same time you surrender your license to
use it.

So: there's nothing wrong at all with selling software - but you don't get
that choice either, if you want to stay within the law regarding such
software. Suppose you sell someone your copy of Win XP - that person has
no right to install it on another machine, unless you uninstall your copy,
because the license allows only installation on one machine .... and so on.

By contrast, if I have the sheet music to, say, a flute sonata, I *own*
that copy and I am free to give it away or sell it as I please. Because of
copyright by the publisher, I am not legally entitied to make ten
photocopies and hand them around or sell them, but at least I own the copy
I *bought*.

That doesn't mean I own Mozart's music - that belongs to everyone who can
hear it. The ideas were Mozart's, but the performance is everyone's.

The analogy is quite appropriate, since a musical score is a program - a
set of instructions for performing the task of playing the music. By
contrast, the program ( set of translatable instructions ) in a "closed"
computer program does not really belong to me. I can make markings and
correct errors in my flute score as I wish. I am not allowed even to do
that with a proprietary program.

"Intellectual Property" is an invention - a clever misuse of the language
to imply that ideas "belong" to one person or group. They don't. Ideas
belong to all of humanity. That's why we have copyright laws - we can all
share the ideas, but we must be fair when we use them, giving credit to
their originators. Plagiarism is not acceptable, but fair use and correct
citation are. Payment for commercial software may be in money, and that is
fine - it doesn't have to be "free" to be Free. The payment may be in
returning bug reports or improving the code, as well, or alternatively.
That way the originator still profits by the intellectual payments made by
other contributors. The Linux kernel is an example of this.

There are other forms of value than economic value. There is nothing wrong
with economic value, and there is nothing wrong with using non-economic
forms of value. The payments are of different kinds.

Peter