3 ms·

I love open source software and use it everyday, so this question is coming from genuine curiosity. I'm a bit conflicted about how I feel above the "ethical" ar

by niij 6y ago

I love open source software and use it everyday, so this question is coming from genuine curiosity. I'm a bit conflicted about how I feel above the "ethical" argument for OSS. Why is closed source software unethical? Is it unethical for McDonald's to sell me a Big Mac, even though they won't provide the recipe for the secret sauce (yes I know it's Thousand Island dressing)?

freedomben 6y ago
It's a great question, and I wish I had more time to delve into it. It really comes down to how a person defines their ethics. FSF philosophy (which I love but am not 100% in sync with) is detailed here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html Discussion around why proprietary software is unethical: https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary.html https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary.html A lot of it ties into theories around power dynamics as well. When you deny someone the freedom to see what is running on their machine, you put the developer/company in an unfair position of power over the user. We have seen that abused time and again for spying purposes and data collection, for example. Anyway, interesting stuff. I'll try to come back when I get some time.
TheDong 6y ago
A closer real-world analogy is "is it unethical for john deere to sell a tractor that you're not able to service due to artificial restrictions". But the McDonalds one sorta holds up too. Let's examine the 4 freedoms: 1. Freedom to eat the food you purchased using any utensils (freedom 0) 2. Freedom to modify the food (i.e. add ketchup or hot sauce) and study it (investigate the ingredients in it, i.e. ask how much sodium is in it, or if the oil it was cooked in was meat oil). 3. Freedom to share an unmodified piece of the food with others (give a friend some fries) 4. Freedom to share the food, even if you've modified it or attempted to copy it (give your friend fries with ketchup on it, freedom to share your home-made fries modeled after McDs with a friend). It's arguable if "provide the recipe" needs to be included in those freedoms. Maybe. Either way, I'd argue that yes, it's unethical for macdonalds to sell you food without at the very least giving you the above freedoms, and also telling you all important ingredients in it (allergens and nutritional info, etc) The reason people aren't complaining about freedom wrt food is because the freedoms are already mostly there. Software licensing commonly requires things like "you can't use this software without an active internet connection to verify you purchased it", or "you can't install it on two computers". I've yet to find a food that has a limitation of "you can only eat this food if you're on the phone with us so we can verify you're not putting ketchup on it". If food was restricted in the same ways software is, I would call it unethical, yes. Selling mystery food with no ingredient list, that I'm not allowed to attempt to make my own variant of, that I can't add any additional ingredients to, and that I can't eat at my leisure.. yeah, that would be either unethical or a form of performance art.

by niij 6y ago

freedomben 6y ago

It's a great question, and I wish I had more time to delve into it. It really comes down to how a person defines their ethics. FSF philosophy (which I love but am not 100% in sync with) is detailed here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html Discussion around why proprietary software is unethical: https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary.html https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary.html A lot of it ties into theories around power dynamics as well. When you deny someone the freedom to see what is running on their machine, you put the developer/company in an unfair position of power over the user. We have seen that abused time and again for spying purposes and data collection, for example. Anyway, interesting stuff. I'll try to come back when I get some time.

TheDong 6y ago

A closer real-world analogy is "is it unethical for john deere to sell a tractor that you're not able to service due to artificial restrictions". But the McDonalds one sorta holds up too. Let's examine the 4 freedoms: 1. Freedom to eat the food you purchased using any utensils (freedom 0) 2. Freedom to modify the food (i.e. add ketchup or hot sauce) and study it (investigate the ingredients in it, i.e. ask how much sodium is in it, or if the oil it was cooked in was meat oil). 3. Freedom to share an unmodified piece of the food with others (give a friend some fries) 4. Freedom to share the food, even if you've modified it or attempted to copy it (give your friend fries with ketchup on it, freedom to share your home-made fries modeled after McDs with a friend). It's arguable if "provide the recipe" needs to be included in those freedoms. Maybe. Either way, I'd argue that yes, it's unethical for macdonalds to sell you food without at the very least giving you the above freedoms, and also telling you all important ingredients in it (allergens and nutritional info, etc) The reason people aren't complaining about freedom wrt food is because the freedoms are already mostly there. Software licensing commonly requires things like "you can't use this software without an active internet connection to verify you purchased it", or "you can't install it on two computers". I've yet to find a food that has a limitation of "you can only eat this food if you're on the phone with us so we can verify you're not putting ketchup on it". If food was restricted in the same ways software is, I would call it unethical, yes. Selling mystery food with no ingredient list, that I'm not allowed to attempt to make my own variant of, that I can't add any additional ingredients to, and that I can't eat at my leisure.. yeah, that would be either unethical or a form of performance art.