3 ms·

I think it’s clear that we have fundamentally differing opinions on what constitutes “ethics”. If I make something, it’s perfectly ethical for me to decide my

by akerl_ 6y ago

I think it’s clear that we have fundamentally differing opinions on what constitutes “ethics”. If I make something, it’s perfectly ethical for me to decide my criteria for giving it to somebody else. If the cost I impose or the restrictions I require are too onerous, nobody is going to agree to enter into a transaction with me. But if they do, they’ve agreed to pay my cost and abide by my terms. The same is true of meals at a restaurant or sale of land or any other societal transaction. As a consumer of food, I can take as a personal stance the ideal that I’ll only eat food if I can know the recipe, but restaurants aren’t obligated to change their offering to account for me, any more than I’m obligated to eat at their establishments.

ddevault 6y ago
You're free to sell software at any cost the recipient is willing to pay, at least such that it squares with your concience. However, if you don't sell the source code with it, I consider that unethical. Land is a finite resource with intrinsic value, not the same thing. So is the meal itself. Recipes are different. We have social obligations. That's what being a society is.
- sigzero 6y ago
  No, not even close. It is 100% ethical to sell software but not the source to it. It isn't a social obligation of any kind to do so. You may choose to do so but you can't force that choice on others.
  - heyoni 6y ago
    Not every ethical notion needs to be legislated. I don’t think anyone is suggesting everyone enforced to publish all source code, however, not releasing source code can be perceived as unethical...or shady AF if that makes more sense. The fact is, it may protect against piracy but practically all consumer software nowadays is doing something on your device that you wouldn’t approve of. The only realistic way for a user to know how their resources are being used would be to look at the source code.
- spondyl 6y ago
  Hmm, just to try and understand your view a little better, it sounds by that logic that toy makers should also provide technical schematics when they sell toys so that consumers could add or fix elements of what they bought?

by akerl_ 6y ago

ddevault 6y ago

You're free to sell software at any cost the recipient is willing to pay, at least such that it squares with your concience. However, if you don't sell the source code with it, I consider that unethical. Land is a finite resource with intrinsic value, not the same thing. So is the meal itself. Recipes are different. We have social obligations. That's what being a society is.

sigzero 6y ago
No, not even close. It is 100% ethical to sell software but not the source to it. It isn't a social obligation of any kind to do so. You may choose to do so but you can't force that choice on others.
- heyoni 6y ago
  Not every ethical notion needs to be legislated. I don’t think anyone is suggesting everyone enforced to publish all source code, however, not releasing source code can be perceived as unethical...or shady AF if that makes more sense. The fact is, it may protect against piracy but practically all consumer software nowadays is doing something on your device that you wouldn’t approve of. The only realistic way for a user to know how their resources are being used would be to look at the source code.
spondyl 6y ago
Hmm, just to try and understand your view a little better, it sounds by that logic that toy makers should also provide technical schematics when they sell toys so that consumers could add or fix elements of what they bought?