3 ms·

Seems morally dubious. When you purchase software, it doesn't mean you automatically own the bytes and can do whatever you want with them. There are things call

by umvi 3y ago

Seems morally dubious. When you purchase software, it doesn't mean you automatically own the bytes and can do whatever you want with them. There are things call licenses that dictate what you are allowed to do, and you agree to the license when you decide to use the software. If you agree not to use the software for commercial purposes when you purchase it, you can't morally decide "my bytes my choice" and just to use it for commercial purposes anyway. Just because money has changed hands doesn't mean you now have free reign to do whatever you want with the bytes. If someone sells you linux for $1000, that doesn't mean you are allowed to make it closed source for further development because the GPL license you agreed to prevents you from doing so.

buildbot 3y ago
This is an amusing attempt at a defense if what Tesla is doing given that they are currently violating said GPL license for Linux…
kelnos 3y ago
I don't think I agree with your moral stance. If I buy a car, then, yes, "my hardware my choice". Software should be no different. I personally think end user license agreements are immoral. If you want to attach conditions to use, you should have to spend the time to work out a proper contract, executed by both parties, with consideration provided on both sides. But I still think that's weird. To use your "commercial use" example, if I buy a lawnmower, the company that sells it to me should not be able to dictate that I can only use it for personal use, on my own lawn. If I want to use it to mow my neighbors' lawns and charge them for it, they can't stop me. Copyright licenses like the GPL are interesting. I've released software under the GPL in the past (though these days I usually choose more permissive licenses like Apache or MIT). The GPL itself is essentially a hack that rides on our current awful copyright law in order to creatively subvert it. If our copyright laws were more reasonable and more aimed toward benefiting the public commons, we may not even have a need for the GPL; it's even possible that big parts of it would be unenforceable in a more reasonable copyright regime. Just a note on this: > If you agree not to use the software for commercial purposes when you purchase it, you can't morally decide "my bytes my choice" and just to use it for commercial purposes anyway While this may be true under current law, there's nothing inherent in the universe that makes it this way. We as a society have decided that, legally, some things are out of bounds when it comes to contractual obligations. As an extreme example, you can't contractually sign yourself into slavery. No court (in the US and quite a few other places, at least) would consider that contract valid. The idea that you can sign away your rights to use a piece of software commercially is not some absolute moral good. We could decide as a society that this sort of thing isn't ok, and enshrine it into law.

by umvi 3y ago

buildbot 3y ago

This is an amusing attempt at a defense if what Tesla is doing given that they are currently violating said GPL license for Linux…

kelnos 3y ago

I don't think I agree with your moral stance. If I buy a car, then, yes, "my hardware my choice". Software should be no different. I personally think end user license agreements are immoral. If you want to attach conditions to use, you should have to spend the time to work out a proper contract, executed by both parties, with consideration provided on both sides. But I still think that's weird. To use your "commercial use" example, if I buy a lawnmower, the company that sells it to me should not be able to dictate that I can only use it for personal use, on my own lawn. If I want to use it to mow my neighbors' lawns and charge them for it, they can't stop me. Copyright licenses like the GPL are interesting. I've released software under the GPL in the past (though these days I usually choose more permissive licenses like Apache or MIT). The GPL itself is essentially a hack that rides on our current awful copyright law in order to creatively subvert it. If our copyright laws were more reasonable and more aimed toward benefiting the public commons, we may not even have a need for the GPL; it's even possible that big parts of it would be unenforceable in a more reasonable copyright regime. Just a note on this: > If you agree not to use the software for commercial purposes when you purchase it, you can't morally decide "my bytes my choice" and just to use it for commercial purposes anyway While this may be true under current law, there's nothing inherent in the universe that makes it this way. We as a society have decided that, legally, some things are out of bounds when it comes to contractual obligations. As an extreme example, you can't contractually sign yourself into slavery. No court (in the US and quite a few other places, at least) would consider that contract valid. The idea that you can sign away your rights to use a piece of software commercially is not some absolute moral good. We could decide as a society that this sort of thing isn't ok, and enshrine it into law.