[Linux4christians] The Moral Foundation of Free Software

[Don Parris]

On Tue, 2005-01-04 at 09:12 +0000, Ben Thorp wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of my thoughts on this topic:
> 
> 1. We seem to have fallen in to the trap of equating "free" software with
> "free as in beer" rather than "free as in freedom". There is nothing in
> FOSS licensing to say that you cannot charge money for your program, only
> that you must distribute the code. You may think the distinction is
> unimportant, because people we just use your source code, and it will then
> become free as in beer. However, this is not necessarily the case - people
> always talk about RedHat being the 'Microsoft' of the Linux world, but all
> their code is released as open source, but they release _only_ the code -
> you pay for have ISOs and binaries, and the ease of installation.
> 
> 2. In "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" Eric Raymond says that he believes
> that a vast majority of software written is not sold, because it is written
> internally. It is written to fill a need, and the worth of the software is
> not from it's sale as a commodity, but rather from having the software in
> the first place. He states that he believes that this software could easily
> be open sourced. Selling software for cash is actually a surprisingly small
> market, albeit a very vocal one.
> 
> 3. Somewhere in the region of 75% of code written in the world is _never
> used_ (at least, according to my Computing Lecturer at uni).
> 
> 4. The vast majority of programmers are not employed by software vendors.
> In Scotland the largest employer of programmers is JP Morgan, an investment
> banker. Open Source is not depriving programmers of jobs.
> 
> 5. On a corporate scale, software purchases are much more to do with
> support and aftersales than they are to do with the worth of the actual
> code. This is why a number of the successful Open Source companies work by
> selling additional support and services - MySQL and SmoothWall are 2 such
> examples.
> 
> 6. I think that the use of 'helping thy neighbour' is perhaps confusing the
> original intentions and beliefs behind FOSS. RMSs emphasis was not on what
> EULAs did to his relationship to other people, but rather on his
> relationship to code. Equally, the GPL includes nothing about how you
> should respond to other people, but rather how you should use the code. It
> may be a useful term to use as one of the side benefits of FOSS, but I
> think it is misleading to suggest that it is integral to the philosophy.
> 
> 7. Whether we believe it to be a moral issue or not, the software world is
> already beginning to change significantly because of open source.
> 
> 8. I think that there are probably other issues that are more clearcut than
> the moral argument - are there ethical concerns over any of the proprietary
> software vendors? Can we, as churches/Christians, advocate the purchase of
> software if there are free alternatives? etc.
> 
> Anyway - I realise I have not made a conclusion either way, but I think
> these are points worth mentioning.
> 
> Ben Thorp
> 

Ben, 

Your input is very helpful.  You've obviously given this a great deal of
thought as well.  I appreciate everyone's input thus far.  As noted in
my original post, though RMS views free software as a moral imperative
for Christians.  His central focus was very much on the notion that it
would be wrong to _not_ help his neighbor.  The very idea comes straight
from the FSF philosophy pages.

Don