From what Paul is saying it does sound as though the NZCS has taken a very narrow view of ethics which is a shame and sets a very low bar for my fellow ITCP practitioners.

I firmly believe it is more ethical to respect and encourage freedom and this is born out by the observation that “freer” societies tend to be more sustainably successful than ones that are non-free. Just as free markets tend to be more successful than non-free markets.

I have had very interesting discussions over the last few weeks with people from the free software community, Microsoft, Google and my own company. The issue I raise is this, “if not doing evil” is important to you and your organisation, how do you know whether you are indeed doing no evil?

What are your touch stones? Where is your rational and principle? Do we get to leave our conscience in the workplace foyer?

What ethical behaviour would make *you* resign from your company?

I suggest that prudent buyers would include such a requirement and give it a weighting that reflects its importance to them. Proposals either comply or don’t comply. This would let buyers factor into their decision-making the benefits that the 4 business freedoms can bring, along with all other factors. For example, this would bring to buyers’ attention the future switching costs which Dave so eloquently described.

John

These freedoms are vitally important. They are essential, not just for the individual users’ sake, but for society as a whole because they promote social solidarity—that is, sharing and cooperation. They become even more important as our culture and life activities are increasingly digitized. In a world of digital sounds, images, and words, free software becomes increasingly essential for freedom in general.

Merely having the freedom to modify the source code is much weaker than the set of freedoms covered in the free software definition. Paul’s argument attacks a straw man.

It’s a pity that the article as published was not the same as the article written. However, I stand by my comment that the published article shows a limited understanding of free software. For example, to describe free software as “simply [a] licensing model” is factually incorrect. The OSI definition of open source does indeed describe a licensing model. On the other hand, to quote Richard Stallman again (op. cit.):

For the free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, because only free software respects the users’ freedom.

He continues:

The philosophy of open source, with its purely practical values, impedes understanding of the deeper ideas of free software; it brings many people into our community, but does not teach them to defend it. … Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to proprietary software for some practical advantage. Countless companies seek to offer such temptation, some even offering copies gratis. Why would users decline? Only if they have learned to value the freedom free software gives them, to value freedom in and of itself rather than the technical and practical convenience of specific free software.

Paul, as I understand your article and subsequent comment, you invite your readers to value technical and practical convenience above their own freedom. This is a legitimate philosophical position, which I think is called hedonism. Are you saying that hedonism is a professional duty?

John

Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful response, which offers a much more nuanced position than the one published in the article. I will spread my response over several comments, as I think the questions you raise deserve careful consideration and detailed discussion.

Let’s get the “ideology” question out of the way first. I may be in the minority in that I do not see either free software or open source as ideologies. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines ideology as follows:

Ideology today is generally taken to mean not a science of ideas, but the ideas themselves, and moreover ideas of a particular kind. Ideologies are ideas whose purpose is not epistemic, but political. Thus an ideology exists to confirm a certain political viewpoint, serve the interests of certain people, or to perform a functional role in relation to social, economic, political and legal institutions.

The free software model for software distribution proposes a set of user rights. The 4 freedoms are in essence a footnote offering an interpretation of the New Zealand Bill of Rights as it applies to users of software. So for me, the 4 freedoms are too small and narrow in scope to constitute an ideology. On the other hand, they are very important to me professionally, because they can guide my thinking and inform my actions.

The open source development model is the result of applying the scientific method to the software development process. Again, I am not sure that this constitutes an ideology, although it does reflect a certain way of looking at, and acting in, the world.

My last point for now is to pick up on your phrase “bitter feud”. I can only speak from my own experience and here in New Zealand I have not seen any bitterness from anyone and I am not aware of any feuds. Perhaps I need to get out more. However, perception is reality. Paul, perhaps you could give some examples of the ugliness you have experienced.

John

Just a quick clarification – I don’t suggest, in my response to Mark, that his mum is being unethical by using Photoshop. I simply suggest that I believe the creation of proprietary software *tends* to be unethical because of proprietary vendors succumbing to the temptation of removing their software’s users’ freedom through their licensing practices. I cast no aspersions whatsoever about Mark’s mum.

To the extent that proprietary software vendors release their code under Free Software compatible licenses :) I consider them to be potentially ethical.

I agree, by the way, that Free Software is an ideological stance, but a consistent, rational, and well defined ideology. Proprietary Software is a jumble of ill-defined (in incomprehensible legalese), inconsistent (because the authors don’t even understand it, typically) ideologies. Because they’re not comprehensible, I consider Proprietary ideologies to be irrational, in general.

Dave

However you still maintain that:

“To Joe Bloggs user, there really *isn’t* great benefit in being able to modify source code”

I’m not sure why you phrase this as a statement of fact when it just seems to be your opinion. Are you aware of any research on the subject that would back up this view?

It might be argued that I get no benefit from being able to pop the bonnet on my car and tinker with the engine. It is certainly true that I have neither the skills nor the inclination to do so. However I know from experience that I get an actual financial benefit – I am able to choose where I get my car serviced. When my car was new, the terms of the warranty locked me into a service contract with the dealership. Once the warranty period expired I was free to choose a local workshop for my servicing needs. The results are that I pay less, the location is much more convenient and the work is done to a higher standard.

The same is true of software. Even if “Joe Bloggs” is not a programmer, his choice of Free or Open Source software allows him to choose any development shop to undertake his software customisation work. If he chooses a commodity software product from a proprietary vendor then it is unlikely he can get any customisation done at all.

While it is true that individuals, running software on their home computers do not traditionally commission software development, I would argue that this may in part be due to people being conditioned to the proprietary model under which such work is not an option. If you look at the area of web sites and blogs, people are very much aware that customisation is an option. Many choose to do it themselves and many choose to engage professionals.

To look at another example, the software running on OLPC computers takes openness and freedom to extreme levels. A child (or even an adult) running a program can click a button to view the source code and can even make changes (with the option of rolling back their changes if things don’t work out). This is an extremely valuable learning tool and also may help to break down entrenched assumptions about what is possible.

I feel I need to reply to your post and clarify a couple of points from the article you’ve quoted, as well as outline a little of my own background for context.

Firstly, there’s been some editorial license at play. This isn’t a complaint (as editing is a part of the process), however unfortunately the submitted article was far too lengthy, and was shortened down somewhat during editing.

In doing so, a fair bit of the context of the article has been unfortunately removed which has had the effect of sharpening the tone of the article (which had been kept relatively light in the submitted version), as well as very much concentrating that which you have taken exception to.

For example, the original version the article starts with a definition of Open Source and Free Software, including pointing out the philosophy and the four freedoms (run, study, modify, distribute), and went on to ask: “So the big question is, why all the fuss? Surely these are simply models, so why do they provoke so much passion?”, then outlining (in brief and deliberately layman) the two main perspectives.

Unfortunately the definition and philosophy was cut, and much of the above replaced with a “ruffled feathers” comment. Without this context, the article took on a somewhat different tone.

Again, this isn’t a criticism of the editorial staff – the fact is the article was too long and it was just unfortunate that reducing it had the effect it did.

That notwithstanding, however, the general message within the article is one that I believe still has validity. Whilst you have posted some particular language, the fundamental points are:

* There is a bitter feud between advocates of both “worlds”. Like it or not, I can assure you that that is the case.
* This feud, and the very existence of such a feud, is sometimes viewed as ugly by casual observers, and the most aggressive stance of some serves to damage the brand and credibility (sorry Dave, but the implication that Mark’s mum is unethical for using Photoshop falls into that category).
* To Joe Bloggs user, there really *isn’t* great benefit in being able to modify source code, however the fact they are prevented from doing so is an important point. The lack of freedom to do what you want to with something you’ve bought is a lack of freedom, whether you want to exercise that freedom or not. That’s the connection I think you’re missing between the two quotes above.

And the last point is a very important one. When a client pays someone to find them a solution they, frankly, have an obligation to find them the best solution. If a particular ideology* prevents consideration of a large chunk of potential solutions then that’s actually okay. Just like if an organisation focuses on solutions from particular vendors only (as most do). However this must be DISCLOSED.

By this I mean it’s perfectly acceptable for a company who focuses on open source to say to a client “we’ve provided open source options because that’s what we do, and we believe this is better because of x, y and z”. Just like it’s acceptable to say “we’ve provided options based on Microsoft xxx, because we’re a Microsoft partner and believe this is better because of x, y and z”.

What is not acceptable, however, is for someone who is being paid to provide the best option, consider only a subset of options, based on a philosophical view of a licensing model, and not disclose this fact. “Ubuntu is the best solution for your desktop”, stated that way, is every bit as bad as “Microsoft Word is the only option, and you shouldn’t even consider anything else” from an expert.

And lastly, it’s a little disappointing that you’ve interpreted a view you might not agree with as “showing limited understanding of the values underpinning free software”. The whole “if they have a different view it’s because they don’t understand it” thing doesn’t really serve to advance the discussion.

For the record, I should point out I’ve spent several years in a past life providing and supporting free and open source solutions (albeit alongside proprietary solutions) and believe I have a pretty good grasp of the concept and values of those communities. FWIW, I’m personally a member of NZOSS and have strongly supported a number of open source initiatives. However we also have an excellent relationship with Microsoft and other companies. Like most things, it’s not a battle of good versus evil or black and white, and the view that it is is simplistic and damages the credibility of the holders of such views.

* Don’t be afraid to support an “Ideology”. Here’s a definition:

An ideology is a set of aims and ideas that directs one’s goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society below) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a ‘received consciousness’ or product of socialization). The main purpose behind an ideology is to offer change in society, and adherence to a set of ideals where conformity already exists, through a normative thought process.

Do you disagree that free software matches the definition of an ideology?

Mark, thank you for asking your questions, which are important ones. Is it unethical to use proprietary software? No. There is no compulsion to exercise one’s freedoms. As a citizen, I am entitled to a New Zealand passport, but am not required to have one.

Are employees unethical because they are creating non-FLOSS products? This question needs to be framed more precisely. The 4 freedoms refer to the way software is distributed, not to the way it is created. So there are really 2 questions here. First, do we have an ethical duty only to create software that gets distributed under a free licence? No, there is nothing in the 4 freedoms which requires developers to distribute the software they write. If we modify a piece of free software, we are under no obligation to distribute our modified version. So if I commission you to write a piece of software for me and (as would be normal commercial practice), I hold the copyright on that software, I have no obligation to distribute it to others and you and I have acted ethically.

But suppose we ask the question slightly differently: are employees acting ethically if they work on a product which is only distributed under a non-free licence? Those who are in favour of the 4 freedoms would say that such employees are acting unethically, because they are taking away the users’ freedom.

But we also need to remember that the conclusions one reaches about ethical questions depend on the assumptions one starts with and reasonable people can disagree. If our hypothetical employee considers that she is acting ethically, we need to ask her, “What is your alternative to the 4 freedoms?” Mark, assuming that you reject the 4 freedoms as the basis for users’ rights, I would be interested to know what you propose instead.

Mark, it is interesting, and revealing, that you find it odd for users’ freedom to take precedence over your freedom as a developer. This is a common ethical situation: patients’ rights take precedence over doctors’ rights; freedom of speech does not give us the right to shout “fire” in a crowded cinema. My perception is that those who develop and distribute proprietary software believe that users have no rights other than those the developer decides to grant them.

John

I’d say that your freedom to create proprietary software sits on the continuum of ethical freedoms vs. unethical freedom somewhere between those previous examples and your freedom to, for example, participate in the democratic process, or your freedom of speech.

Hope that helps to clear things up.

At the risk of pre-empting John, who I’m sure will be able to provide a better answer, I’d like to have a go at this one. As a strong free software proponent, I’d say, philosophically speaking, no, it’s not inherently unethical to produce non-FOSS (i.e. proprietary) software.

The ethics (or lack of them) lie in the details. The problem with proprietary software is that its makers tend to succumb to the temptation to try to create market distortions that are not possible in most other areas of human commerce. They tend to try to break the social contract among humans which allows them to share goods, which they own, with one another.

The way this is usually done is via the terms of an End User License Agreement, such as the sort one is force to click “I accept” to when installing any MS software (barring a few token “open source” projects, perhaps, but all of these to my knowledge have, as a pre-requisite, some proprietary dependency, so they’re pretty irrelevant). What most people don’t know (and which makes nearly all computer users – who mostly use proprietary software from Microsoft) criminals, is the fact that they’ve accepted something the implications of which they (at last 90% of them) do not even vaguely grasp:

They have purchased something which they, in fact, believe they own, as they would own some other physical good. This is because MS has pioneered the market strategy of making an inexhaustible good, namely orderings of 1s and 0s, appear to be scarce by using legal devices like licenses and contract, government granted monopolies like copyright, patents, and trademarks, and “hassles” like activation codes, thereby bending the laws of the free market in many ways.

Further adding to this trade secrets like proprietary and ever-changing file formats, and suddenly, like the frog in the slowly heating pot, people who purchase these goods realise too late – if at all (after their switching cost is insurmountable) that their own creativity and what they thought of as their “property” in fact isn’t. They’re only renting what they thought they’ve bought, and they’ve actually got to continue to pay rental fees to the actual owners of their software, and they’re not allowed to share with their friends and neighbours (on pain of fines, incarceration, etc. enforced by legal entities – but note, there’s remarkably little if any *peer pressure* against these things, as people in general don’t see them as unethical).

So, Mark, to answer your question: yes, I believe it is usually unethical to develop proprietary software because it almost always breaks (or forces its users to break) one or more ethical conventions governing society: either the rule of law, or the right to share ones possessions and help ones neighbours.

But don’t worry, Mark, plenty of businesses do unethical things, and plenty will continue to do so because our elected officials (the world over) don’t get this stuff either, and there’s plenty of money in their re-election funds provided by proprietary software companies to ensure things stay that way. :)

I guess, however, that a bunch of us here in NZ are running an experiment: to see whether you can actually succeed when running a business that doesn’t foist those ethical compromises on its customers. It takes a lot longer to have an impact, and it requires a lot more work (i.e. your customers have to *want* to work with you rather than feel that they have no choice but to work with you), but so far, it looks like the answer is yes.