1 / 7

EECS 690

EECS 690. Free Software 18 February 2011. The Issue:. Stallman contends that the kind of IP that software is is of most benefit to society when free from constraint in its distribution.

graiden-brady
Download Presentation

EECS 690

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EECS 690 Free Software 18 February 2011

  2. The Issue: • Stallman contends that the kind of IP that software is is of most benefit to society when free from constraint in its distribution. • The word “free” here is ambiguous. Stallman doesn’t argue that nobody should be allowed to charge for distribution of software, just that anyone should be allowed to distribute any software free of legal constraint.

  3. Virtue argument: • This argument is not clearly articulated in Stallman’s article, but it seems as if he is arguing that commercial software divides computer users from each other and inhibits community solidarity among computer users. • He must regard this solidarity as an important virtue of community life, but does not specifically advance an argument for this virtue’s value over other potential virtues.

  4. Utilitarian: • Much of Stallman’s reasoning seems to indicate a Utilitarian justification for his position against commercial software. He seems to believe that commercial software has worse consequences than FOSS (a term that didn’t exist yet when he wrote). Those consequences include: • Less creative software development • Too much money spent on one-size-fits-all software • Lack of freedom for programmers • Worse software overall

  5. The Consequences: • It is unclear given empirical study whether the consequences of commercial software have been as dire as Stallman predicted, or have even been bad at all. • However, it is also not clear whether FOSS would be better than commercial software in general. • More study is certainly warranted to try to inform the utilitarian perspective.

  6. Deontological argument • Stallman twice references something like deontological reasoning (once citing the “Golden Rule” and once referring specifically to Kantian ethics). Neither reference is explained in detail, nor can either be correctly called deontological reasoning. • Stallman comes much closer to proper deontological reasoning when using a footrace as an analogy. Since in most footraces, all players have a set of expectations for the behavior of other players, they should not violate those expectations themselves.

  7. Practical Concerns: • Stallman also refutes several reasons that software should not be freely distributed. • Advertising: Companies could place ads for software available at a price. If it works, it pays for the advertising, but those who don’t use the advertising don’t have to pay for it. • Support: If people would pay for support, then they would still pay for support of software they got for free. • Programmers’ Jobs: There is certainly still work for programmers in a FOSS regime, just different kinds of work than in commercial software. In any case, Stallman contends that people don’t have a right to a job that has destructive consequences.

More Related