Re: is free, open source software ethical?

On Mar 4, 10:34=A0am, Mark Tarver <dr.mtar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> A long time ago, sometime in the 70s I believe, a friend of mine used
> to work for RCA. =A0Right at that time Japan was expanding its
> electronics market in the Pacific and the Japanese were capturing the
> market from RCA by selling below cost. =A0My friend bitterly condemned
> these practices as unethical.
>
> This practice, called 'dumping', is generally condemned, and can often
> be prosecuted under law.

If you have the cash to absorb the cost of dumping, then it's fair and
square. Nobody has the right to tell you how you wish to spend your
money.

If you want to ``buy'' customers, and can afford it, you should be
able to do that. You're competing with your cash base.

You're obviously better than that other company, because you can sell
below cost for the next couple of years, and still make the payrolls,
pay the leases on capital, service debts---in short, do everything
else required to stay afloat.

It's not like you're drowning puppies, or dumping toxic waste.

Ultimately, the choice is up to the customer. It's the customer's
behavior that they want the cheapest thing. They buy it knowing that
they are undermining competition, which will reduce their choice in
the future. The undercutting company will wipe out the others and then
jack up prices. Since the consumers are willing to live with that, let
them live with it.

> In the defence of open source software, Richard Stallman was willing
> to condemn closed source software as unethical.

This is something that many other almost equally staunch supporters of
free software are not willing to do. Stallman is not representative of
everyone.

> Now here is a
> thought. =A0Is it rather *free software which is unethical* because the
> supplier is dumping a free product from the position of having a
> subsidy?

Ah, if there is a subsidy, that is unethical. That is to say, the
subsidy itself, not what you do with it. (Government) subsidy means
stealing wealth from one to give to another. Using stolen wealth for
any purpose is unethical. Instead of being used for dumping, the
subsidy money could be used for improved advertizing. That would make
the advertizer more competitive in the marketplace. Or the subsidy
money could be used for research and development, which would give the
subsidy benefactor an edge also. Or the executives could take the
money and go on luxurious vacations. All of these uses are equally
unethical since they are connected to stolen property.

> To put some flesh on the bare bones of this proposition. =A0Imagine if
> someone were to use their comfortably paid university position to
> produce, (e.g), a free GPL algebra tutor, thus putting out of business
> a struggling company trying to sell their own version. =A0Would this be
> ethical? =A0Is it not the ethical equivalent of dumping?

That depends on whether it was done while on duty. What that staff
member does with his or her evenings and weekends is his or her
business.

The unethical part is accepting a salary, which is understood to be in
exchange for your work for the university, but actually spending the
time doing your private work.

If that GPL-ed algebra tutor was developed on university time, then it
in fact belongs to the university, and not to that staff member. It's
unethical for that staff member to be releasing software which doesn't
belong to him or her.

It could be the case that he has the university's permission, even
approval, to do so. If that university is privately funded, then there
is nothing wrong. It has chosen to spend its rightfully owned money on
an employee who is mandated with the task of producing this program
and releasing it under the GPL.

If the univerity is funded by government money, well, that is theft.

Once we can can assign an unethical attribute the root node of an
economic tree, there is no point in evaluating the ethics of the child
nodes; the unethical property flows out from that root toward the
leaves. Stolen money taints all derived transactions.