Re: is free, open source software ethical?

On Mar 4, 12:00=A0pm, Kaz Kylheku <kkylh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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.

This is a very interesting post and I agree with almost everything.

I think that there is at least one exception to the dumping rule,
though.

If I am in an economic position to destroy all of my opponents, with
an *intention* to corner the market and raise my prices later, then I
may have committed a crime.

Somehow, the gas wars of the 1970's in the US were legal (e.g. large
oil companies would sell their gas at 8 or 10 cents per gallon for a
few months until the independent companies went under, and as soon as
all of the independents folded, the prices shot up to above where they
were before. -- That was apparently legal since nothing was done about
it, but I am not sure that it should have been).  At any rate, if you
are in a position of power, and the temporary benefit you provide is
intended to cause harm to your opponents and eventually the customers
also suffer, then it is illegal (or perhaps it should be if is
isn't).  See (for instance):
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/predatorydumping.asp