| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 to Patent Holder (Right to Create)Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 to Patent Holder (Right to Create)Posted Apr 24, 2006 15:45 UTC (Mon) by josh_stern (guest, #4868)Parent article: Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 to Patent Holder (Right to Create)
RMS has long advocated free software primarily on the grounds that software which is released with a proprietary license requires unethical and/or rude behavior from its users and treats them disrespectfully. I've never agree with him about these criteria because I believe that people can make their own decisions about whether they want to enter into a non-sharing agreement, sometimes it benefits them, and some software would never have been written in the first place without such agreements. Conversely, I believe that patents, which once granted restrict the freedom and behavior of all citizens without any explicit consent on their part, *are unethical*. At the very best they are a necessary evil (e.g. we would not have this life saving drug without the possibility of patent protection for it) and should only be granted when the benefits to greater society clearly outweight the disadvantages. I believe that much larger percentages of the voting population would agree with us on the ethical point if they actually understood what was going on with patents.
(Log in to post comments)
Write Free Software, Pay $203,000 to Patent Holder (Right to Create) Posted Apr 25, 2006 18:15 UTC (Tue) by kirkengaard (subscriber, #15022) [Link] a) secrecy may not require unethical behaviour from the inside or outside, but lack of observation does tend to encourage laxity wrt strong moral decisions inside. The proprietary software effect RMS refers to for the user, however, is a natural result of the intersection of my needs being greater than the licensor's restrictions.
It is amusing to me to note that the only times you really see theft of open-source software are when proprietary-minded companies get involved, thinking nobody can see them. OTOH, proprietary software seems to have a far greater worry-level because they fear their legitimate users. We don't have to fear our legitimate users.
b) patents, like copyrights (in this respect) are grants of exclusivity. Perhaps the capitalist system has moved away from the good this engendered, but they are designed to prevent theft and encourage developers to develop by guaranteeing them control over the outcome of their labors. This presupposes that the inventors being protected have a disadvantage in entering a given field, and attempts to correct this disadvantage. Sadly, it has become inverted such that the disadvantaged entrants to the field are blocked by, rather than enabled by, patents.
|
|
||||||||||||