| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Ethical issueEthical issuePosted May 5, 2009 20:41 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510)In reply to: Ethical issue by martinfick Parent article: Mozilla ponders policy change after Firefox extension battle (ars technica) "Free" very often comes with all manner of caveats and assumptions. For example our Free Software licenses. Most of them do not grant all rights, and many do establish a quid pro quo. The federal appeal in Jacobsen v. Katzer made that clear. The charitable arts foundation may hold free concerts in the name of promoting music appreciation. If you come there to set up a hot-dog stand or walk around with a sign board, they will be within their rights to escort you off of the venue. The retail store is not a charitable operation. Nor are most web sites that serve advertising. And they have the right to make even more assumptions about your presence as a customer or as a passive consumer of advertising.
(Log in to post comments)
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 20:59 UTC (Tue) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]
If you are referring to the common saying "the GPL says, if you modify the code you must contribute back..." it is, of course, false, the GPL does not say this. There is no quid-pro-quo in the GPL, which is exactly why it is a free(libre) license, it is also free of guilt such as shareware guilt.
I was not referring to a charitable arts foundation or anything like that, but rather to the free concerts that are hosted in many towns that are funded directly by the local vendors. And, I didn't think that you were talking about the right to post your own adds on someone else site, were we? And, of course, the web site has the right to kick me off, but that still does not make me ethically obliged to read their adds. The only way I would be obliged is if I explicitly agree to the obligation.
You keep throwing around the term quid-pro-quo. Perhaps you should lookup the wikipedia article about it and reference the section on prostitution. Do you think because you buy me dinner I should sleep with you? ;) (I am sorry for the base example, but it is from the wikipedia article on this subject.) No agreement, no obligation. If you tire of one sided giving, stop giving.
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 21:18 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] It says if you distribute the modification you must distribute the source to the modification under the same rights as the original program. That is indeed a quid-pro-quo.I think you are still treating the offering of a web site as an act of charity. Generally, it is not.
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 21:31 UTC (Tue) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] It says if you distribute the modification you must distribute the source to the modification under the same rights as the original program. That is indeed a quid-pro-quo. No, it is not, you should know better. The changes only have go to the person receiving the binary, not to the person providing you the source in the first place. I think you are still treating the offering of a web site as an act of charity. Generally, it is not. Yes, unless the terms of usage explicitly say differently, it is, at least as much as the corporate sponsored concert in the park is (or, if you prefer, on their corporate front lawn)!!
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 22:38 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] The changes only have go to the person receiving the binary, not to the person providing you the source in the first place. There are three ways you can fulfill the GPL. 3(a) says you distribute the source along with the binary. In this case all parties that get the source can further distribute it all they want. This has not, in general, kept such modifications from the public. 3(b) says you have to give the source to anyone who requests it, whether they got the binary or not. 3(c) assumes that you made no modification, so doesn't apply.
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 22:59 UTC (Tue) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]
Yes, but since you can ethically (guilt-free) chose to not take action to return it to the original source, there is no quid-pro-quo. The fact that it may end up there by someone else's charity is irrelevant.
Ethical issue Posted May 5, 2009 23:14 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Actually, compliance with the license is the quid-pro-quo. You are granted the right to redistribute and modify in exchange for complying with all of the terms of the license. The fact that the source code distribution terms are selective in who is distributed to is not relevant, once you comply with the license terms the original author's interest is satisfied.
|
|
||||||||||||