Hi,
In Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there is stated
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. http://reactor-core.org/universal-human-rights.html
How does this affect the FSF's viewpoint that writing proprietary software is immoral?
Wouter Vanden Hove http://www.opencursus.be http://www.open-education.org
Wouter Vanden Hove wouter.vanden.hove@pandora.be wrote:
How does this affect the FSF's viewpoint that writing proprietary software is immoral?
I suspect "not at all" is the answer. A right to "protection of moral interests" makes no claims about the morality of using protection laws to reserve *all* rights. It just says that protection should be possible for what are called "moral rights".
I hope that helps.
On Thu, 2003-06-05 at 03:54, Wouter Vanden Hove wrote:
Hi,
In Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there is stated
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. http://reactor-core.org/universal-human-rights.html
How does this affect the FSF's viewpoint that writing proprietary software is immoral?
I'm not an FSF or FSFE member, but I would like to say a few words to this provocation.
1. I don't think FSF have ever stated that proprietary software is immoral. First of all, as software is an object not an action I hardly see how it can be itself immoral.
2. The way many proprietary software companies behave may be seen as immoral to some degree, as they put on you exaggerated limitations like forbidding you to help a friend, fix bugs in software you have paid for, be free to use the software for whatever are your needs.
You reported point 2 but if you look at point 1 of artcile 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it say: "Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits"
Free Software among other things give you 2 things fundamental things needed to fulfill this right in the field of software.
1. Freedom to study the code 2. Freedom to modify the code and redistribute it
Point 1 fulfill the "Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community" part of point 1 of article 27. Point 2 is fulfill the "to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits" part of point 2 of article 27.
To both source code is a prerequisite and the freedom given by free software a necessity to respect point 1.
Proprietary software do not permit you neither to study nor to modify the software to grow in scientific advancement.
Just not to forgot article 2, Free Software is perfectly OK with it. Both Copyleft and non copyleft Free Software, strongly preserve moral rights, and let the author choose how to "protect" their material interest.
Hope this clarifies a bit what I think are key point benefits of Free Software.
Simo Sorce.
Am Donnerstag, dem 05. Jun 2003 schrieb Simo Sorce:
- I don't think FSF have ever stated that proprietary software is
immoral.
From the GPL-FAQ:
| To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted, but legally | there is no obstacle to your doing this. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF
You have to distinguish between personal views and the law or constitution.
Free Software is a personal view of this community, and so is the question about the moral.
A law has to give much wider borders, in which more than just one personal view can exist. Personal views are mostly always narrower.
Nobody wants to turn Free Software into a common law!
On Thu, 2003-06-05 at 13:47, Andreas K. Foerster wrote:
Am Donnerstag, dem 05. Jun 2003 schrieb Simo Sorce:
- I don't think FSF have ever stated that proprietary software is
immoral.
From the GPL-FAQ:
| To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted, but legally | there is no obstacle to your doing this. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF
if (equally tainted == immoral) return True;
Nobody wants to turn Free Software into a common law!
I'm not so sure, that nobody wants it, personally I don't care, I care only if Free Software gets legally outlawed, as DMCA/EUCD and software patents proponents are trying to do.
Simo.
On Thu, 2003-06-05 at 14:06, Simo Sorce wrote:
if (equally tainted == immoral) return True;
sorry:
diff -u - if (equally tainted == immoral) + if (ethically tainted == immoral)
Simo.
On Thu, 2003-06-05 at 01:54, Wouter Vanden Hove wrote:
In Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there is stated (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. http://reactor-core.org/universal-human-rights.html
How does this affect the FSF's viewpoint that writing proprietary software is immoral?
Hello,
I can't speak for the FSF, but I can give you my insight on this subject.
You should have noticed that the Universal Human Rights are not just _one_ article. If one opinion clashes with one right, but the other clashes with many more, which one is more just?
Please read on... I know it's long, but not at all uninteresting, I hope.
Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
How is writing non-free computer programs morally compatible with the spirit of brotherhood?
Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
How is selling abusingly expensive non-free computer programs morally compatible with not making a distinction on whether you have enough property ($)? Copying a computer program costs "zero", unlike copying a car which needs factories.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
How are non-free software licenses that exclude some countries from running a program compatible with not excluding someone based on the international status of a country or territory s/he lives in?
Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
How are non-free software licenses, that remove freedom you normally have under international Copyright law, compatible with everyone's right to liberty?
Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
How are licenses like Sun's and IBM's jvm license, which will be able to revoke your right to that copy if you have a judicial disagreement with them, compatible with not being held in servitude?
Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
How is the massive propaganda, calling people who copy computer programs "pirates", "terrorists" et all compatible with not being subject to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment?
Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 11. (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
How are "software raids", where you have to prove your innocence of illegal copying accusations, compatible with all being equal before the law, which presumes you're innocent until proved guilty?
Consider David LaMacchia or Jon Johansson, for instance.
Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
How are software patents compatible with the right to freedom of thought?
Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
How is Microsoft Frontpage's license compatible with the right to freedom of opinion?
Article 21. (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
How can there be equal access to public service when many of them demand that you use non free computer programs (like Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Internet Explorer) without any technical justification other than incompetence or unrighteous influence?
Article 26. (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
How are software licenses that eventually teach your children that it is bad to help their friends because you have to obey the owner a contribute to the strengthening respect for human rights?
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27. (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
How can one freely participate in the cultural life of the community, and enjoy and share both its scientific advancement and benefits if most software licenses will last until they will probably be already dead and buried by the time it becomes public domain?
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Ah, this one could be yours..., but you'll have to explain where Free Software does not depend on it too. If it wasn't for it's dependence on Copyright covering software, others would surely exploit and abuse one's material interests...
Article 28. Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
DMCA, EUCD, software patents, increasing penalties for copyright and patent infringement, etc... etc... the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration are increasingly hard to be fully realised.
Article 29. (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
The principle of your freedom to stretch your arm ends where my freedom to keep my nose intact begins.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
And finally, for the coup-fatale, your theory would fail because it would engage in acts aimed at the destruction of some rights and freedoms set forth herein.
I hope you had the patience to read this lengthy email :)
Yours, Rui