Free Software

• Free software was pioneered by Richard Stallman, developer of the GNU Project, the first totally free operating system.
• GNU = GNU's Not Unix (recursive acronym)
• Stallman was a researcher at MIT who was dismayed at the ways license-holders managed to control and limit the way users did their computing.

Free Software

• Realizing one's full potential in modern society requires using computer software.
• But who really controls the software on your computer?
• Two possibilities:
  • Users control the software
  • The software controls the users

Free Software

Proprietary Software

• With proprietary software, Stallman claims, the software controls the users.
• Why is this so? Is it true?

Free Software

Proprietary Software

• Users can't really know what the program is doing.
• Often involves malicious functionality like collecting user data.
• If the user does not like what the software is doing, no way to change it.

Free Software

Proprietary Software

• Isn't the same thing true when I buy a car?
  • I don't really know what the car is doing.
  • Maybe the car does things I don't particularly like.
  • I can't really change the car even if I wanted to.
• Do these facts inhibit my freedom when I purchase a car?

Free Software

The Four Essential Freedoms

Free software is software that respects the user's freedom.

0. The freedom to run the program however you see fit.

1. The freedom to study and change the source code. (Hence, source code must be available.)

2. The freedom to redistribute exact copies.

3. The freedom to distribute modified copies.

Free Software

The Four Essential Freedoms

How do the four freedoms protect the user's overall freedom?

• The only way to know what the program is doing is if you can review the source code.
• If the program doesn't do what I want / does something I don't want, I can change it to make it better.
• If I'm not technically equipped to study or change the code, I can cooperate with people who can.

Free Software

The Four Essential Freedoms

• As Stallman notes, free software is also key to all modern cryptography.
• Cryptosystems are considered secure because they are made public and endure rigorous testing from many different computer scientists and mathematicians.
• The alternative is: "Trust me, it's secure."

Open Source Software

• Developers realized that it was hard to get monetary support for developing "free software."
• So, in order to "rebrand" the free software movement in a more investor-friendly way, some people began to promote "open source software."
• One of the leaders of OSS - Linus Torvalds, developer of Linux and collaborator with Stallman.

Open Source Software

• What is the difference between free software and open source software?
• Free software and open source software are essentially the same thing in practice, but they represent different ideologies.

Open Source Software

Open Source Software

• OSS: You should make the source code available because Open Source Software leads to a better outcome.
• OSS projects may be worked on and improved by anyone, not just the license-holders.
• This promotes cooperation, creativity, and innovation.

Open Source Software

Linus's Law

• "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"
  or...
• "Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix will be obvious to someone."

Open Source Software

Free Software

• You should make the source code available because proprietary software is an injustice.
• Attempting to restrict human freedom is unjust (domination).
• Proprietary software restricts users' freedom.
• Therefore, proprietary software is unjust.

Open Source Software

Free Software

• Open Source Software is based on a design principle (OSS produces better code, in the end)
• Free software is based on ethical principles (proprietary software is unjust, period).

Open Source Software

"Free" vs. "Open Source"

• It's worth noting that "free software" and "open source software" both suffer from branding issues.
• "Free software" suggests "free of charge" when really it means "respecting users' freedom."
• "Open source software" suggests simply that the source code is visible - but Open Source Software means more than that!

FLOSS

• Let's think about the F/L vs OSS debate from the standpoint of utilitarianism and Kantian ethics.

FLOSS

• OSS embodies a utilitarian argument for making source code available.
  • It tends to produce better software as a result.
• Free software embodies a Kantian argument for open source code:
  • Human freedom / autonomy is a basic ethical good which must be respected, even if it means sacrificing convenience/pleasure.

FLOSS

• OSS embodies a utilitarian argument for making source code available.
  • It tends to produce better software as a result.
• Free software embodies a Kantian argument for open source code:
  • Human freedom / autonomy is a basic ethical good which must be respected, even if it means sacrificing convenience/pleasure.

Intellectual Property

Arguments for granting IP rights

• Rule-utilitarian incentives-based argument:
  • Granting IP rights to creators allows them to profit off their works.
  • This provides an incentive (motivation) for creators to make more works.
  • Hence, granting IP rights will increase the amount of creative works, which will benefit society.

Intellectual Property

Arguments for granting IP rights

• What are some problems with this argument?

1. It isn't clear that current IP law really does promote creative endeavor.
   - It grants virtually permanent rights to license-holders, which typically aren't even the creators.
2. Internal incentives are more effective than external incentives.

Intellectual Property

Arguments for granting IP rights

• Locke's argument:

1. People have a (defeasible) right of ownership over the fruits of their labor
2. If someone has a defeasible right to do X, and it doesn't make anyone else worse off, they should be able to do X ("No Harm, No Foul" Principle)
3. The right mentioned in (1) obeys the NHNF Principle in (2).
4. Therefore, we should grant creators property rights over the fruits of their labor.

Intellectual Property

Arguments for granting IP rights

Locke's argument:

• ​TLDR: If I create something that doesn't deprive others of anything, I should be able to control that creation.
• Even if it's selfish of me to demand profit and restrict distribution, so what? No one was made worse off by my creating this thing, so why should I be forced to share my creation just because it would be nice?

Intellectual Property

Arguments for granting IP rights

Locke's argument:

• Locke's argument is also based on rights, but it focuses on the rights of the creators, and not the consumers.

Intellectual Property

Arguments for granting IP rights

• Which argument is supported by the U.S. Constitution?
  "The Congress shall have Power To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" (Article 1, Section 8)
• The Constitution offers a utilitarian argument in defense of IP rights.
• However, current IP law does not serve this purpose.

Four Critiques

1. Stallman promotes lifestyle-ism

• Lifestyle-ism: "the belief that changes in one's own personal preferences are the beginning and end of political action."
• Stallman advocates a lifestyle devoid of proprietary software.
• But is this really the most practical means to social change?

Four Critiques

1. Stallman promotes lifestyle-ism

• Lifestyle-ism promotes individualism - users are enslaved because they choose to be enslaved, so they should just choose a different lifestyle.
• Corazza claims that free software should be seen as one part of the struggle for a free society.

Four Critiques

3. We shouldn't "fetishize" freedom

• Freedom is not the only good thing in the world
• We should understand why it's good, rather than be dogmatically devoted to it

Four Critiques

3. We shouldn't "fetishize" freedom

• Why is freedom good?
• Domination can hinder the satisfaction of our desires.
• Domination can hinder the proper development of our desires.
• We don't really know what's ultimately best for people, but without freedom, we can never explore it.
• Freedom allows for the natural development of our talents

Four Critiques

4. What about the freedom to make oneself unfree?

• Stallman thinks that all proprietary software is an injustice. But what if someone wants to give up their freedom in order to receive the benefits of proprietary software?
• Example: some people enjoy being "unfree" (ex. BDSM)
• Some people choose to forfeit their freedoms and follow a master (religion, athletics, marriage)

Four Critiques

4. What about the freedom to make oneself unfree?

• The deeper question:
  In a free society, should we allow people to voluntarily forfeit their freedom in order to receive some benefit?