License to Copy

Up until very recently, I found the licenses under which programs are distributed to be very boring. Similarly, when I installed software on my computer I clicked the ‘I agree’ button without reading through them carefully, as I know I’m not planning on doing anything that anyone would mind me doing with it. Consequently, I think it is quite weird that the thing that has caught my interest above everything else in the discussion about free software is the various licenses.

From what I understand by what I’ve read about the various licenses is that the default one is the copyright. Basically, when you write code and state that it is copyrighted, no one but you may copy the code or make money from it.

Free software can either be copyleft or copycenter, both wordplays on copyright. Both kinds of licenses grant the right to modify and redistribute software. The difference between these is that modified copyleft software must continue to be copyleft, meaning that no following modifications may become proprietary. Copycenter software does not have that restriction. A famous example of a copyleft license is the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL), whereas Berkely Software Distribution (BSD) licenses are permissive (modifications may become proprietary should the modifier want to) and copycenter.

I can very well understand the need for copyright, as it’s an incentive to write code that you can earn money from. If no one may copy your code it might be easier for the people who want to use your program to buy it from you than to make their own version. If the program is copyleft, it might not be freeware, but it will be much easier to make your own version of it.

The copyleft alternative is an even better alternative, in many cases, as it gives people the right to help make software better. What I can’t understand is why a programmer should wish to use a copycenter, permissive license. If the programmer likes free software enough to decide to distribute her code freely, why would she decide to let other people make money from it? Of course, businesses like Microsoft or Apple will be thrilled to be able to use free code and turn it proprietary, but why let them?

The only answer I can find to that is that writing code and seeing others use it, even if the others make money from it, may feel like a big enough accomplishment. However, it does feel like a sucker’s payoff.

Paranoid Programmeroid

I think free software is great. I mean, really great. People ‘working together’ to build helpful applications is, naturally, generally a very good thing. But there some small drawbacks and even some scary parts.

The first thing is a matter of feeling ‘this is my code’. In most (if not all) licenses for free software, a central part is that you need to include the name of the author of the code you borrowed from. But that can be easily bypassed if you want to; if you just alter the code sufficiently and hope no one will read your code carefully enough to recognize its similarities with that of another programmer. The free software licenses to some extent depend on trust, and it’s not always easy to trust people you don’t know.

To look at this from a slightly different angle, if you steal the free software code from another programmer you could simply modify the code to make it look different from some free software, take it off the free software license and sell it for money. No one will have the right to look into your program to notice that you are basing your program on someone else’s code. I have no idea if this is something that happens, or happens enough to make it a big problem, but it feels like it’s very possible. Also, I don’t know if any free software license organization has lawyers employed who could help people who feel like they have been stolen from. It could be an interesting idea, if the funding was available.

Another thing is that someone could deliberately sabotage code, opening security gaps in it to be exploited at a later time, or installing spyware at the same time as the ‘benevolent’ code. Of course, this is very possible also in software that isn’t free. It’s probably also less likely to be the case with free software as other users may have read through the code and found weird parts of it. Why I added the thought here is that it anyone can use your code for whatever, you have no control over its final destination. Sort of along the lines of how a clock is innocent until it’s the timer of a bomb.

However, the problems I have listed here are more paranoid than valid. Free software is still a good thing, and these points don’t really take anything away from that. In my next entry, however, I will explore some more valid issues with free software.

It's Never Too Late For Pirate Comics

I should have posted this last week to fit the theme, maybe, but better late than never.

BBC = Bye Bye Commercial?

It's quite interstesting to see that BBC reasons that development of open source software is a part of Public Service.

Free as an Ogg

A week ago, the FSF (Free Software Foundation) launched a campaign called 'Play Ogg', to get people to use the 'ethically, legally and technically superior audio alternative to the proprietary MP3 format'. I must say I had no idea that the mp3 file format was patented.

You Don't Own It

The first kind of file sharing I think about when hearing the term is the one where people share music with others. That was the first file sharing I came across, in the form of Napster. A friend of mine was studying at the university, and had a very good internet connection. Someone had told her about Napster, a program which she had promptly downloaded.

When I got home I downloaded Napster. The program wasn’t working nearly as well on my 56k modem, and it took me about 15 minutes to download a song. In addition, I could only fit about 20 songs on my hard drive before having to get rid of one if I wanted to download another. I didn’t really think there was anything wrong with that, it more or less worked as any other demo.

Then Napster was shut down and I heard about Audiogalaxy, a similar program (although web based) that I used for a while. When Napster was shut down I thought a bit about the ethics surrounding downloaded copyrighted material. The practice, as I was told, was still legal in Sweden as long as you didn’t upload anything. So that’s what I did. The downloading I defended morally by it being so few songs, that I would buy the ones I really liked (an argument that many still use), and that most of the songs I downloaded like that were so rare that I wouldn’t be able to buy them in the stores in Sweden.

Since then, I have a much upgraded hard drive and internet connection. I can easily store all the music that I want on my hard drive, and as long as I can find someone who has it, I can download it in about five seconds.

How has that changed my thoughts about the matter?

I have a much harder time justifying downloading copyrighted material now than before. The argument that it’s ok to download songs that are so rare that you can’t find them anywhere, might still be reasonable. But the fact is that the legal alternative places to download music have grown so big now that you should be able to find most songs you could ever want there.

Personally, illegal file sharing hasn’t changed the numbers of CD’s I buy. I get the ones I really like, which is a maximum of three or four in a year. I didn’t buy more before that, and then music was way more important to me. I would never download a whole CD only to burn in onto a CD-ROM with printed sleeves from the actual cover.

But even so, the arguments against file sharing weigh heavier for me now. Well, actually I’m not even sure if it’s even worth arguing about. There’s really no twisting and turning, I just find it wrong.

The recording companies who own the songs have the right to ask for as little or as much as they want to. They may be greedy bastards, but that doesn’t change anything. I can decide that the music isn’t worth as much as they ask, but how on earth can I just say “nah, too expensive, I’ll go steal the song instead”? I don’t have any right to the songs unless I pay for them. Want it? Buy it. It’s really as simple as that.

You're the Song That I Want

I simply have to show a strip of the comic Zitz, found on another blog about ethics, I think it really portrays the discussions going on in many households regarding file sharing. At least it feels very familiar to me!