Ethics of Software Ownership

[CrayZee]

So I come from a computery, mathy-type of background/education/training. I could ask elsewhere but I'd like to hear opinions of others on the ethics of software ownership.

Richard Stallman is an important figure in the software world regardless of how "wacky leftist" he may seem. However, his essay Why Software Should Be Free seems very full of personal bias (i.e., confirmation bias of behavior of individuals around him).

I know that the intellectual property debate is quite a hot topic these days...but since I'm likely headed back into software, I've been thinking about the nature of copyrights and software patents.

Unlike what some people seem to think, computer science is a mathematical discipline. And while just a modicum of mathematical skill and understanding is necessary for computer engineering, software development is inherently a mathematical application. Thus a set of computer algorithms is just a set of mathematical processes doing specific things.

So should a mathematical process be patentable? I'm beginning to lean on the side of "no, it shouldn't." BUT, I believe people should be able to copyright and own the particular instances of the software they produce, if they so choose. In other words, software should be treated more like literary work and that it's perfectly fine for individuals to make boatloads of money from it.

Stallman's perpective is that of a typical, competent programmer. (Yes, I too personally have an irrational hate of the beast from Redmond.) The closed source aspect of proprietary software is annoying at times, but it's really just a local inefficiency sort of thing. I don't believe closed source is unethical.

Isn't the whole purpose of patents to induce innovation? Well, that's what Jefferson thought. Software patents seem so counterproductive to longterm innovation.