Ethics of Software Ownership

CrayZee · #1 07-11-2007, 04:38 PM

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.

Phil153 · #2 07-11-2007, 04:49 PM

Software isn't math. It's a craft. You get a bunch of features you'd like to implement that solve some real world problem, then use a set of tools to build them. Maybe if you're writing compilers you could call it math-like, but if regular software is math then writing a non-fiction book is math too.

As for IP, I'm a believer that a man deserves the fruits of his labor, and I don't see any way to do that without IP laws. Smart, inventive people should have protection against being preyed upon by opportunists and thieves. One is rare, and the other is extremely common.

Whether or not patents hurt or help knowledge and technology is an interesting question. I don't have an opinion but I'd like to hear the discussion.

CrayZee · #3 07-11-2007, 05:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Software isn't math. It's a craft. You get a bunch of features you'd like to implement that solve some real world problem, then use a set of tools to build them. Maybe if you're writing compilers you could call it math-like, but if regular software is math then writing a non-fiction book is math too.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I'm struggling with mostly, I think. It would be good to know that my logic is flawed.

[ QUOTE ]

As for IP, I'm a believer that a man deserves the fruits of his labor, and I don't see any way to do that without IP laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, me too.

GoodCallYouWin · #4 07-12-2007, 07:41 AM

http://watchthis.zakyoung.com/index....&Itemid=13

This lecture, by one of the inventor of GNU technology, explains why software patents are the devil and why coypwrites are good to preserve the fruits of their labour. Patents on software suck.

kerowo · #5 07-12-2007, 08:14 AM

I've been a developer for 10 years or so in corporate America and there is very little math involved in any of the software I've written or supported and what math there was was figured out by someone else before the specs got to me. That's not to say there isn't math in any software or that high level comp sci isn't math heavy, just that what most day to day developers are doing isn't very math.

I don't care for the whole "information should be free" camp because most of the people I see shouting for it use it to rationalize pirating songs or expensive software they don't want to buy. If it was easily determined what was under patent and wasn't I would have less problem with a software patents, stealth patents kept just to sue someone later on feel slimey. Also, does anyone know if the patent is on the source code or object code? It seems likely that some patents can be coded around in a different way but would end up getting compiled to the same code, although on second thought that would have to be a pretty minor change for that to happen.

GoodCallYouWin · #6 07-12-2007, 08:18 AM

"Also, does anyone know if the patent is on the source code or object code? "

Neither, it extends to the technology; so if you patent say a method of say compression, you can prevent anyone from using that that method of invention. It is not neccessary to INVENT this technology, you simply have to patent it; if someone else was using this technology before, too bad so sad.

Ohgod · #7 07-12-2007, 10:28 AM

Isn't 'prior art' supposed to invalidate a patent though? Although given how screwed up the laws on software patents seem to be, I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't...

m_the0ry · #8 07-12-2007, 12:21 PM

There is a constantly expanding library of software under the GNU license, functionally equivalent or superior to any proprietary source software you can name. The only reason this software hasn't made its way onto your PC or into your workplace is because someone somewhere has patented a file format or industry standard algorithm that forces licensing on programmers, no matter how ambitious, prodigious or generous they are. These programmers write this software for free. They do this because there is still a demand for experts on the implementation of the software, this demand offers monetary compensation, and because they love to program.

Patents are intended to stimulate invention. Software patents do the exact opposite. This is the only argument needed against software patents.

Phil153 · #9 07-12-2007, 01:36 PM

I agree with you about software patents. But not copyrights.

GNU licenses are communistic [censored] which harm software development immensely, and if I was Bill Gates I'd pay a team of programmers to implement all the current GNU programs and release them as free, open source.

I'm actually surprised you're for GNU licensing.

GoodCallYouWin · #10 07-12-2007, 01:39 PM

Wow! You're against the GNU project? Who would possibly oppose people giving stuff away for free, that they made, instead of charging people for it? Communism is government control of the means to production; this is individuals choosing to donate the product of their labour so anyone can use it. That's like saying "good will is communism" when actually it's charity...