See also:
Profile: David M. Douglas (University of Twente)
  1.  22
    David M. Douglas (2011). The Social Disutility of Software Ownership. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (3):485-502.
    Software ownership allows the owner to restrict the distribution of software and to prevent others from reading the software’s source code and building upon it. However, free software is released to users under software licenses that give them the right to read the source code, modify it, reuse it, and distribute the software to others. Proponents of free software such as Richard M. Stallman and Eben Moglen argue that the social disutility of software ownership is a sufficient justification for prohibiting (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  2.  26
    David M. Douglas (2011). A Bundle of Software Rights and Duties. Ethics and Information Technology 13 (3):185-197.
    Like the ownership of physical property, the issues computer software ownership raises can be understood as concerns over how various rights and duties over software are shared between owners and users. The powers of software owners are defined in software licenses, the legal agreements defining what users can and cannot do with a particular program. To help clarify how these licenses permit and restrict users’ actions, here I present a conceptual framework of software rights and duties that is inspired by (...)
    Direct download (12 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography  
  3. David M. Douglas (2015). Towards a Just and Fair Internet: Applying Rawls’ Principles of Justice to Internet Regulation. Ethics and Information Technology 17 (1):57-64.
    I suggest that the social justice issues raised by Internet regulation can be exposed and examined by using a methodology adapted from that described by John Rawls in 'A Theory of Justice'. Rawls' theory uses the hypothetical scenario of people deliberating about the justice of social institutions from the 'original position' as a method of removing bias in decision-making about justice. The original position imposes a 'veil of ignorance' that hides the particular circumstances of individuals from them so (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography