The “free” in “free software” refers to a cluster of four specific freedoms identified by the Free Software Definition. The first freedom, termed “Freedom Zero,” intends to protect the right of the user to deploy software in whatever fashion, towards whatever end, he or she sees fit. But software may be used to achieve ethically questionable ends. This highlights a tension in the provision of software freedoms: while the definition explicitly forbids direct restrictions on users’ freedoms, it does not address (...) other means by which software may indirectly restrict freedoms. In particular, ethically-inflected debate has featured prominently in the discussion of restrictions on digital rights management and privacy-violating code in version 3 of the GPL (GPLv3). The discussion of this proposed language revealed the spectrum of ethical positions and valuations held by members of the free software community. In our analysis, we will provide arguments for upholding Freedom Zero; we embed the problem of possible uses of software in the broader context of the uses of scientific knowledge, and go on to argue that the provision of Freedom Zero mitigates against too great a moral burden—of anticipating possible uses of software—being placed on the programmer and that, most importantly, it facilitates deliberative discourse in the free software community. (shrink)

PurposeThe purpose is to study Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations theory in a real‐life context, where it is exposed to the full range of complexities of people residing in a specific area and to briefly describe basically non‐work information needs and sources selected to access it.Design/methodology/approachThe relationships between personality and communication behaviour, socio‐economic characteristics and internet adoption, based on Rogers' theory are investigated.FindingsResults from 150 households suggest younger people and individuals with more formal education have increased information needs and are more (...) familiar with computer and internet usage. A positive association between educational level and innovation adoption, and between the latter and attitude toward science and change, is indicated.Research limitations/implicationsResearch is limited to Xanthi's Old Town. The quantitative methodology utilised does not allow for in‐depth analysis of information behaviour and internet adoption patterns. Measures to assess personality and communication behaviour variables developed need to be further validated. Finally, the research does not examine other variables and the distinction between voluntary and mandatory adoption.Practical implicationsResults suggest benefits of information technology should be advertised through earlier adopters.Originality/valueResearch shows level of internet exposure and practically explores technology usage levels in relation to socio‐economic, personality and communication behaviour variables. The sample offers a detailed examination of internet usage and information needs of individuals residing in a specific area. (shrink)

The digital divide refers to inequalities in access to information technology. One of the main reasons why the digital divide is an important issue is that access to information technology has a tremendous impact on people's ability to acquire knowledge. According to Alvin Goldman (1999), the project of social epistemology is to identify policies and practices that have good epistemic consequences. In this paper, I argue that this sort of approach to social epistemology can help us to decide on policies (...) for dealing with the digital divide. I argue, however, that Goldman's specific proposals for evaluating policies are not adequate. I make an alternative proposal based on the work of John Rawls (1971) on distributive justice. (shrink)