Abstract
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
andersa. Comment 673. (2007). Too wide and unclear scope. Retrieved October 11, 2007, from http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?id=673.
Brandle, L. (2006, January 20). Waits wins Spanish appeal on ad sound-alike case. Retrieved October 26, 2007, from http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001882361.
Browne, C. B. (2007). X11R6.4 sample implementation changes and concerns. Retrieved November 8, 2007, from http://cbbrowne.com/info/x11r6.4.html.
Chopra, S., & Dexter, S. (2005, July). A comparative ethical assessment of free software licensing schemes. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of Computer Ethics: Philosophical Enquiry (CEPE2005). Enschede, The Netherlands.
Chopra, S., & Dexter, S. D. (2007). Decoding liberation: The promise of free and open source software. NewYork: Routledge.
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (1995). On being a scientist: Responsible conduct in research (pp. 20–21). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Couldry, N. (2003). Digital divide or discursive design? On the emerging ethics of information space. Ethics and Information Technology, 5(2), 89–97.
Debian. (2007). The Debian free software guidelines. Retrieved November 15, 2007, from http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines.
Dryzek, J. (1990). Deliberative democracy: Politics, policy, and political science. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.
Einstein, A. (1973). A message to intellectuals in Ideas and opinions (p. 148). London: Souvenir Press.
Felten, E. W. (2003). A skeptical view of DRM and fair use. Communications of the ACM, 46(4), 56–61.
franks. Comment 1565. (2007). Should be made clearer. Retrieved October 11, 2007, from http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?filename=gplv3-draft-2&id=1565.
Free Software Foundation. (2007). Busting GPLv3 FUD. Retrieved November 10, 2007, from http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2007-10-18-gplv3-fud.
Free Software Foundation. (2007). Free software definition. Retrieved October 28, 2007, from http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html.
Free Software Foundation. (2007). GNU General Public License, version 3. Retrieved October 10, 2007, from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html.
Free Software Foundation. (2007). GNU General Public License, Discussion Draft 1of version 3. Retrieved October 10, 2007, from http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gplv3-draft-1.html.
Free Software Foundation. (2007). GNU General Public License, Discussion Draft 2 of version 3. Retrieved October 10, 2007, from http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gplv3-draft-2.html.
Free Software Foundation. (2007). GNU General Public License, Discussion Draft 3 of version 3. Retrieved October 10, 2007, http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gplv3-draft-3.html.
Free Software Foundation. (2007). HESSLA’s Problems. Retrieved November 1, 2007, from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/hessla.html.
Free Software Foundation. (2007). What is Copyleft? Retrieved October 20, 2007, from http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/.
frx. Comment 697. (2007). A hammer with a notice stating ‹you cannot use me to break people’s heads’. Retrieved October 11, 2007, from http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?filename=gplv3-draft-1&id=697.
Hacktivismo (2007). The Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License Agreement. Retrieved November 1, 2007, from http://www.hacktivismo.com/about/hessla.php.
jacobo. Comment 349. (2007). Restriction on use. Retrieved October 11, 2007, from http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?filename=gplv3-draft-1&id=349.
kop. Comment 236 (2007). Privacy is outside the scope of the 4 freedoms. Retrieved October 11, 2007, from http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?filename=gplv3-draft-1&id=236.
Lessig, L. (2004). Free culture: How big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity. NewYork: Penguin Books.
Levy, S. (1984). Hackers: Heroes of the computer revolution (pp. 40–45). NewYork: Penguin.
Longino, H. (1990). Science and social knowledge: Value and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
McGee, G. (Ed.). (2000). The human cloning debate. Berkeley: Berkeley Hill Books.
Nisbet, M. C., Brossard, D., & Kroepsch, A. (2003). Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8(2), 36–70.
Open Source Initiative. (2007). The open source definition (Annotated). Retrieved November 15, 2007, from http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php.
Parry, S. (2003). The politics of cloning: Mapping the rhetorical convergence of embryos and stem cells in parliamentary debates. New Genetics and Society, 22(2), 145–168.
Perens, B. (1999). The open source definition. In C. DiBona, S. Ockman, & M. Stone (Eds.), Open sources: Voices from the open source revolution. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media. Retrieved November 6, 2007, from http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/perens.html.
Plaisance, P. L. (2005). The mass media as discursive network: Building on the implications of libertarian and communitarian claims for news media ethics theory. Communication Theory, 15(3), 292–313.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
rlschmei. Comment 1724. (2007). What if it is not the mode of conveying that denies exercise. Retrieved October 11, 2007, from http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?filename=gplv3-draft-2&id=1724.
robmyers. Comment 2214. (2007). DRM. Retrieved October 11, 2007, from http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?filename=gplv3-draft-2&id=2214.
Rosenblatt, B. (2009). Moral rights basics. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html.
Rutherford, J. C. (2007). A brief biography. Retrieved November 8, 2007, from http://www.rutherford.org.nz/biography.htm.
Sidgwick, H. (1981). The methods of ethics (7th ed.). London: Hackett Publishing Company.
Slote, M. (1992). From morality to virtue. USA: Oxford University Press.
St. Laurent, A. M. (2004). Understanding open source & free software licensing (p. 10). Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
Stallman, R. M. (2007). Initial announcement. Retrieved October 6, 2007, from http://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html.
Stallman, R. M. (2007). The X Window System Trap. Retrieved November 8, 2007 from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/x.html.
Strathern, A. (2002). Can musicians stop political parties ‹spinning’ their discs? Retrieved October 18, 2007, from http://www.andersonstrathern.co.uk/knowledge/media_area/?content_id=585.
The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics. (2007). The “Political Science” of stem cells. Retrieved on November 23, 2007, from http://www.stemcellresearch.org/polisci/index.html.
The Open Group. (2007). Home page. Retrieved November 8, 2007, from http://www.opengroup.org/.
US Code. (2007). Title 17, Sect. 106A. Retrieved November 12, 2007, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000106-A000-.html.
Yoder, M. (2007). X11 non open-source? Retrieved November 8, 2007, from http://archives.seul.org/seul/leaders/Apr-1998/msg00022.html.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This paper draws on material originally published in Chap. 2 of Chopra and Dexter (2007).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chopra, S., Dexter, S. The freedoms of software and its ethical uses. Ethics Inf Technol 11, 287 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-009-9191-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-009-9191-0