Both copyrights and patents are necessary because of what it called “Intellectual Property.” “Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind: inventions; literary and artistic works; and symbols, names and images used in commerce” (WIPO – What is IP?). Different forms of protection exist for intellectual property; they include but are not limited to: patents, trademarks, industrial designs, geographical indications, and copyrights. Copyrights themselves cover “literary works (such as novels, poems and plays), films, music, artistic works (e.g., drawings, paintings, photographs and sculptures) and architectural design” (WIPO – What is IP?). Essentially, copyrights allow creators to benefit from their own creation(s).
On an intuitive moral level, granting copyrights is ethical because it appropriately gives credit where credit is due. In other words, no creator will be cheated out of benefitting from their own ideas and individuality. Economically speaking, it it is beneficial for both the creator and the party using the creation to utilize copyrights. Copyrights protect the creator financially by having those who use the creation pay the creator; this can accumulate to a large profit if the creation/idea is valuable to society! On the other hand, those who use the creation and pay the creator can also benefit financially if their skills lack what the creator is able to provide. There are also many social reasons why copyrights are beneficial. The creations that require copyrights themselves contribute to society’s culture, knowledge, and entertainment. “Giving authors, artists and creators incentives in the form of recognition and fair economic reward increases their activity and output and can also enhance the results” (WIPO – What is IP?). The copyright clause of the U.S. Constitution even strives “to promote the progress of science and useful arts” (copyright clause) in order to stimulate economic and social development. The sharing of ideas inspires, incentivizes, and improves society.
The definition of “free” versus “nonfree,” or “proprietary,” programs is based on the control of the users. When it comes to free software, the users “have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change, and improve the software” (What is free software?).
One of the most important distinctions to make is between that of free software and OSS, or open source software. Ironically, most people misinterpret the meaning of both terms. Free software is NOT software you can get for free, and open source software is does not merely imply that you can look at the source code. Free software is “software which gives the user certain freedoms” (Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software) whereas “OSS is software for which the source code is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that code” (Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software).
GPL and BSD are licensing models that hinge upon the idea of free software yet implement this in different ways. The GPL license consists of four freedoms: to run the software, to have the source code, to distribute the software, and to distribute your modifications to the software. These must be upheld before sharing the software. The BSD license, however, allows you to distribute the software without all the obligations. It therefore is more free and allows the user to establish rights with the software. Although I don’t have much experience with both of these licensing models to have a strong opinion of which is better, I believe the GPL model is more sustainable and reliable because of the restrictions it DOES have.
There is much controversy between open source software and proprietary licenses. The definition of “free” versus “nonfree,” or “proprietary,” programs is based on the control of the users. When it comes to free software, the users “have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change, and improve the software” (What is free software?). In addition to accessibility, open source software has the benefit of having more exposure to a variety of developers. “The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and redistribute the software will make it more powerful and reliable. But this is not guaranteed” (Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software). Simply because OSS has greater access and more eyes to modify and improve the code does not imply that it will be that much more reliable. Although developers of proprietary software may not respect the users’ freedom to the same degree, they are not incompetent and can still produce a program that is indeed powerful and reliable. In fact, in OSS, often “the packages form a tangled web of haphazard dependencies that results in much code duplication and waste” (A Generation Lost in the Bazaar).
Working on open-source software is a double-edged sword. Even for the developers whose code is fully accessible to big companies, often this accessibility is assumed to imply that bugs can be fixed just as easily as code is developed. This raises the question of unpaid labor in OSS. As a developer said, “some of my projects tend to only ever benefit corporations. When big companies do ‘contribute’, it’s often not in the best interest of the community, it isn’t enough, or it’s thoroughly misguided” (Corporations and OSS Do Not Mix). This reinforces the need for responsibilities on behalf of organizations and companies that utilize open source projects. To allow the OSS developers to benefit from their contributions, they should contribute to the open source community just as much as they receive. As discussed previously, the sharing of ideas inspires, incentivizes, and improves society.
Ethics & Professional Issues 