Archive for the ‘Philosophy, Ethics and Theology’ Category

« Older Entries

Balancing the Costs and Benefits of Commercial and Open Source Software

Thursday, August 18th, 2011

I recently ran across this 3D artist’s perceptions about moving from commercial to free, open source software.  I appreciated what I believe to be an objective analysis of the costs and benefits of commercial and open source software.  Sure, the commercial software has some nice features that you’ll have to live without…but do those really affect your artistic expression?  Probably not.  How much do you gain by moving to free, open source alternatives like the time you gain for artistic work when you don’t have to analyze the financial costs of upgrades, plugins and other up-sells that keep subtracting from your personal or professional budget?  I’m guessing most non-profits and churches identify closely with the author’s tension caused by  “[wishing] to conduct business in a legal, sustainable fashion amidst a struggling economy”.

There are many very full-featured free, open source alternatives to all of the mainstream art and production software.  Give them a try…you just might find that free is freeing in more ways than just in your pocketbook…

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Culture and Community, Philosophy, Ethics and Theology | 1 Comment »

What Do We Elevate?

Thursday, June 16th, 2011

Ran across this article from Collide magazine.  The author asks a lot of good introspective questions about church services and what that means about priorities.  Of course, why limit that to only your church services?  Why not ask that about other parts of the church including  your IT strategy?  About the type of computers and software you use?  What do you elevate?  And what does that say about your church?  Does it say exclusion or inclusion?  Does it say selfishness or sharing?  Once you know what it does say about your church, it then follows on to ask the original authors question:  what should we be elevating?  When you ask and answer those questions, my guess would be that more Christians and churches would be using (and creating too) more open source software and sharing more of their content with Creative Commons licensing.  But that’s just a guess. ;)

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Culture and Community, Philosophy, Ethics and Theology | No Comments »

What Wikileaks Means About Ethics in a Digital World

Tuesday, January 4th, 2011

As one of the originators of the free software movement, Richard Stallman has an interesting analysis of the current WikiLeaks situation.  Since this is very related to my series on Rethinking Ethics in a Digital World, I encourage you to seriously consider some of the points Stallman brings up.  While some would write him off as an extremist, I believe it’s hard to argue with the analogy he plays out showing how much privacy, control and freedom we have given up in our society as a result of the move into the digital age.  When it comes down to it, these become ethical issues about censorship and human rights in a digital world which have always related directly to our God-given rights and freedoms as an individual creation of God.

What are your thoughts on Stallman’s argument?

Tags: , ,
Posted in Philosophy, Ethics and Theology | No Comments »

As We Open Source, So We Believe

Wednesday, November 3rd, 2010

I enjoyed this short post entitled, “As We Worship, So We Believe.” I thought it encapsulated why I encourage the use of open source software verses proprietary software.  It’s not about the details of feature set or which software is really better.  It’s about the concepts of sharing, inclusion, and helping others that the use of free and open source software embodies that show as a tangible example that we support those positive values.  Of course, the opposite is also true whether people would like to admit it or not.  When we use closed, exclusive, expensive software that only serves our own needs, it says something about the type of Christians we are: exclusive and selfish.  Our choices in worship, in personal interactions, in the software we support show things about our beliefs.  It’s just that simple.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Philosophy, Ethics and Theology | No Comments »

Digital Ethics and the Environment

Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010

A few days ago I ran across this article about the effects of computers on the environment and the business models behind them.  I thought it would be a great time to introduce this subject in the context of the “Rethinking Ethics in a Digital World” series.

Howard is definitely knowledgeable and more informed on the subject than I am as he works directly with Free Geek, so in general I’ll trust him as an expert in this dialog.  However, I’d like to expand on the discussion he started and broaden the scope of it.  As a good introduction to the topic, he points out the main problem with the PC business model: it’s based on newer and newer products instead of services and usefulness to the consumer.  The Microsoft win-win-win triangle does include the customer, but frankly there are many other ways to have the customer win in this scenario without having planned obsolescence and having the customer always have to upgrade (as we also learned in the post about the ethics of file formats).  In fact, as a general rule, planned obsolescence is anti-customer.  If you can get the same new functionality without having to buy anything (or at least less), then you save money and have the new functionality.  That seems like win-win for the customer to me.

A friend of mine was happy to note that Apple was conspicuously absent from the article, so I’ll go ahead and add them into the mix as well.  Of course, their market share for personal computers, although growing again, is almost negligible to the PC market which, I have a feeling, was the main reason Apple was omitted.  I will admit that Apple is more of a service organization and generally have longer life spans for their computers.  However, as a marketing tool they generally use planned obsolescence in a different way.  Like changing the style of cars every two to three years to convince people to buy newer ones, Apple makes sure their products look different and feel newer and cooler every year.  In a nutshell, Apple sells image much more than they sell computing power.  While different, that business model is still cut from the same cloth as Microsoft’s; it gets you to become dissatisfied with your older computer so you will continue to purchase newer computers.  There’s nothing unethical about this from a business sense, but as Christians we should be careful that we aren’t just conforming to Apple’s image either.  Is that the reason there is a bite out of the Apple logo?  ;)

While planned obsolescence is anti-consumer, one could also argue that it is just flat out unethical, but that is a further stretch.  At least in the first few decades of personal computing, computing power has followed Moore’s law (computing power will double about every 18-24 months).  A lot of these gains have allowed the customer to realize greater and faster computing that has made their work much more efficient.  However, we have entered a time when (non-business) customers don’t really care about more computing power.  Their applications don’t need any more processing power (except the large, bloated operating system, I guess).  Therefore, processors have stopped getting faster and now have moved to being multi-core or more energy efficient.  Planned obsolescence has gotten increasingly harder.  New markets are being formed with increasingly less powerful devices like netbooks, cellphones, and yes, the ever popular iPad, instead of more powerful desktop or laptop computers.  And while the fall in sales on traditional personal computers can be attributed to the rise of these new devices, some of the fall is also attributable to the fact that people don’t really want or need a newer more powerful computer; rather they want the smaller, cooler form factor.  The new form factor markets are another way to create obsolescence.

Although it’s fine to buy a new computer if you need it, buying a new computer just because it looks newer and cooler is tied very tightly to our pride.  It’s in our nature to want to have an image that is associated with the newest, coolest, shiniest aluminum-cased computer out there.  However, the Bible teaches pervasively that pride like this is sin.  It was Satan’s downfall.  I won’t belabor the point, but the fact is that as Christians we should be happy with what we have.  When you really need a new computer, go buy a good one that will last you a long time.  But really do keep it for a long time.  Otherwise, you’re defeating the purpose of buying a long lasting computer (and usually paying extra for it).  Don’t let marketing hype and trends lead you like you have a hook in your nose.

The other side of Howard’s argument and the main meat of his article is not necessarily on the business model, but the environmental effects of this model.  The amount of environmental resources used to manufacture a single computer is staggering when you consider there are more than a billion personal computers out there.  But was there any forethought of how these were to be properly disposed of?  Who pays this cost?  The manufacturers that made billions of dollars on their sale?  Tax payers?  Poor developing countries where most of the manufacture took place?  As a corporation, these costs are called externalizations.  They are costs that must be paid, but are always externalized from the budgets (and concern) of the corporation making the product and therefore aren’t included in their profit margin and stock price.

With externalizations like those that effect the environment, we need to let the buck stop with us as the consumer.  We need to take responsibility for our actions and the repercussions that ensue from our consumption.  As Christians we need to care for the creation that God has entrusted to us and care for the poor that are usually the biggest losers from bad environmental practices.  The Biblical grounds for that have been well-covered in recent years through books, podcasts, blogs and other mediums so I won’t reproduce them yet again.  I’d rather focus on how we can take responsibility.

First, we can support companies that have good work standards and environmental practices.  When you always look for cheap, somebody eventually pays the cost for your cheapness, and it isn’t you.  This is an extremely selfish way to look at buying things.  Look to pay more for something that lasts longer and try to find manufacturers that have good environmental standards.  If you can’t find it out easily, contact the companies whose products you’re interested in and ask them to provide it so corporations know that it is important to their consumers.  Nothing drives change in corporations like knowing they might lose customers if they don’t change their practices.

Also, make sure you dispose of your waste appropriately even if it costs you money.  This cost is just the externalization cost handed back to you as the consumer because the company you bought your computer from didn’t pay for it.  Let’s take responsibility for our consumption.  Many cities have good recycling programs funded by local governments.  Look and ask around a little, and you can usually find a place that will take your old computer (also cell phones, etc.) and also dispose of it properly.  As mentioned in the article, seek to reuse rather than recycle or buy new.  If your current computer is just slow, first try to get it cleaned up so it isn’t slow any more.  You can also consider upgrading just the memory or processor instead of the whole machine.  Also, if it still does the job for you, just be happy even if it’s big and clunky or not cool or new looking.  Don’t get caught up in image.  If you do need a newer computer, try to find someone that can use your old one.

Of course, as the article mentions, using Linux can drastically expand the useful lifetime of hardware.  Most people just need a simple computer with an internet connection, a browser, and an office suite.  There are great free open source alternatives to easily fulfill those needs.  You might spend a little extra time or money repurposing a computer for Linux, but this is just another way to take responsibility and pay for externalizations that are caused by our consumption.

On a related note, you should also try to find digital distribution methods for all of your software and documentation.  If you’re anything like me, all of the disks and manuals just take up space in your house and you never use them anyway.  With open source software, it’s even easier to do this as digital distribution is usually the only method for getting the documentation and software to your computer.

Just a quick example to finish things out, I have a cell phone that is over 6 years old.  Its screen is cracked.  It’s battery life is waning.  I’ve been drooling over all the new smart phones coming out for at least a couple of years now.  But the truth is, I’m connected to a real computer about 90% of the time and the other 10% I don’t want to be connected.  I don’t need a new cell phone because the old one does what I need it to do: call people or receive calls when I’m away from my home or work.  Once it finally bites the dust or becomes completely obsolete, I won’t feel bad about buying a new one that will hopefully last me another decade.  But until then, I need to be happy with the fact that I can talk to anyone almost anywhere which was impossible a couple decades ago.  I’m not giving this example to make myself look good because honestly, if I didn’t have a wife and friends that challenged me in this way, I’d have a new phone (maybe several) by now.  Rather, I want to show that we don’t always count the blessings we have available because we are always chasing after the newer, cooler things just out of reach.

So in summary, be content with what you have, be concerned for others and how your choices effect them, and most of all take responsibility for your choices and consumption.  We all have to consume, but when we try to see our modern consumption through Biblical and ethical values, it should drastically change how we do it.  This is just one more way to rethink our ethics in a digital world.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Philosophy, Ethics and Theology | 3 Comments »

Why Open Source Isn’t a Billion Dollar Business

Friday, June 11th, 2010

Today, I came across this article of an interview with RedHat CEO Jim Whitehurst.  It is a really great succinct summary of the economics of open source.  Some people ask, “if open source is so great, why aren’t there huge open source companies?”  The answer lies in the economics of true open source companies. Open source companies don’t have the huge bloated profit margin that proprietary companies garner by their closed, proprietary practices.  Whitehurst says you get about the same functionality, service, etc. by paying 10% of the cost, an order of magnitude of savings, on average.  However, morals and ethics aside, those types of savings should be convincing you that you need to look into open source projects for your organization.  Open source has already made inroads to the largest, most used markets, but as time passes it will be increasingly hard to compete with open source alternatives in any market.  Increasingly, I think people will also start supporting the fact that open source isn’t just about making money, but also about community and other more worthwhile endeavors as a cultural value.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Philosophy, Ethics and Theology | No Comments »

The Biblical Model of File Formats (and Open Source Too)

Monday, May 24th, 2010

A few weeks ago I wrote an article about the ethics of file formats. That article covered ethics from a more philosophical perspective. While that case is strong in and of itself, I wanted to follow up with teachings from the Bible that also support the position.

Now, the Bible doesn’t mention anything about the digital era, files or formats. Society was quite different then, but I believe several concepts in biblical teaching can be used as metaphors to help us along.  Those metaphors can help us in the discussion about file formats but also more generally as we rethink ethics in a digital world as well as anything else that comes along in our society. 1 Corinthians 13:5 says to “Examine yourselves to see if your faith is genuine.”

So in process of examining ourselves through the use of Scripture, what metaphors can we use to look at this issue specifically? Since the use of open vs closed file formats really comes down to exclusion vs inclusion (see my previous post on file formats), I’ll focus on that. I believe one of the strongest, most applicable biblical metaphors that examine inclusion and exclusion is the concept of gleanings. In Lev 19:9-10 and Lev 23:22, the old testament law mentions:

When you harvest the crops of your land, do not harvest the grain along the edges of your fields, and do not pick up what the harvesters drop. Leave it for the poor and the foreigners living among you. I am the LORD your God.

And in Deuteronomy 24:21, it commands:

When you gather the grapes in your vineyard, don’t glean the vines after they are picked. Leave the remaining grapes for the foreigners, orphans, and widows.

As we learn later in Ruth 2, Boaz definitely holds to this practice, so it seems this law was not only laid down, but it was also assimilated into the culture successfully. But why was this law created?

Like today, the poor didn’t own land and had no access to it. Obviously, the poor also had very little or no money. So, not only did they not have a livelihood, but they also had no way to produce a livelihood or at least very limited means because agriculture was the main driver of the economy.  Widows and orphans had no means because family was the main source of insurance since there was no social security or other welfare system. That’s when the community was expected to provide a mechanism so that those that could not provide for themselves had a way to at least gather food to eat and therefore remain a part of the community.

So let’s take a look at this principle and use it as a metaphor in the digital age.

In our society, computers and the internet are becoming the main methods of communication and upward mobility in our society. We are well into the Information Age. Whether cell phones, laptops, internet access or whatever else, computers and the internet are how our society runs (even for the jobless and homeless). It is also mainly how we get work done. Technology and software has become indispensable for us. Without access to that technology, we are taking away the ability for the poor and marginalized to engage in our society and community. By using file formats that aren’t open, we widen the chasm that the poor must overcome to gain access into our increasingly technical society and community.

On the other hand, the principle of gleaning shows that we should make at least one way for the poor to engage with the community and provide for themselves. For technology, using closed formats just makes it harder to enter into that community because there are no alternatives except those attached to paying lots of money (when you are poor, any amount is a lot). On the other hand, using open formats allows as many people as possible to have access to the information gateway to the community. For instance, you might choose to purchase a proprietary program for any reason. If you choose one that supports open file formats (even though it is proprietary), you are allowing others that you collaborate with to make a different choice if they need to. They are still able to use a different solution to be in community. Like gleaning a field or vineyard, it might take extra work to use free and open source solutions, but they aren’t immediately excluded from the community by doing so.

Additionally, the Bible has many other examples and teachings for including the poor and marginalized in our communities. These teachings support the use of open file formats, but also an open source culture more generally.  For instance, 1 John 3:17-18 says:

If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.

As Christians we should not only talk about the need, but find ways to take action to remedy that need. Using open file formats is a tangible action that you can take to make sure that the poor are included and not excluded from your church or organization. Additionally, James 2 says:

Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, ‘Here’s a good seat for you,’ but say to the poor man, ‘You stand there’ or ‘Sit on the floor by my feet,’ have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom He promised those who love Him? But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court?

Isn’t it proprietary, closed companies that are dragging everyone into court because you infringe on their intellectual property? By using open file formats and open source and Creative Commons projects we support a more moral and less litigious society in general.  Additionally, we shouldn’t always be wooed by the glitter of the beautiful (i.e. Apple ;) ), but rather support everyone whether rich or poor. As a church or organization, using open file formats and open source software invites more people to invest in your community rather than being relegated to the periphery because they can’t afford to be involved.

Jesus’ words in Luke 14 put an even finer point on it:

When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.

According to Jesus, it was good to invest in the community without the chance for repayment. As a church or organization, you will invest resources into open communities without repayment, but you are investing so that everyone is invited to your party. That’s pretty cool.

As the last example, when Zacchaeus gave his life to Christ he was changed and different. He immediately gave half of his possessions to the poor and repaid those he had cheated four times over. He obviously was putting into action the love and gratitude that was in his heart. How are we showing that love and gratitude in the digital age? Do we continue to just think of ourselves and our own church? If we can afford expensive proprietary software that excludes the poor and marginalized from our community, do we ignore them and continue not to care? Or do we seek to make amends and repay for the wrongs that have excluded them? Do we seek to invest in community without the need for repayment? Do we seek to make sure as many people are involved with our digital community as possible?

I encourage you to choose open file formats and open source software as a biblical mandate. When you do, you are investing in love and community, not in a company and a bottom line. You are showing your love and faith in Christ through specific actions. In Galatians 6:10, it says “therefore, whenever we have the opportunity, we should do good to everyone—especially to those in the family of faith.” That’s the challenge I want to put to you as you continue to rethink ethics in a digital world.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Philosophy, Ethics and Theology | 1 Comment »

Defective By Design: DRM Takes Away Your Rights

Tuesday, May 4th, 2010

Today is officially Day Against DRM and it’s a good thing too.  Many times I feel the worst tragedies in human history were complacently faded into without a fight or really any one even noticing.  Only then, when things get so horrible, do people finally stand up and say enough is enough.  DRM or Digital Restrictions Management very well could end up as one of these.  On the surface, it seems like a good idea, right?  Protect the author.  Let him get his due.  Yada, yada, yada.  The problem is that the former argument is just a straw man.  DRM is much, much more than that.  It is a purposeful attempt by people to control things they don’t have a right to control: what you do, when you do it, how you do it.  For instance, do you have the right to watch a DVD you purchased?  Of course you do.  You purchased it.  You can legally watch it as many times on as many devices as you want because you purchased it.   The courts have shown this time and again.  Period.

The next question then is, can you?  And with DRM the answer is a resounding NO!  You can only watch it in ways that the publisher has approved and can monitor even if you have the right to do otherwise.  Even with DVDs you must decrypt (encryption is the first stage of DRM) the movie to watch it.  Any attempt to decrypt the data from an unapproved, unlicensed device (most open source DVD decryptors) is illegal.  This is because by purchasing it, you are implicitly agreeing to the publishers license agreement.  Did you know that?  Did you understand that?  Does that make sense?  I don’t think so.

This may all seem harmless at the moment, but the thing is that with each version you see more and more of our rights being taken away.  Look no further than the  progression from CDs (no DRM), to DVDs (encryption), to BluRay (massive DRM measures) to see this in action.  The only way to ensure our rights in the future is to make sure there is no “rights management” to control.

The thing that always surprises me is that the church has traditionally been a champion of freedom.  But as far as I can tell, the church is basically silent on many of these “freedom” topics whether open source software, creative commons or DRM.  Why is that?  Our speech is more and more being delivered through digital mediums.  Those digital mediums are more and more being controlled, monitored, and restricted through DRM.  So while you may not notice now, we are digging a huge hole for our future generations.  We have a huge inheritance of freedom that we are squandering away for pretty computers and ease of use (yes, I’m talking to you Apple).

If you’ve been watching my tweets, you’ll remember to not think legally…lots of really horrible things are legal even today in the U.S.  Instead, think ethically…what is really going on when corporations are not only allowed to do things like this, but that we as Christians support it by being silent and continuing to purchase their products.  This is one of the main reasons I support and use open source because overall the open source movement supports freedom (especially of speech) in ways proprietary technologies including DRM never will.  Support freedom.  Don’t support DRM or companies pushing DRM technologies in their products.

The good news is that the companies are listening when you speak.  There’s a reason that the iTunes store finally dropped DRM.  If we keep supporting merchants that don’t use DRM we’ll continue to have freedom.  These decisions are small, but powerful.  For instance, I’ve continued to use Amazon MP3 store because it’s never supported DRM in it’s distribution model.  Alternatives are out there.  If you support them, they will continue to grow and get even better.  But the decision is up to us…you and me doing what we believe is right as we continue to rethink ethics in a digital world.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Philosophy, Ethics and Theology | 2 Comments »

The Ethics of File Formats

Thursday, April 22nd, 2010

The basis for this post comes from this article titled “Digital Ethics and File Formats”. Thanks to Ted Carnanan for pointing it out on his blog.

After my post about the evilness of Microsoft and Apple, I figured I might need to fill out the ethics that my position is based on so I don’t come across as a total loon. However, these are not necessarily simple topics so I’m going to try to take the discussion in as bite sized chunks as possible. Individually these topics aren’t necessarily deal breakers. However, taken as a whole the gestault is a very powerful argument against the proprietary software model (at least from an ethical and Christian perspective). File formats, the first topic in the series, is probably one of the most important because many other topics build from the concepts that it provides.

A file is one of the main building blocks of modern computing. Files are associated with permanent storage mediums (thus we have file systems on our hard drives). While computing could be interesting with only temporary storage mechanisms (think of how a calculator works), it only really becomes interesting if you can store something for a long period of time. If you can store it for a long time, not only can you check or do the math on your taxes, for instance, but you can actually do your taxes, send them via electronic filing and store your taxes for archival purposes. You can also send the file electronically to your tax advisor to correct and approve as well. Of course, the assumption when you save a file is that you will be able to open it at a future time. When you send a file, your assumption is that the someone you are sending it to will be able to open it. These two purposes for files are the crux of what shapes the ethical argument involving file formats.

First, let’s take a look at opening a saved file in the future. When the software you use to save the file depends on proprietary or closed file formats, you are therefore dependent upon the software provider to continue to support those proprietary formats in the future. If that company doesn’t continue to support that file format, you are forced to either throw away the file as useless or upgrade your software so you can convert to a newer, supported format. Of course, these upgrades always cost money. Therefore, software companies now have a motivation that is directly opposite of the consumer: to change and upgrade file formats as quickly as possible to force the user to continue to upgrade and therefore pay the company more money for no added value. You as a consumer have no recourse.

Couldn’t you just keep the old version of the software? The short answer is no. At least for the time being, operating systems change rather regularly. For instance, try finding a computer with Windows 3.1 or NT on it. Not happening. So if you decide to get a new computer for any reason (maybe your old computer finally bit the dust or you just need more computing power), chances are you’ll need a new operating system as well. When you move to that new operating system, you are now required to upgrade all of your software just to open files you were already able to open on an old computer.

The other reason a software company uses closed, proprietary formats is what is called “vendor lock-in”. You might really like Microsoft Office this version. However, in the future, Office might get behind the curve in it’s development so that it doesn’t have as good of features as another program or is really buggy and doesn’t work well (imagine that from a Microsoft product, I know, it’s a stretch). However, since the file formats the company uses are proprietary, you basically have to keep using Microsoft Office whether you like it or not. The service that the software provides (to create and edit office documents in a usable and efficient manner) is beside the point because once you have bought in, there is very little incentive for the company to continue to innovate.

So, what happens with open formats? Well, the main thing is that they are…well, open. First, even if the software company stopped supporting the format or even went out of business, another person or company could support the file format at least for conversion. In fact, most open formats are created by collaboration from many different sources, so no one company or contributor has all of the power. Next, if the software company supporting the file format quit innovating, it would most likely be easy to switch to a competitor. That’s not saying there would always be a viable alternative supporting an open format, however, the likelihood of competitors supporting at least the import of open file formats in their market is very good because it’s almost always in their best interest (unless you are the gorilla like Microsoft – then cooperating never pays).

Now, all this might be interesting, but the ethical argument is a bit weak. First, while it might be unwise to buy and use software using closed formats, the business is just trying to protect their market and business. I think that’s a fine goal. However, forcing users to upgrade so they can continue to use older files is a bit of a bait and switch in my opinion and is therefore unethical. At a minimum, a company should be upfront with the minimum time they plan to support a specific file format so it educates and warns the user what they are buying into. Right now, it is just swept under the rug and hidden from view.

The next related ethical argument relates to the sharing and sending of files. When you collaborate on a project, not only you but everyone else you collaborate with must have software that can read the file format. Anyone that can’t pony up the same amount of money for the software that you did is left out. You may think that it’s worth your money to buy expensive software to work on your projects, but when you buy into products that are closed you are making that decision not only for yourself, but everyone else that you work with.

Let’s go through a real use case. This is where Microsoft Office is the best example. Everyone knows that everyone uses Microsoft Office. If you don’t know that, try NOT using Microsoft Office. Since I don’t use Microsoft, I’ll use myself as an example. Because I support open source software, I use OpenOffice with great success when I’m on my own. It has a great feature set comparable to Microsoft Office. It does everything I need it to do (plus a whole lot more). However, when I need to prepare a document or presentation to show at church or in a meeting, I almost always hit a problem with the conversion to Microsoft Office formats. This isn’t OpenOffice’s fault. OpenOffice is doing its best by supporting reverse engineered import/export into Microsoft formats. Of course, OpenOffice’s native formats are OpenDocument, a freely available and royalty free format. The easiest thing for Microsoft to do would be to support OpenDocument file formats. Then I could use OpenOffice and my church could use Microsoft Office and we’d both be happy. Of course, Microsoft won’t support open formats because it’s not in their interest to cooperate, and they want to use their power to force everyone to use Microsoft Office with their huge market share. At the moment, I can get around the problems with my uses by exporting to PDF which has become an open format (hint, hint, Microsoft). On the other hand, if I had to actually collaborate with anyone where we had to edit the same document, I’d be up a creek (or my friend would have to agree to use OpenOffice).

For me, this is where the ethics (or rather un-ethics) really hit home. When you (whether an individual, church or non-profit) buy into software that uses proprietary file formats, you are forcing every one you work with to use those same formats and pay the same money or risk breaking the law and the repercussions thereof. Period. Taken together, the arguments presented above show proprietary formats cause a form of slavery where a person or group of people are powerless to change their circumstance because those in power are making decisions for them. Take a minute to think about who the powerless are for your organization. The children and youth? The poor and needy? The single moms? Volunteers? Other organizations and non-profits you try to cooperate with?

To make it worse, most proprietary software companies offer “non-profit pricing” so they look like they are helping. Contrarily, just because you get non-profit pricing doesn’t mean that everyone you work with will get non-profit pricing or continue to get non-profit pricing in the future. In fact, that’s exactly why the software company is doing it; they make less money off of you, so they can make more money off of those you work with. It is not only a benign result, but it is purposeful manipulation by software companies. Why do you think schools are given big discounts by Apple, Microsoft and Adobe? “The first bag of crack is always free,” so to speak. The companies just want you to be hooked and once you are in, it’s very hard to get out, and using closed file formats is just one of the tools they use.

Considering the above, I personally find that I can only support software that supports completely open formats when I expect to collaborate with others. On the other hand, open source culture isn’t pervasive yet, so I can only do my best to continue to support companies that support open file formats. In reality, I can’t use open file formats 100% of the time.

Are there ethical proprietary alternatives without going open source? I believe the answer is yes. Google has generally supported not only open formats, but also a concept called data portability even when open formats aren’t being used. Data portability allows the user to leave and take their data with them at any time and do so in formats that can easily be imported to other similar systems. I can’t be sure, but I think this is part of Google’s policy to “not be evil.” Google is showing that you can make money and still be open (and more ethical) in how you do business. Are they still proprietary? Yes. Is proprietary with data portability as ethical and free as open? No. However, it is much more ethical than completely closed, proprietary and non-cooperative.

As usual, this post is already too long. This generally hit the secular, philosophical ethical argument. In a future post, I’ll try to unpack a little more of the biblical basis related to this.

Start considering software that uses open file formats. Stay tuned.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Philosophy, Ethics and Theology | 6 Comments »

Rethinking Copyright Law

Friday, April 9th, 2010

Wasn’t planning on doing this post, but I read this article from the Economist this morning.  It’s a good succinct article about the copyright debate.  Here’s a more in depth discussion in case you are interested.  Whether you feel breaking copyright law is an ethical issue or not, I think we should all be able to agree that the current state of things isn’t working very well.

While more “Mickey Mouse Protection Acts” might be passed and technically legal, more companies are going to be forced into more liberal licensing through open source and Creative Commons licenses through market forces and competition.  This trend is the market correcting for bad copyright law; the market is in a state of diminishing returns when it keeps extending copyright protection.

Of course, some Christians I know just pirate digital media no matter what the laws say without thinking anything about it.  I’ve even seen lots of “bending of the rules” for church purposes.  I’d be interested in your comments about the ethics and morality of breaking copyright law.  For me, I try to comply with copyright law no matter how ridiculous it is.  That, of course, leads me to use open source and Creative Commons works because I can’t afford to do everything I want to do and comply with proprietary software and copyrighted media law. Luckily for me, there’s lots of great open source software and Creative Commons works out there so it’s a win-win scenario.

So if you feel like piracy is wrong and haven’t checked out open source and/or Creative Commons projects, I encourage you to start now.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Philosophy, Ethics and Theology | No Comments »

« Older Entries