# Software piracy defenders: what about violating open-source licenses?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/software-piracy-defenders-what-about-violating-open-source-licenses/479231
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [December 30, 2008, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/software-piracy-defenders-what-about-violating-open-source-licenses/479231 "2008-12-30T16:48:48Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2008, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/software-piracy-defenders-what-about-violating-open-source-licenses/479231/1 "2008-12-30T16:48:48Z")
In a previous thread in the Pit, several people stated that they have no problem with pirating commercial software, and mentioned simultaneously that they think the open-source model is a better way to operate.
They say they don’t see a problem violating the terms of the license under which the author of proprietary software distributes his work, for various justifications - “I wouldn’t have bought it anyway”, “The author is an asshole”, “Scarcity-based economics is _so_ 20th-century”, “I’m not actually stealing anything by making a copy”, etc.
To these people, I ask the following question: what about violating the license of open-source software? Let’s say I take some high-end GPL software, like The GIMP, download the source code, fix the craptacular UI, and then offer it for sale without redistributing my changes. How is that license violation any different from violating the Photoshop license?
Obviously, my personal opinion is that violating the license is wrong, immoral, illegal, etc., regardless of whether the software in question is open or closed-source.
The same question applies to ripping off artistic works licensed under a Creative Commons license.
---
### Author:  [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2008, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/software-piracy-defenders-what-about-violating-open-source-licenses/479231/2 "2008-12-30T17:07:55Z")
> [@Absolute](#):
>
> Obviously, my personal opinion is that violating the license is wrong, immoral, illegal, etc., regardless of whether the software in question is open or closed-source.
>
> The same question applies to ripping off artistic works licensed under a Creative Commons license.
You’ll never get any satisfying answers to this.
The bottom line is that people will do what they want to do, and get away with whatever they can get away with. There is no perfectly consistent internal and external logic to their actions (although they certainly try with hyper-articulate essays and justifications.) Trying to ask someone to see his own hypocrisy is like asking them to smell and notice their own body odor – it can’t be done.
---
### Author:  [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2008, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/software-piracy-defenders-what-about-violating-open-source-licenses/479231/3 "2008-12-30T17:13:42Z")
The difference is selling it. Your example should be compared to someone pressing a lot of copied CDs with music or games and selling those for profit.
But you’re right that the open source / CC license are based on the same copyright laws / principles.
---
### Author:  [@Jayn\_Newell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jayn_Newell)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2008, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/software-piracy-defenders-what-about-violating-open-source-licenses/479231/4 "2008-12-30T17:17:45Z")
> [@Natlaw](#):
>
> The difference is selling it. Your example should be compared to someone pressing a lot of copied CDs with music or games and selling those for profit.
Agreed. This is part of the reason why, although I sometimes pirate shows, I would never buy a bootleg DVD. Piracy itself is a moral grey area, IMHO, but profiting from the illegal use of another’s work has no defense at all.
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2008, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/software-piracy-defenders-what-about-violating-open-source-licenses/479231/5 "2008-12-30T17:31:27Z")
> [@](#):
>
> The difference is selling it. Your example should be compared to someone pressing a lot of copied CDs with music or games and selling those for profit.
I never understood this logic. In my opinion, distributing free copies is worse than selling bootleg copies.
Let’s say I have a grudge against Microsoft. Which is going to do the company more harm - bootlegging copies of Windows and selling them for fifty dollars apiece or bootlegging copies of Windows and giving them away for free? Any copyright holder loses more sales if somebody’s giving away his product than if somebody’s selling it.
---
### Author:  [@Jayn\_Newell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jayn_Newell)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2008, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/software-piracy-defenders-what-about-violating-open-source-licenses/479231/6 "2008-12-30T17:38:22Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> I never understood this logic. In my opinion, distributing free copies is worse than selling bootleg copies.
Looking at it from the potential buyer’s perspective, if I buy a copy I’m not only gaining a copy through illicit channels, I’m also _encouraging_ the behaviour of the person selling it by giving them my money. The distributors in this case are not only causing the CPs holder to lose sales, but they’re also effectively stealing money from the creator by selling the product cheaper.
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2008, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/software-piracy-defenders-what-about-violating-open-source-licenses/479231/7 "2008-12-30T18:59:27Z")
Suppose I was trying to drive some small independent record label or magazine out of business. The quickest way to do it would be to hand out free copies of their product. How many would pay for their CDs or magazine when they were getting it free?
Now a true fan that’s making copies of his favorite band’s CD and giving it to all his friends and making MP3’s of it available on his website certainly isn’t seeking to harm the band. But his actions are identical to what somebody who was trying to hurt the band would be doing. So leaving aside the intent, how is the effect any different?
---
### Author:  [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2008, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/software-piracy-defenders-what-about-violating-open-source-licenses/479231/8 "2008-12-30T19:16:24Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> Suppose I was trying to drive some small independent record label or magazine out of business. The quickest way to do it would be to hand out free copies of their product. How many would pay for their CDs or magazine when they were getting it free?
>
> Now a true fan that’s making copies of his favorite band’s CD and giving it to all his friends and making MP3’s of it available on his website certainly isn’t seeking to harm the band. But his actions are identical to what somebody who was trying to hurt the band would be doing. So leaving aside the intent, how is the effect any different?
I think the difference has to do with which method of illegal distribution (free, or at a reduced price from bootleggers) loses the copyright holder more paying customers.
(not defending the position, just explaining).
---
### Author:  [@Jayn\_Newell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jayn_Newell)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2008, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/software-piracy-defenders-what-about-violating-open-source-licenses/479231/9 "2008-12-30T19:21:40Z")
I didn’t say it was, and honestly you’ve gone a bit off track here. I wasn’t looking at the effect on the originator, but the effect on the unlawful distributor. Someone who sells bootleg copies of something is probably going to have better promotion and distribution than someone who’s giving out copies for free. Plus people don’t always know how to tell the difference between a fake and an original, meaning people can get tricked into paying for a bootleg copy when they think they’re just getting a deal on the real product.
For that last reason, bootlegging may (read: may) be more damaging to copyright holders than free distribution. The person with the free copy may become guilty and buy a real one. The person with the fake possibly has no idea that what they bought is a bootleg.
---
### Author:  [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2008, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/software-piracy-defenders-what-about-violating-open-source-licenses/479231/10 "2008-12-30T20:14:58Z")
> [@Natlaw](#):
>
> The difference is selling it. Your example should be compared to someone pressing a lot of copied CDs with music or games and selling those for profit.
However, the law makes no distinction.
> [@](#):
>
> The United States No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act), a federal law passed in 1997, provides for criminal prosecution of individuals who engage in copyright infringement, **even when there is no monetary profit or commercial benefit from the infringement**. Maximum penalties can be five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. The NET Act also raised statutory damages by 50%.
Source: [No Electronic Theft Act - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act)
---
### Author:  [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2008, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/software-piracy-defenders-what-about-violating-open-source-licenses/479231/11 "2008-12-30T20:32:27Z")
> [@Natlaw](#):
>
> The difference is selling it. Your example should be compared to someone pressing a lot of copied CDs with music or games and selling those for profit.
>
> But you’re right that the open source / CC license are based on the same copyright laws / principles.
But the original open-source authors aren’t making any money - they’re the ones that released their software for free in the first place. Why do they have the right to object to me taking their work, modifying it, and charging for my effort (without re-releasing the source code of my modifications)?
It seems to me that if you’re okay with someone taking music/software/books/art/whatever that the author expects you to pay for and downloading/distributing it for free, against their wishes, you should have no problem going against the wishes of someone who wants their software to be distributed for free. Otherwise, you’re being hypocritical - you’re saying that people who demand money for their work should have less control over it than people who distribute it for free.
A license is a license, regardless of whether it is the General Public License, or Microsoft’s EULA.
---
### Author:  [@Jayn\_Newell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jayn_Newell)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2008, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/software-piracy-defenders-what-about-violating-open-source-licenses/479231/12 "2008-12-30T20:45:32Z")
> [@Absolute](#):
>
> It seems to me that if you’re okay with someone taking music/software/books/art/whatever that the author expects you to pay for and downloading/distributing it for free, against their wishes, you should have no problem going against the wishes of someone who wants their software to be distributed for free.
It really is the monetary gains aspect that decides it for me. Distributing it free is one thing, especially if that’s what the author wants–turning it around and selling it yourself is another animal altogether, unless of course the license somehow allows such a thing.
My main issue is with the idea of making money from someone else’s efforts. Actually, the example in your OP may be even muddier because of the open-source thing (morally, not legally). I’m in the camp of people who will buy a product I’ve pirated if I consider it worth the money, so I tend to feel that if you’re going to pay for a product, it should be going to the right place.
Naturally, this is just my own opinion. YMMV and all that jazz.
---
### Author:  [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2008, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/software-piracy-defenders-what-about-violating-open-source-licenses/479231/13 "2008-12-30T23:07:15Z")
> [@Jayn\_Newell](#):
>
> It really is the monetary gains aspect that decides it for me.
That may decide it or you, but at the end of the day the terms of the license and copyright law are the deciding factors.
---
### Author:  [@Otara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otara)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2008, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/software-piracy-defenders-what-about-violating-open-source-licenses/479231/14 "2008-12-30T23:11:59Z")
"How is that license violation any different from violating the Photoshop license?
In practical terms wouldnt you just say who cares and just pirate it too? Its only an issue if you respect them having a right to sell it, which you clearly wouldnt.
Otara
---
### Author:  [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2008, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/software-piracy-defenders-what-about-violating-open-source-licenses/479231/15 "2008-12-30T23:22:44Z")
It really depends on your view on copyright. Richard Stallman is quite outspoken about his view that copyright is not just a bad idea but outright immoral. If there is no copyright at all, there is no difference - and the GPL is a fairly straightforward implementation of that ideal - you can “steal” the software all you want, but you cannot keep anybody else from “stealing” it from you, even if you added to it.
By just copying a GPL’d program you’re explicitly NOT violating a license, but RMS’s view is quite plainly that it’s the people who (try to) keep others from copying that are immoral, not the ones that make illegal copies.
I don’t completely agree with him, but at least his views are completely consistent and his strategy very well executed.
links added for the ignorant:
[http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html](http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html)
> **[Richard Stallman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman)**
>
> Richard Matthew Stallman (/ˈstɔːlmən/; born March 16, 1953), also known by his initials, rms, is an American free software movement activist and programmer. He campaigns for software to be distributed in such a manner that its users have the freedom to use, study, distribute, and modify that software. Software that ensures these freedoms is termed free software. Stallman launched the GNU Project, founded the Free Software Foundation (FSF) in October 1985, developed the GNU Compiler Collecti S...
---
### Author:  [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2008, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/software-piracy-defenders-what-about-violating-open-source-licenses/479231/16 "2008-12-30T23:40:56Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#):
>
> It really depends on your view on copyright. Richard Stallman is quite outspoken about his view that copyright is not just a bad idea but outright immoral. If there is no copyright at all, there is no difference - and the GPL is a fairly straightforward implementation of that ideal - you can “steal” the software all you want, but you cannot keep anybody else from “stealing” it from you, even if you added to it.
>
> By just copying a GPL’d program you’re explicitly NOT violating a license, but RMS’s view is quite plainly that it’s the people who (try to) keep others from copying that are immoral, not the ones that make illegal copies.
I am very well aware of what the GPL is. But the GPL itself relies on the idea of copyright to be enforceable.
Without a concept of copyright, RMS can put whatever restrictions he wants on his software, and I am still free to take it and do whatever I please with it - including modifying it and charging for my modifications under a proprietary license without redistributing the source code.
RMS and other GPL users are just replacing one set of copying restrictions with another. He may disagree with Adobe about what those restrictions should be, but they both implicitly accept that _the author of a work has the right to determine how it should be distributed_.
If you are okay with violating that right when someone uses it to charge money for software, you should also be okay with violating it when someone tries to make their software freely available and modifiable.
---
### Author:  [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2008, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/software-piracy-defenders-what-about-violating-open-source-licenses/479231/17 "2008-12-30T23:51:37Z")
> [@Absolute](#):
>
> Without a concept of copyright, RMS can put whatever restrictions he wants on his software, and I am still free to take it and do whatever I please with it - including modifying it and charging for my modifications under a proprietary license without redistributing the source code.
Getting rid of copyright at the very least implies that it is always legal to copy and decompile a binary and do with it what you want. That seems to imply that relying on distribution restrictions cannot give you an unlimited supply of money, which means the only way to actually get some money out of software is to write/adapt “tailor-made” code.
Personally, I think the main reason the GPL is so popular is that most professional software engineers **already** get paid just for the code they write - with all the additional profits (of selling multiple units) going to the “suits”.
---
### Author:  [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)
#### Post date: [December 31, 2008, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/software-piracy-defenders-what-about-violating-open-source-licenses/479231/18 "2008-12-31T03:51:09Z")
> [@Absolute](#):
>
> But the original open-source authors aren’t making any money - they’re the ones that released their software for free in the first place. Why do they have the right to object to me taking their work, modifying it, and charging for my effort (without re-releasing the source code of my modifications)?
As I said the right they have is copyright: the GPL gives you the right to do with the program what you want, except if you distribute it you must provide the source of any changes under the GPL as well. (On preview I see you already got that, so nevermind).
I think I can answer the OP better with a scale of (my) ethics about copyright:
GOOD:
Paying for a CD/game/etc for personal use (can be nothing if released under open source).
Modifying a BSD licensed program and selling it for profit, but not removing the original credits (the requirement of the BSD license).
Modifying a GPL licensed program for personal use (this can be business that keeps the modified program internally).
BAD:
Illegal copying music or e-book for personal use. The argument why producers should release these for free is that it promotion for the real thing (concert or dead tree book). Not in the worse category because the digital version is usually made when creating the real version (though producing a recording cost more than the e-book, but it goes for fan recordings of public media ones). Movie and computer games/programs usually do not have a real world counter part (digitized board games do, but the digital version is not a by-product of the real thing).
WORSE:
Illegal copying movies, computer games or other programs. The argument why producers should release these for free is less cut out than for music or e-books. But there are cases where it could make sense, examples:
-recoup cost through advertising in/around the product
-sell support for the product (help, priority bug fixes or feature requests)
-sell non-free products which use the free product
-it’s a requirement (for example you want the source of voting machine public, or be able to modify a program after the original producer disappears).
Illegal distributing copies without profit motive (exclude the profit of getting a personal copy).
WORST:
Buying illegal distributed copies. Not only are you breaking the law, you are rewarding someone else who does (yes, this is hypocritical).
Illegal distributing copies of anything mentioned (includes open source license violations mentioned in OP) for profit (includes the hurting-the-original-producer scenario). So downloading a torrent with illegal content (both getting a copy and distributing it) is in the worse category, running a torrent site with ads in in the worst one (they don’t usually host the content though which makes it more murkier).
* * *
Now most open-source licensing allows you to do whatever you want with your personal copy (good category). So most of the time breaking the OS license falls in the worst category, while making a personal illegal copy of something not allowing free personal ones comes in the bad or worse one.
Yes, it is illegal and hypocritical, but there is a difference.
---
### Author:  [@CutterJohn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CutterJohn)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2009, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/software-piracy-defenders-what-about-violating-open-source-licenses/479231/19 "2009-01-01T02:58:26Z")
I am not a programmer, so bear with me…
Person X makes a program under GPL. Person Y takes this program, and modifies it in some way. If person Y were to be able to sell, in some fashion, ONLY the bits he altered, I see no issue with that. If then its accepted he is just selling his own code, then I see no practical reason he couldn’t sell a compiled version that is fully functional. I would perhaps think a download for the original, unaltered version should be available for free, and displayed prominently on the same page.
---
### Author:  [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)
#### Post date: [January 2, 2009, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/software-piracy-defenders-what-about-violating-open-source-licenses/479231/20 "2009-01-02T14:53:32Z")
> [@CutterJohn](#):
>
> I am not a programmer, so bear with me..
>
> Person X makes a program under GPL. Person Y takes this program, and modifies it in some way. If person Y were to be able to sell, in some fashion, ONLY the bits he altered, I see no issue with that.
“Only the altered bits” would imply he’s not distributing any of Xs code, which means X can do whatever he wants with it.
> [@](#):
>
> If then its accepted he is just selling his own code, then I see no practical reason he couldn’t sell a compiled version that is fully functional. I would perhaps think a download for the original, unaltered version should be available for free, and displayed prominently on the same page.
The GPL at least does not make any restrictions on sales of any kind. It just forces you to (offer to) hand over the source code with any binaries you distribute, and that the source and binaries are covered under a GPL (compatible) license. This may make it effectively impossible to make a living selling “boxed” software, but it does not prevent you from selling your modifications as one-offs to customers.