Professional Documents
Culture Documents
G Rod Zinsky 2003
G Rod Zinsky 2003
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:463575 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
F S Grodzinsky
Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, CT, USA
Email: grodzinskyf@sacredheart.edu
K Miller
University of Illinois Springfield, Springfield, Illinois. USA
Email: Miller.keith@uis.edu
M J Wolf
J of Inf, Com & Eth in Society 2003.1:193-205.
ABSTRACT
In this essay we argue that the current social and ethical structure in the Open Source Software (OSS) COVERAGE
Community stem from its roots in academia. The individual developers experience a level of autonomy
similar to that of a faculty member. Furthermore, we assert that the Open Source Software Community’s
social structure demands benevolent leadership. We argue that it is difficult to pass off low quality open
source software as high quality software and that the Open Source development model offers strong
accountability. Finally, we argue that Open Source Software introduces ethical challenges for universi-
ties and the software development community.
for the dissemination of ideas and results. versities for Unix Level 6. AT&T even pub-
In addition, they provide a vehicle for lished two books that contained the source
researchers to advance new ideas and code along with commentary.
enhance the quality of existing theories. The Computer Science Department at
These traditions are deeply engrained in the University of California, Berkeley, was
the Computer Science and Software one such licensee that used the source code
Engineering academic communities. extensively for research projects. Eventually,
The field of software development also they enhanced the Unix source code to
shares a close connection with industry. include many new features and were freely
The first ties occurred with hardware distributing their enhanced versions. People
developers. IBM, for example, in conjunc- throughout the world added many addition-
tion with researchers at Harvard University, al features, some of which are used to run
built its first computer in 1944. Over the the Internet today. Throughout the 1980’s
next 15 years, IBM would bundle hardware, there was confusion as to just what ‘Unix’
software and services in a single package, meant. There were lawsuits and counter
rarely distinguishing among the various lawsuits over which parts of Unix software
components. Then in 1969 IBM adopted a source code could be freely given away and
new marketing policy in which software which parts required a royalty even to use in
and services were marketed separately from binary form. As we will see later, these
hardware. Therefore, in order to have any issues largely went away in the early 1990's
opportunity for profitability for the pro- when Linus Torvalds introduced Linux.
gramming division, the source code would While these developments were taking
J of Inf, Com & Eth in Society 2003.1:193-205.
need to be kept confidential. This separa- place in industry, the hacker culture was
tion became complete in 1981 when IBM developing at many of the major research
partnered with Intel and Microsoft to laboratories across the United States. The
develop the personal computer (The hacker culture involved people who loved
History of IBM). Hewlett Packard (HP) to program and enjoyed being clever about
was another company that first marketed it. By the early 1970’s this culture was
194 hardware and then later software. In 1966, engrained at the Massachusetts Institute of
HP’s first computer was developed to con- Technology and had a significant impact on
trol a variety of laboratory instruments. In Richard Stallman’s attitudes about software
1969, HP marketed its first time-sharing development. He says, “Whenever people
operating system (About HP, 2003). from another university or a company
Perhaps the most interesting connection wanted to port and use a program, we glad-
between software development, industry ly let them. If you saw someone using an
and academia surrounds the history of Unix. unfamiliar and interesting program, you
Unix was first developed in the early 1970’s could always ask to see the source code, so
at AT&T Bell Labs in New Jersey, USA, that you could read it, change it, or canni-
largely due to the efforts of K. Thompson, balize parts of it to make a new program”
D. Ritchie, M. D. McIlroy, J. F.Ossanna (Stallman, 1999). The idea that source code
(Ritchie, 1996). One of their design goals could be freely exchanged, changed and
was to develop a portable operating system. used appealed to him as an efficacious soft-
Thompson demonstrated the portability of ware development technique. However,
Unix by mailing magnetic tapes containing that system of development began to break
Unix source code and utilities to friends down in the late 1970's and early 1980's as
(Moffitt,2002). At the same time, AT&T the changes noted above were taking place
gave away source code and licenses to uni- in industry. A further impact was the fact
that industry was hiring many of the best
software developers and programmers from
the computing labs, and those individuals
Perhaps the most interesting were taking the software they developed
connection between software with them. To Stallman, succumbing to this
industrial model of software development
development, industry and
was tantamount “to making the world a
academia surrounds the worse place” (Stallman, 1999). In response
history of Unix. to commercialization within the software
development industry, Stallman began the
Grodzinsky et al: Ethical Open Source Software
GNU project in 1984 with a goal of “creat- Requiring that all derivative works of
ing a new software sharing community” GPL software also be licensed under the
(Stallman, 1999). The GNU project goal GPL, if and when they become published,
was to develop an entire Unix-like operat- propagates these freedoms. This protec-
ing system, complete with all the utilities, tion is known as copyleft and prevents
in order to build a community of develop- source code from being swallowed up in a
ers dedicated to writing free software. All commercial venture (See Appendix B).
of the source code would be freely available The OSI is less focused on philosophical
for modification and use by anyone who tenets emphasized by Stallman and more
was willing to make further changes. focused on promoting open source as a
The Free Software Foundation (FSF) was development methodology. This promo-
started in 1985 largely to support this objec- tion is evident in the emergence of other
tive (The GNU Project, 2002). By the early important software cultures including the
1990's, the GNU project had succeeded in Perl culture under Larry Wall, John
many ways. Useful software development Osterhout's Tcl and Guido van Rossum's
and environment tools, plus the General Python languages. “All three of these com-
Public License (GPL), had been developed munities expressed their ideological inde-
under the auspices of the Free Software pendence by devising their own, non-GPL
Foundation. However, GNU still lacked the licensing schemes” (Raymond, 2000).
core of an operating system – the kernel.
However, when Linus Torvalds developed
and released the Linux kernel under the 3. ETHICAL ISSUES IN OSS
J of Inf, Com & Eth in Society 2003.1:193-205.
community emerged out of a parting of the Creators of OSS typically use the soft-
ways with Richard Stallman and the Free ware themselves as it is being developed;
Software Foundation. While the details of therefore, the users are involved in the soft-
the contentious debate are beyond the ware development from the beginning.
scope of this paper, we will try to articulate When software is created solely for com-
some of the major points. Stallman’s vision mercial gain, there is always a danger that
was one of a community of programmers the customer is treated merely as a means
who were doing something for the good of to a financial end: financial enrichment of
humankind. Although he acknowledges the software developer. Open source soft-
that open source and free software belong ware removes that temptation.
to the same category of software, Stallman Empirical evidence suggests that devel-
maintains that there was an ideological opers are less concerned with the ideologi-
shift within those advocating for open cal split between the FSF and the OSS,
source. Stallman asserts that while the than with the idea of making free software
GNU Project holds onto the concept of available to all. Eric Raymond explains, “A
freedom, the OSS community tries to side effect of the rapid growth of Linux was
appeal to businesses. Because business val- the induction of a large number of new
ues profit above all, he argues that values of hackers for which Linux was their primary
community and freedom are lost in the loyalty and the FSF's agenda primarily of
OSS development model. Citing examples historical interest” (Raymond, 2000). He
of proprietary software that work with maintains that it was the Netscape
Linux, Stallman wonders if OSS developers announcement in February 1998 that it
J of Inf, Com & Eth in Society 2003.1:193-205.
will shun or support them (Stallman, 1999). would distribute Navigator 5.0 in source
Open Source advocates argue that OSS is that changed the environment dramatically.
primarily a development methodology The idea that ‘free software’ could be
grounded in the philosophy of making exploited within the commercial communi-
source code open and free to all who want ty excited the hacker culture and caused
it. Developers self-select according to their the parting of the ways between free soft-
196 interest in a project. Users and developers ware and open source advocates.
co-exist in a community where software As with all software, quality is a major
grows and expands based on personal issue when evaluating Open Source
needs. These enhancements make the proj- Software. It has been argued that with open
ect more globally desirable as it fits more source software “you get what you pay for.”
and more requirements. Linus Torvalds, If a developer is not paid for creating and
the epitome of the open source developer maintaining a piece of software, then he/she
says: may not feel the same obligation to do a
quality job. Linus Torvalds argues that pro-
• Release early and often grammers tend to find projects that interest
• Delegate everything you can them, and if the programmer loses interest
• Be open (Raymond, 2001, p.309). in a piece of code, there is usually a co-
developer out there willing and able to con-
tinue on the project. The reason that Linux
is so successful is that it interests people to
It has been argued that with
develop a complete, open operating system.
open source software “you get While it is true that there might be less suc-
what you pay for.” cess in developing a less glamorous project,
developers would usually not undertake it,
rather than do a shoddy job. Their reputa-
It usually takes one interested developer to tions among their peers are at stake. In the
write a piece of core code to get a project hacker community, “one’s work is one’s
going. Torvalds believes that it is the statement...and there’s a strong ethos that
responsibility of the originator of the proj- quality should (indeed must) be left to speak
ect to listen to the users who will find the for itself...Boasting or self-importance is
bugs and those who will fix them. In this suppressed because it behaves like noise
type of scenario, “users are rewarded by the tending to corrupt the vital signals from
daily improvement in the work” (Raymond, experiments in creative and cooperative
2001, p. 315). behavior”. (Raymond, 2000).
Grodzinsky et al: Ethical Open Source Software
Thus within the community of those against corporate greed? Does it make
working on the project, individual interest them feel part of a select community with
and work contribute to a larger goal: a special talents? Clearly all of these play a
working project for all. In addition, part in OSS developer motivation to abide
because it is open source, others may take by this contract. Beyond that, however,
advantage of the software once it is avail- there is also a sense that developers see
able on line. Floridi and Saunders in their their involvement as “enlightened self
paper entitled Internet Ethics: the interest” (Kollock, 1999). Their contribu-
Constructionist Values of Homo Poieticus main- tions lead to software that they want and
tain that a collaborative project relies on an often need. OSS is an alternative for users;
“unsuspected but evident interest, shared developers are themselves users of comput-
by a growing community” and the coordi- ing, almost always heavy users. Developers
nation of efforts to produce a global prod- and users participate voluntarily in a devel-
uct based on “local specific components.” opment environment that emphasizes
They name this phenomena ‘distributed cooperation and mutual support under the
constructionism.’ They maintain that OSI guidelines. They have found the envi-
the Internet facilitates communication ronment satisfying enough to make OSS a
amongst users irrespective of distance and major challenger to commercial software.
creates an environment that encourages
and facilitates production of OSS like
Linux (Floridi et al., 2003). 3.3 Autonomy
J of Inf, Com & Eth in Society 2003.1:193-205.
Open source software has the seemingly ways of doing things, may miss the innova-
useful feature that at any point, any one tion of the newcomer's idea. Not only will
with appropriate technical skills can modi- the project lose the good idea, but it also
fy the code and take the project in a direc- faces the potential of losing a good devel-
tion that diverges from the direction others oper. Thus, open source project leaders and
are taking it (called 'code forking'). Thus, developers must show a great willingness to
one of the perceived benefits of a piece of take in new ideas, evaluate them thought-
fully, and respond constructively in order to
nurture both the idea and the developer of
the idea.
Open source project leaders Project leaders must exercise similar
and developers must show a abilities when a subgroup comes with an
idea that is controversial. Care must be
great willingness to take in taken that the larger group does not ride
new ideas roughshod over the smaller group's idea.
Again, in addition to losing out on a good
idea and potentially driving people away
from the project, doing so will discourage
open source software is that it has the future innovators from taking their ideas
opportunity to evolve rapidly into compet- forward. Note that the proprietary soft-
ing programs where, presumably, Darwin’s ware development model is not subject to
theories of evolution can take over: the this argument. The innovative developer
J of Inf, Com & Eth in Society 2003.1:193-205.
best piece of software for the current envi- who meets resistant project leaders or man-
ronment will survive. If code forking is agement is typically free to leave the organ-
prevalent, we might expect to see many ization, and he/she regularly does. In fact
innovations occur in open source software there are social norms that actually encour-
development. However, Raymond gives age this type of behavior; we call these peo-
two very pragmatic reasons for the low ple entrepreneurs.
198 incidence of code forking in many success- So it appears that the autonomy experi-
ful OSS projects. The first major reason for enced by an open source developer is much
projects to persist is a fear of diluting the like the autonomy experienced by a univer-
developer community for the project -- sity faculty member: freedom to choose
both child projects have fewer developers, which projects to work on. Thus, an open
thus weakening the entire project, especial- source developer has increased autonomy
ly relative to the parent project. Secondly, when compared to a corporate developer.
shortly after a code fork the child projects Whereas, the corporate developer might
cannot exchange code. In addition, find a supportive social structure to take a
Raymond adds that “there is strong social project in a new direction, the social struc-
pressure against forking projects” in the ture in the Open Source community can
open source community. According to work to suppress this type of entrepreneur-
Raymond the open source community is ial endeavor.
best viewed as a gift culture where one's
social status is determined by what one
gives away. In addition to the practical con- 3.4 Software quality
cerns, forking a project cuts right to the
core of the culture-it damages someone's Quality software, in the traditional sense, is
reputation. software that meets requirement specifica-
Thus, given both the pragmatic and cul- tions, is well tested, well documented and
tural pressure to avoid code forking, the maintainable (Schach, 2002). Advocates of
developers of an open source project must OSS claim that its developers/users are
take special care to avoid the symptoms of motivated to do quality work because not
groupthink. A newcomer to open source only are they developing software for their
development has very little in terms of rep- own use, but their reputations among their
utation to bring to the table when he/she peers also are at stake. Critics of OSS claim
proposes a new piece of code or a new tack that volunteers will not do professional
on development for a project. Project lead- quality work if there is no monetary com-
ers, who are less open to new ideas and pensation. They also claim that documen-
Grodzinsky et al: Ethical Open Source Software
tation and maintenance are non-existent. of these new users (particularly non-pro-
While it is true that documentation and grammers), appreciate the product, though
maintenance are concerns, OSS advocates they may not understand or care about the
assert that OSS meets users’ requirements, process that developed it. All users of OSS
is tested by its developers and is constantly gain if the software delivers needed func-
being upgraded. Documentation evolves as tionality.
more and more users become interested in If an OSS project pleases its developers,
the software and use it. For example, books but does not gather a following outside the
on Linux can be found everywhere.
The question of whether OSS is of high-
er or lower quality than comparable com-
mercial software is essentially an empirical The OSS model has different
rather than philosophical question. The kinds of successes, and fewer
answer to this question is not readily avail-
able, but we can cite some preliminary outright failures.
anecdotal evidence on this issue. The
Apache web server is OSS that competes
with commercial web servers. The web
server market is a potentially lucrative one, developing community, that may be fine
and we expect commercial software devel- with the developers; if a commercial proj-
opers to compete for that market with high ect only pleases its developers, it is a finan-
quality software. Yet despite commercial cial failure. The OSS model has different
J of Inf, Com & Eth in Society 2003.1:193-205.
alternatives, according to third party kinds of successes, and fewer outright fail-
observers (Netcraft, 2002) the OSS Apache ures. The rewards for developers in an OSS
server is by far the most used web server. project are likely to be less tangible than
According to an August, 2002 survey, rewards for a successful commercial prod-
63% of web servers on the Internet are uct, but that does not make the rewards
Apache. At least in this market segment, it less real. The public has potential gains in
appears that OSS is sufficiently high quali- the OSS movement that do not require 199
ty for most users. Of course, Apache is free large investments by the public.
and other servers aren't; the cost motiva- Another distinction between OSS proj-
tion might explain some of Apache's popu- ects and commercial projects is the lack of
larity. But if the Apache server were of sig- a release date. While open source develop-
nificantly lower quality than commercial ers anticipate frequent releases, there are
alternatives, then it would be surprising to no release deadlines. The announcements
see its widespread use. This raises the ques- of a release day by a commercial vendor
tion of whether market-dominance and impose pressure on developers to cut cor-
popularity should be a benchmark for soft- ners, thus increasing the possibility of
ware quality. Does the fact that Microsoft errors in the software. Furthermore, such a
Windows runs on some 90% of home com- deadline has a tendency to impose on the
puters assure us of its quality? We would autonomy of the developer.
argue that popularity and quality might be Finally we note that both open source
linked if it can be shown that there is a level and proprietary developers share the same
of expertise about software quality in the professional ethical responsibility to devel-
people making the choices. System admin- op solid, well-tested code. The social pres-
istrators have more expertise than an aver- sure in the open source community to
age user of a home computer system. avoid code forking provides incentives for
Therefore, when a majority of these profes- project leaders to ensure that the code is
sionals choose an OSS alternative, it the best it can be. On the other hand, when
deserves notice. an open source developer believes there is
The Apache example illustrates an too much risk associated with a particular
important distinction among OSS users. piece of code, he/she can rewrite it and
Initially, first adopters of OSS are its devel- release it. While there is a reputation risk
opers and as the code becomes more in doing so, there is the opportunity to
known, OSS gains users who were not publicly demonstrate that the forked prod-
involved in the development. These users uct is superior. In a proprietary model,
adopt the OSS for many reasons, but some however, a developer’s main avenue of
Grodzinsky et al: Ethical Open Source Software
recourse is to ‘blow the whistle’ on his/her Often this is not done. So the many hands
manager or employer. To do so entails problem referred to by Nissenbaum in
grave personal risk to one's livelihood, pro- Computing and Accountability can be
fessional standing, lifestyle and family. reduced in OSS because parts of code can
Worse yet, the developer will likely not be ascribed to various developers, and their
have the opportunity to demonstrate the peers hold them accountable for their con-
wisdom of his/her ways. tributions.
Nissenbaum argues that accepting bugs
as a software fact of life has issues regarding
3.5 Open Source accountability (Nissenbaum, 1994). The
and Accountability open source approach to software develop-
ment treats the bug problem with a group
In her article entitled Computing and effort to detect and fix problems. Torvalds
Accountability, Helen Nissenbaum cites four states, “given enough eyeballs, all bugs are
barriers to accountability: shallow” (Raymond, 2001, p. 315). The per-
son that finds a bug in OSS may not be the
1. The problem of many hands, person to fix it. Since many adept develop-
2. bugs, ers examine OSS code, bugs are found and
3. computer as scapegoat and corrected more quickly than in a develop-
4. ownership without liability. ment effort where only a few developers
see the code. In this group effort, account-
She asserts that these barriers can lead to ability is not lost in the group, but is
J of Inf, Com & Eth in Society 2003.1:193-205.
“harm and risks for which no one is answer- instead taken up by the entire group. The
able and about which nothing is done” question of whether this group accounta-
(Nissenbaum, 1994). We will examine how bility is as effective as individual responsi-
OSS may have addressed barriers 1 and 2. bility is, again, empirical. The examples of
Number 3 is a general issue and number 4 Apache and Linux (Webcab solutions,
does not apply because there is not soft- 2003) offer at least anecdotal evidence that
200 ware ownership per se in open source. The some OSS demonstrates high reliability.
Open Source Definition #1 addresses her Don Gotterbarn is also concerned about
fourth point (See Appendix A). issues of professional accountability in OSS
“Where a mishap is the work of ‘many (Wolf et al, 2002). In addition to worries
hands’, it can be difficult to identify who is about sufficient care in programming and
accountable because the locus of decision maintaining OSS, Gotterbarn points out
making is frequently different from the that an OSS licensing agreement forces the
mishap’s most direct causal antecedent; authors of the software to relinquish con-
trol of the software. If someone puts OSS
to a morally objectionable use, then the
Accountability is not lost in the developers have no right to withdraw the
software from that use.
group, but is instead taken up Gotterbarn’s objection has some theo-
by the entire group retical interest, for the OSS licensing agree-
ments clearly state that no one who follows
the OSS rules can be blocked from using
the software. But if we accept the idea that
that is, cause and intent do not converge” software developers have a moral duty to
(Johnson, 1995). In open source, however, if police the use of the software they distrib-
a developer were to write irresponsible ute, especially when the software is utility
code, others contributing to the open software, we fall into a practical and theo-
source software would be unlikely to accept retical thicket. How is a vendor to know
it. So, in this case, there is built-in individ- the eventual use of software, especially
ual accountability. If a developer were part when the software is utility software (such
of a large company, where all programming as an operating system or a graphics pack-
parts contribute to a large commercial ven- age)? Are software developers empowered
ture, it then would fall on both the compa- to judge the ethics of each customer or per-
ny and the individual to accept responsibil- spective customer? These responsibilities
ity for the problematic software product. are overreaching ethically, and far too
Grodzinsky et al: Ethical Open Source Software
The claim that OSS is a revolutionary idea, Are OSS developers actually motivated to
a departure from previous models of intel- do good by contributing software to the
lectual property, is worth examining. public, and by maintaining it in a group
Although clearly distinct from a commer- effort? Some developers argue that they
cial model of software development, OSS can customize OSS, and if others find the
can be seen as a continuation of previously customizations useful, then they have pro-
accepted traditions in academics in general, vided a public good. However, there could 201
and in mathematics in particular. be another possible motivation for OSS. It
Academia has long had the tradition of might be a philosophical or instinctive ani-
sharing ideas without direct payments. mus towards existing commercial software
Scholarly journals do not pay authors (and developers. Bertrand Meyer recites with
in fact may charge them for pages printed). dismay the many negative statements by
Law has not protected mathematical for- OSS advocates about commercial software
mulae and formal descriptions of natural development and developers (Meyer,
laws. Copyright covers the expression of 2000). Some see ‘Microsoft bashing’ as a
ideas, but not the ideas themselves; patent central theme of the OSS movement. Since
has (at least traditionally) protected the
practical application of ideas, but not the
physical laws underlying the ideas. So, if
software is viewed as an extended mathe- However, is there an active
matical object, akin to a theorem, then interest among developers to
OSS could be a natural extension of the
create a public good?
long tradition of free ideas in mathematics.
Does that make it a public good?
Peter Kollack, a sociologist at the
University of California at Los Angeles,
examines the idea of public goods on line in most OSS competes directly with
his paper entitled The Economies of Online Microsoft products, some friction between
Cooperation: Gifts and Public Goods in OSS advocates and the largest commercial
Cyberspace. He defines public goods as software corporation seems inevitable. But
those things that are non-excludable and if OSS development is motivated primarily
indivisible. Because the Open Source by its opposition to commercial software
Definition prohibits discrimination against producers, then its ethical underpinnings
persons or groups or against fields of are less benign than if OSS is motivated
endeavor (see Appendix A), it supports the primarily by an altruistic desire to help
Grodzinsky et al: Ethical Open Source Software
computer users. Since the OSS movement science students, involves accessing the
is, by design, decentralized and evolving, it source code. Open source software makes
seems impossible to gauge with any preci- looking at the source code easy. While it is
sion the motivations of all its members. But true that some proprietary software ven-
the often-repeated disdain for commercial dors are willing to share their source code
business practices seems more in tune with with universities for educational purposes,
the hacker culture than with a culture of others are not. It is precisely when the soft-
altruism. So, we would argue that for the ware vendor is unwilling to share source
most part, the altruism involved in the cre- code with university faculty, or makes it
ation of a public good in the case of OSS is onerous on the university, that the universi-
more of a by-product of developers who are ty is faced with an ethical dilemma: How
interested in creating tools that are of use does it respond to proprietary software ven-
for themselves. Customization and expan- dors that interfere with its duty to educate
sion of Linux, for example, came from its students? OSS provides a partial solution
developers who wanted applications for to that problem. These questions are fur-
their own use and then shared their code. ther complicated by the relationship that
Nowhere can OSS be considered more of software companies often share with many
a public good than in the academic com- universities. It is not uncommon for a soft-
munity. Computer Science departments are ware company to make generous contribu-
expected to be on the cutting edge of tech- tions to a computer science department for
nology in their curricular offerings. access to the department's graduates, or to
The price of commercial software, even sponsor a faculty member's research.
J of Inf, Com & Eth in Society 2003.1:193-205.
with educational discounts, often straps a Faculty at these institutions must take care
department's budget. Academic institu- not to let the largess interfere with their
tions have strong financial motivations to ethical responsibilities to their students.
adopt open source software. GNU compil- If a university is part of the open source
ers, for example, have largely replaced pro- community, we might expect them to be a
prietary versions that cost the university contributor as well as a user of OSS. For
202 software fees as well as licensing fees. many places of higher education, especially
Linux is appearing as the operating system research institutions, this is not an issue as
of choice often replacing Solaris. As more university faculty and students develop
and more applications run on Linux, uni- much open source software. But those
versities will have less incentive to buy institutions, whose faculty and students are
from vendors who offer a UNIX platform. not making such contributions, are faced
They will buy cheaper hardware and run with making the choice of contributing in
Linux. One caveat to this scenario is the some other way.
availability of staff that can support the One approach might be a cash donation
Linux platform and the availability of doc- to an appropriate foundation that supports
umentation for OSS. open source development for the value the
Using OSS at a university raises interest- software brings to the educational environ-
ing ethical questions. One could argue that ment. This is not always easy to do.
a university should expose its students to Anecdotally, a federal employee who want-
multiple perspectives so students develop ed to do this reported two problems:
skills to make judgments about the world
around them. A university that exposes its 1. Accountants in her agency balked at
students to a single point of view fails to making a contribution; they thought it
help a student develop these skills. Thus, a might be illegal.
university should provide a learning envi- 2. She tried but could not get additional
ronment where future computer science clarifying information from the OSS
professionals are exposed to both propri- foundation. Contact people listed at the
etary and open source software, and be foundation did not return her emails
given experiences to develop software eval- and phone calls. She ended up not mak-
uative skills. Part of this evaluation would ing a donation and feeling bad about it.
come from using the software and evaluat-
ing the effectiveness from a user's perspec- It may be argued that merely exposing stu-
tive. However, an important part of the dents to open source software may fulfill the
evaluative process, at least for computer university’s ethical obligation to support OSS
Grodzinsky et al: Ethical Open Source Software
since doing so meets the OSS community's in the foreseeable future, and we have not
goal of building the OSS user community. uncovered any ethical imperative that it
Finally, we explore an issue that is should. Yet, OSS has distinct economic
becoming part of the mission of many insti-
tutions of higher education: service learn-
ing. The choice between open source soft-
ware and proprietary software plays into All software developers have
service learning as well. Consider a scenario ethical obligations for quality
where a software engineering class is to and openness.
produce a piece of software for a local char-
ity. The choice between open source alter-
natives and proprietary alternatives is not
to be taken lightly. Seemingly, open source
software makes good sense for both the advantages for many especially in the aca-
students and the charitable organization. demic arena. It can help bridge the digital
The cost is low and, presumably, the quali- divide and can involve growing numbers of
ty is sufficient. Yet there are long-term people in computing, both as developers
costs that are faced by the charity (as well and users. Developers of OSS strive to be
as any business making such a choice). the best they can to contribute to the sus-
How expensive will it be to maintain the tainable whole and thus secure their repu-
software? Is there enough open source tation ethically among their peers.
expertise available to maintain it? And, OSS and commercial software can coex-
J of Inf, Com & Eth in Society 2003.1:193-205.
finally, what documentation and user train- ist, each giving the public the goods it
ing can be expected if OSS is the software desires. Both advocates and critics of OSS
of choice. An extension of the service have an ethical obligation to respect each
model might offer some on-going support other and to avoid inaccurate and mean-
to these charities. spirited accusations. All software develop-
ers have ethical obligations for quality and
openness (Software engineering code of 203
4. CONCLUSION ethics, 1999). OSS is a novel development
of traditional ideas of sharing academic
OSS is no longer an academic curiosity. We intellectual property, but OSS exists in a
have demonstrated that certain OSS prod- world dominated by commercial enter-
ucts are making a significant niche for prise. As such, OSS challenges the status
themselves in computing environments. quo in a way that can be a constructive
Both Apache and Linux are increasing in check on excesses of traditional free enter-
popularity. The OSS model is distinct from prise systems. In a time when many for-
commercial software development from profit corporations have disappointed the
several viewpoints: as a software engineer- public with their lack of ethical behavior,
ing process, as an economic plan, and as a OSS has the potential to be a positive ethi-
marketing strategy. In both models, howev- cal force in the world of computing.
er, developers have certain obligations and Hackers who get involved in OSS develop-
responsibilities to their users. In our analy- ment can contribute to the sustainable
sis we have argued that open source soft- whole and, thus ethically secure their repu-
ware’s successes may be due in part to the tation among their peers. This is a way to
sheer number of people who get involved, publicly excel at hacking without illegal and
and to the users who are engaged from the unethical harm to others.
start of development.
We have found that the authors of OSS
have complex motivations, some laudatory, APPENDIX A
and others less so. OSS has produced some
successes, and the public has benefited Open Source Definition
from these. There are questions about reli-
ability and professionalism, but evidence Open source doesn't just mean access to
against the quality of OSS is not, as yet, the source code. The distribution terms of
convincing to us. It does not appear likely open-source software must comply with
that OSS will displace commercial software the following criteria:
Grodzinsky et al: Ethical Open Source Software
ferred form in which a developer would The rights attached to the program must
modify the program. Deliberately obfuscat- not depend on the program's being part of
ed source code is not allowed. Intermediate a particular software distribution. If the
forms such as the output of a preprocessor program is extracted from that distribution
or translator are not allowed. and used or distributed within the terms of
the program's license, all parties to whom
the program is redistributed should have
204 A.3 Derived Works the same rights as those that are granted in
conjunction with the original software dis-
The license must allow modifications and tribution.
derived works, and must allow them to be
distributed under the same terms as the
license of the original software. A.9 The License Must Not
Restrict Other Software
A.4 Integrity of The Author's The license must not place restrictions on
Source Code other software that is distributed along
with the licensed software. For example,
The license may restrict source-code from the license must not insist that all other
being distributed in modified form only if programs distributed on the same medium
the license allows the distribution of must be open-source software.:
“patch files” with the source code for the http://www.opensource.org/docs/defini-
purpose of modifying the program at build tion_plain.html
time. The license must explicitly permit
distribution of software built from modi-
fied source code. The license may require APPENDIX B
derived works to carry a different name or
version number from the original soft- “To copyleft a program, we first state that
ware. it is copyrighted; then we add distribution
terms, which are a legal instrument that
gives everyone the rights to use, modify,
A.5 No Discrimination and redistribute the program's code or any
Against Persons or Groups program derived from it but only if the dis-
tribution terms are unchanged. Thus, the
The license must not discriminate against code and the freedoms become legally
any person or group of persons. inseparable.”(www.FSF.org)
Grodzinsky et al: Ethical Open Source Software
1. U. Pagallo. 2010. Ethics among peers: file sharing on the internet between openness and precaution. Journal of Information,
Communication and Ethics in Society 8:2, 136-149. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. F. S. Grodzinsky, K. Miller, M. J. Wolf. 2006. Influences on and incentives for increasing software reliability. Journal of
Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 4:2, 103-113. [Abstract] [PDF]
3. Kevin BrockEstablishing Ethos on Proprietary and Open Source Software Websites 915-935. [CrossRef]
4. Kevin BrockEstablishing Ethos on Proprietary and Open Source Software Websites 56-76. [CrossRef]
J of Inf, Com & Eth in Society 2003.1:193-205.