Flotation in a Legal Vacuum

At 08:04 31.01.2003 +0100, Bernard wrote:
-------------------------
> But, regarding Vietnam, isn't it a bit arrogant to tell people
>about freedom ... when thay necessarily associate the term with other
>issues much more basic than software to their lives.

Actually, it is about freedom, but on another level.
If MS and other proprietary IP right holders succeeds to lobby the US
Administration to pressure the Vietnamese Government, and to apply trade
sanctions (as they did with China) for not compliance, then this does
restrict freedom. Not freedom of Software, but on various other fields.

>Bernard
>
>PS
> sorry if these ideas are already written somewhere (where ???), I
>do not remember any discussion of the GPL opposed to a copyrightless
>legal system ... other than on this list.

Yes, it seems also new to me. Although I would not consider it as "GPL
opposed to a copyrightless legal system", but "Free Software and/or Open
Source Software _in_ a copyrightless legal system".

Furthermore, the "free beer" part is one part in other countries, but it is
/the big one/ here. Other countries might have a choice between proprietary
SW (because they could afford it) and non-proprietary SW. Vietnam does not
really have. The argumentation and focus is consequently different.

Finally, all the present philosophies focus on either the
developer's/development community's perspective (mainly FSF), or the SW
producing or using businesses (mainly OSS), but pretty nothing on the
macro political level in a fairly legal vacuum, as we are facing it here in
Vietnam.

After my last "summary post", titled "Religions and the Name of the Law",
which centered around a possible policy perspective, I will try now to
summarize some other aspects, around a SW user perspective /in our situation/.

Disclaimer: The following thoughts concern our situation in Vietnam - or
any other situation in a fairly "legal vacuum" regarding IP rights, and a
very low USD purchasing power.

In this situation, for the developer (individual, community, company),
"Free Software" makes pretty much the same sense like in other countries,
and for companies (SW producer or buyer/orderer), "Open Source Software"
does make sense. In fact, in that situation there are only philosophy
differences. It all boils down, whether the source code is available or
not: As soon as the sources are available, that SW is de-facto "free" and
"open", and allows it to get improved, adapted to the situation, etc.

For the average end user, who mainly needs an OS and the usual "office
applications", and who is not requesting changes to the SW, there are
however differences:

In the short run (i.e. in that situation), (s)he may use any SW,
proprietary or not, which best provides the requested features, e.g. by
just copying the SW from readily available CDs. The (only) ethic question
about this is, whether it is justifiable, not to pay the un-affordable high
requested fees to officially obtain the rights to use some SW, partly to a
company, which is legally convicted in its own country for
unlawful/unethical behaviour (monopolizing). It is NOT a question of
/using/ proprietary SW or another SW, since the pure use does not affect
any producer.

Note, that in this situation, in fact it is not an ethical question, but an
ethical dilemma on several levels: To pay the required fees would mean to
hurt the economy very much, make people unemployed etc. It furthermore
would mean to adversely affect the country's foreign trade balance, making
it more dependent, i.e. reducing "freedom".

In the medium run, users should prepare, that the situation might change.
This means
a) to make sure, that data (files) still can be used, in case SW has to be
changed.
(remember: to pay license fees is not an option)
b) to make sure, that no business process etc. is based on SW which cannot
be replaced (at affordable cost), if necessary.

In fact, as I have argued already, the pure preparedness of a reasonable
majority of SW users for a possible change, might be the best prevention,
that the situation does in practice not change. If those who might be
interested in a change, would loose more than they possibly could win by
pressing for a change, then they might as well adopt a position of "laissez
faire", i.e. minimizing damages.

In the medium to long run, the a.m. ethical question and dilemma might be
resolved, once there is adequate SW available, which can be used without IP
right "infringements", and which at least equals or outperforms the other
SW in the requested features.

Stefan

Stefan

To facilitate co-ordination regarding the introduction of OSS SW in Vietnam

Subscribe to OSS:

Subscribe | Unsubscribe