The Concept of Free Software - Term Paper Example

The Debate over software licensing and free software Number and Due Executive Summary This report wasrequested on (date requested) to provide a clear understanding of the security uses of computers and networks and how to improve computer security. The free and open source software (F/OSS) movement advocates that a computer software should be free so that a program’s source code should be shared or ‘open’ rather than ‘closed’ or licensed. In the conventional licensing method, the developer is the owner of the software copyright, but in the open source, copyright belongs to a group or entity although the source code of the software must be open for scrutiny and any user or researcher can adapt and modify the software code. Once users have adapted or modified the code, they are free to use or sell it and the original source code remains for others to use and adapt as well. The goals of the F/OSS movement can improve computer security and are doable, but it needs popular support. Table of Contents Title Page No. Introduction 4 Free and Open Source Software Movement 4 Ethical Teaching 5 The “Framing Perspective” 5 Removing Security Measures 5 Conclusion 6 Recommendation 6 References 7 Introduction This report will provide an analysis of computer security and how some movement, such as the free and open source movement, has provided the concept of eliminating computer licensing to improve computer security. This essay will be discussing the concept of free software as against nonfree software. The question of free software and nonfree software has become controversial. There is the argument that information has become limited because of computer software licensing. Free software advocates argue that information is for everyone and should be shared. Free software means no price and a nonfree program is “an instrument of unjust power” (Stallman 2014). Free software advocates contend that by eliminating computer licensing and using free software available for everyone, computer hackers who wreak havoc over the Internet with their computer viruses and malicious software will become a thing of the past. Moreover, in this age of intense globalization, the digital divide is still predominant between developing and developed countries with many in the developing world still unable to take hold of a computer. Software licensing has widened this divide. Free software has become more important than ever. A counter argument states that we should not eliminate licensing because everyone has a right to his/her invention. Computer software is an intellectual property which is someone’s invention and the inventor has every right to that invention. Moreover, we are a people governed by laws and it has always been that way. Humans have always been accustomed by governance of laws. It is still not clear who will come out victorious in this debate and in the fight against free and nonfree software. As in the game of basketball, it is still a long shot. Discussion Computer software, or programming, can be licensed under the law like an invention wherein the inventor can register a patent. UK laws permit licensing of intellectual property right (IPR) (Madison 2007). But is software licensing not antisocial? Richard Stallman and his “hacker” colleagues at MIT originated the free software movement. They developed software tools and gave these free to other users, with their philosophy that providing free software would eliminate hackers and information will be free for all. That time was the beginning of the free and open source software movement (F/OSS) (Sullivan 2011), a movement that in a sense fosters social justice. Is software licensing antisocial? Let us put things in proper perspective by defining the term antisocial. Antisocial is a social behavior which can refer to “disregard for others,” in contrast to “concern for others” (Rhee et al. 2013). The term “disregard for others” is used to describe behaviors like physical attacks, teasing/taunting, or anger. Early disregard for others’ pain is an example of antisocial behavior. Following this definition, to say that computer licensing is antisocial means those who have licensed computer programs do not have concern for others. The concept of eliminating computer licensing espouses social justice. Free and Open Source Software (F/OSS) Movement The ‘open source’ movement advocates giving free software to the public where individual users are free to own the source code and do what they want to do with it. Open source is an advocacy of freedom-loving people whose philosophy is shared by users who want to improve and develop the software. This group is against proprietary software which, to them, is anticompetitive. They are against the so-called ‘grandback clauses’ which provide exclusive rights only to the licensor without giving any portion of the right to the licensee, or excluding the rest of the users to own even a portion of such right (Rustad 2010). The concept of free software was Richard Stallman’s goal while working at MIT. In the early 1970s, Stallman and his programmer colleagues called themselves “hackers” as they were experimenting with the UNIX-based systems and developing software tools that were given free to other users. The term “hacker” from the beginning did not have a negative connotation but it had a positive meaning because it referred to a technologically, intelligent person who was against intellectual property rights (Coleman & Golub, 2008 as cited in Sullivan, 2011). Ethical Teaching Humans always have a way in finding solutions to the evil of this world. F/OSS movement is only one way of solving computer security. But we can consider this a long shot as it is unattainable in the short run. Others may find solutions like ethical teaching. Is ethical teaching the solution to computer security problems? Ethical teaching can be taught, or is taught, in school or at home. But ethical teaching cannot be forced on everyone and it can only be given and voluntarily taken, just like the F/OSS movement. It is simply voluntary. There are times that security in a perimeter can be dealt with by removing the fence and the guards. You can improve diplomacy and ethical teaching in the neighborhood but only to a certain extent. In a short while, people with evil intent will come and ransack your home. Ethical teaching might help and we should always have the time to educate users; but it is not the ultimate solution. The “Framing Perspective” Social movement scholars and advocates argued that social movements are sustained by ideas, one of which is the concept of “framing,” which sees movements as a symbol for change. Framing describes activities in which individuals involved in a social action use these events as a way of transforming people and to gain popular support (Sullivan 2011, p. 226). Would the removal of computer security measures reduce the incidence of computer fraud? Security risks have been increasing no matter how organisations and governments have applied security in their IT infrastructure. Removal of computer security measures will exacerbate security and increase fraud. Hackers are always prepared to attack, i.e. to retrieve information or to commit fraud. Success in combating computer fraud can only be achieved through a coordinated effort of the different sectors with an application of technical and socio-organisational factors. Employees should focus on compliance to information security policies (Bulgurcu, Cavusoglu, & Benbasat 2010). Organisations can penalise employees. At home, the head of the family should provide security measures to safeguard the family from fraud and unethical contents available on the Internet, such as pornography and selling of drugs without adequate prescriptions. Removing Security Measures Removing security measures will exacerbate fraud. Success of F/OSS is still a long way and even if it is already in our midst, people will always find a way to earn money out of nothing. There will be new breed of hackers. Continuous improvement, checking for loopholes or security lapses, and regular audits for possible threats and risks, should be done in the organisation or even at home. In the office or organisation, security awareness is important. Employees can be risk or assets; they can conduct security risk themselves but they can also pose a security challenge as their mistakes and deliberate actions can endanger information security. Computer security encompasses subjects regarding risks and threats and the significance of risk management and protecting computers in a network from threats of viruses, worms, and various types of malicious software or malware (Bulgurcu, Cavusoglu, & Benbasat 2010). Security risks are about unauthorized access to information, such as data leakage, privacy and fraud. Computer virus can attack and spread so rapidly, destroying files and collecting confidential information. IT infrastructure is at risk without an updated and effective security. Effective risk management is one of the solutions to computer security. Conclusion Free and open source software (F/OSS) movement is an inspiring movement for free software advocacy and is just the beginning for users to feel the social justice that advocates of the movement adhered to. If activists for social justice cannot totally erase licensing, they can begin with FOSS and make others follow their footsteps. But as stated in the discussion, it needs support from various sectors and the movement needs time and more resources to become successful. Free software advocacy promotes the philosophy espoused by social justice movements “to promote a change in the society” (Killian & Turner as cited in Sullivan, 2011, p. 223), and also to provide a collective action to express their sentiments. Members of this movement (computerisation movement) have provided a free operating system, Linux, which has been distributed over the Internet. This is what they can do so far: promote social justice movements in order to enhance security. But their means are limited by resources and support. Security risks might be reduced but not completely eliminated if free and open source software movement might be successful in their goals. The emphasis can be put on the word “might” as it is still a long way for the movement. This movement needs money, resources, and support from the general public. Recommendation We need to support this movement because it is for the welfare of everyone of the whole planet. Computers will be with us until many generations and we need security. F/OSS is a social justice movement aiming for a free computer software for all. However, this method needs a multi-sectoral support from governments and organizations. It is a movement for change and changing the status quo will always require a lot of resources an efforts. References Bulgurcu, B, Cavusoglu, H, & Benbasat, I 2010, ‘Information security policy compliance: an empirical study of rationality-based beliefs and information security awareness’, MIS Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 523-548, viewed 13 September 2014, via EBSCOHOST database. Madison, M 2007, ‘The legitimacy of open source and other software licenses’, Journal of Internet Law, vol. 8, no. 12, pp. 13-25, viewed 12 September 2014, via EBSCOHOST database. Rhee, S, Friedman, N, Boeldt, D, Corley, R, Hewitt, J, Knafo, A, Lahey, B, Robinson, J, Van Hulle, C, Waldman, I, Young S, & Zahn-Waxler 2013, ‘Early concern and disregard for others as predictors of antisocial behavior’, Journal of child Psychology and Psychiatry, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 157-166, viewed 12 September 2013, via EBSCOHOST database. Rustad, M 2010, Software licensing: principles and practical strategies, Oxford University Press, Inc., Madison Avenue, New York. Stallman, R 2014, Why software should not have owners, viewed 12 September 2012, . Sullivan, J 2011, ‘Free, open source software advocacy as a social justice movement: the expansion of F/OSS movement discourse in the 21st century’, Journal of Information Technology & Politics, vol. 8, pp. 223-239, viewed 14 September 2014, via EBSCOHOST database. Read More