Evil software vs good software

[earobinson]

Last night I was talking to my brother via GTalk (still dont work for my one email :(), and I was trying to explain to him my views on evil vs good software, and well I was just wondering what the community thinks about this. So here is my view as a programmer. NOTE: I do not claim to be correct at all just keeping my ideas open source (lol bad joke)

My view:
I think that software has one purpose, and that is to empower the user. In my mind software should give as much control to the user as possible, and as secure as possible. Not only should software be secure but it should do what it claims to do and nothing more or less. This is to say that if I write a program that will play mp3s and my description of the program is that it plays mp3s, it should not only play mp3s but it should not install any kind of addware or spyware, and a programmer/hacker/user should not be able to play any kind of mp3 that would damage the computer in any way. I should be given the simple options of play pause stop open ..., they should be easy to find easy to do and that it it.

Software should always be simple to remove and software bundles eg Windows, MS office, Open office, It should be easy to remove any component in that software (In windows a user should be able to uninstall IE) now I know that IE is needed to browse folders in windows but that is a choice that the programmers made, a user should at least be able to uninstall the IE Internet browser so that the version of IE he/she has on his/her computer can not browse the web.

Simple enough, however I also think that ethics come into play when talking about software (or anything else for that matter) Just like it would be wrong for rogers (a cell phone company) to not tell bell (another cell phone company) how to place a call to a cell phone it is wrong for largely distributed software to not provide an easy way for other software to interact. I will list a few programs that I consider largely distributed and that should be documented, ICQ, AOL, MS Word, Adobe Reader (not this is supported), So why should these programs have to provide documentation, (an API), not source code so that other programmers can write programs to interact with them, simple these are programs that people 'need', or at least use a lot, and unless any OS can use them it is hindering that OS from being successful and that hinders the OS's success since a lot of people need to be able to open .doc files in order to live there lives, for example handing in a resume it is expected to be in .doc and only .doc format. Why is it not enough to support all the OS's out there, simple that hinders new competitors from entering the market. People should not be buying MS Office to open .doc files, they should buy it because it is good software with lots of features that are easy to use.

Now I know that Gaim supports ICQ and Open office supports MS Office .doc, but that is only due to the hard work of the people that revers engineered these programs, and it is not always prefect.

My point is that software has to be non exclusive. I have nothing against winamp a propitiatory program because winamp dose not exclude anyone, It is possible to function with out winamp. In my mind software should follow these simple rules:

1.Do what is says its going to do and nothing more.
2.Do what it says its going to do well and securely.
3.Easy to uninstall
4.Give as much control as possible to the user.
5.Disclose file formats and protocols so that other OS's and programs can at least interact.

I do understand that in some cases like .zip files disclosing how the file is saved gives away the whole program and how it is made and work. In such a case I feel that, firstly the program should only be forced to disclose there format when it has become sufficiently popular, this is very similar to a patent on lets lay a new cell phone (sticking with the cell phone idea) it allows me to have a monopoly for a short period of time before letting in competition.

I know this article is short and I only scratched the surface and I will be happy to debate good thought out replys, this is only my view it is not the only view, and not whole view there is still a lot I could say. Since I have picked on Bill a bit to much for my liking (there are many other evil programs out there) I will say that I think that Bill Gates is a great ... no amazing man he give a lot of money to charity and dose a lot of great things, just the software practices of Microsoft in my mind are evil.

cheers

ps my first long post so be nice

NOTE: I think it is fair to say that we all know that software can not be good or evil since it is not a human and when we talk about evil software we are really talking about evil/bad programers/corporations/programing ethics. Im not intrested in who is evil more just the ethics of programing

NOTE 2: If you think other in the polls tell us what you think.

NOTE: lets say evil = unethical

[student]

I think that software has one purpose, and that is to empower the user. In my mind software should give as much control to the user as possible, and as secure as possible. Not only should software be secure but it should do what it claims to do and nothing more or less.

IMHO software has the purpose of advancing in the path of evolution.
So in that aspect, it has to be opensource, or it's evil...

[earobinson]

IMHO software has the purpose of advancing in the path of evolution.
So in that aspect, it has to be opensource, or it's evil...
IHMO?

[Brunellus]

IHMO?
In My Humble Opinion.

ah, I miss usenet!

[earobinson]

ahh ok, It is a very good point, but people have a right to do with there ideas what they please, and to profit off them. I could be wrong, and I see nothing wrong with a compleatly open source world, I just dont think thats its evil if you come up with a super cool program to make a lil profit off it as long as you dont hurt the competition, by ways of excluding them (Its ok to hurt the competition if there product is crap but not by making your software the standard and then relying on that to sell the next version).

[student]

should have been IMHO yes, sorry.


ahh ok, It is a very good point, but people have a right to do with there ideas what they please, and to profit off them. I could be wrong, and I see nothing wrong with a compleatly open source world, I just dont think thats its evil if you come up with a super cool program to make a lil profit off it as long as you dont hurt the competition, by ways of excluding them (Its ok to hurt the competition if there product is crap but not by making your software the standard and then relying on that to sell the next version).

People have been writing books for years, and they can still live from them. Isn't software just a book thats written in some language ? A book people can use, and should be able to read.

[Kvark]

Any software that is loyal to the administrators of the system it runs on is good. Any software that partly or entirely has it's loyalties elsewhere is an evil traitor and shouldn't be on the system. Now to define who the administrators are and in what ways a program can betray them...

The administrators on a company network is the tech guys at the IT department who makes sure everything runs as the boss wants it to. The administrator at home could be a teenage geek who makes sure the parents can do work, himself can play violent games and his little brother can play only less violent games on the computer.

Things programs shouldn't do includes... mess with anything the program shouldn't need to mess with... secretly send 'statistics' or other info to an outside entity... hide something where it can't be easily found and removed... purposely contain backdoors or such... display ads, nags or other annoyances... deliberately limit what the user can do (unless this was the admins' purpose, like parental locks)... lock the users' data into files that are designed to make it hard for other programs to read the data... the list goes on, there is many ways in which your programs can petray you.

If a program don't do anything that conflicts with the interests of the admin then it's good regardless of if it's open or closed source. It may be a bit hard to prove that a closed source program is honest though since nobody except for the author can read what it actually does.

[skoal]

Like mama always sed, "evil is as evil duz..."

\\//_

[weasel fierce]

Rather than good and evil, I tend to distinguish between good and crap :)

[bored2k]

No such thing as evil software.

If Im the author, I can do whatever I feel like with my software.

[sapo]

No such thing as evil software.

If Im the author, I can do whatever I feel like with my software.
for me the only evil software are the ones that come with spywares...

[crispingatiesa]

"Evilness" is a human characteristic. Software does what the SOB that made it designed it for.

[bored2k]

for me the only evil software are the ones that come with spywares...
Not necessarily. When I make my all-in-one Toilet/Gaming.Console/Magazine.Library:roll:/Plasma_HDTV I'm planning to get Sponsored by Downy or some toilet paper company.

[skoal]

Not necessarily. When I make my all-in-one Toilet/Gaming.Console/Magazine.Library:roll:/Plasma_HDTV I'm planning to get Sponsored by Downy or some toilet paper company.
haha. I just keep a cigar and 'Cosmopolitan' magazine in my bathroom, leaving the door open for my 30 foot Xbox controller cord when necessary. But I _do_ like your idea. I'm sending you a paypal donation. I see real investment potential there...

\\//_

[earobinson]

"Evilness" is a human characteristic. Software does what the SOB that made it designed it for.

True so lets make it good vs bad software or good vs bad programing ethics you understand what im getting at.


No such thing as evil software.

If Im the author, I can do whatever I feel like with my software.

You will have to back this up, yes maybe it is a good and bad programer but if i make a program that takes control away form the user is that not bad

[darkmatter]

if i make a program that takes control away form the user is that not bad

Yes, this is bad. However, it is still the PROGRAMMER who is bad (evil) in this scenario.

The program itself is still good, as it does exactly what it was intended to do.

[earobinson]

Yes, this is bad. However, it is still the PROGRAMMER who is bad (evil) in this scenario.

The program itself is still good, as it does exactly what it was intended to do.
fair, but i think we are arguing over the choice of words here not the issue

[Lord Illidan]

I don't think software can be evil, unless we are talking about some kind of freaky AI, lol.. Neither the programmers. It is the corporations who release it at freaking high prices!
Of course, if the programmer has released software with evil intent, such as virus writers, then the programmer is evil, but the software can't be evil in itself!!!

[earobinson]

I don't think software can be evil, unless we are talking about some kind of freaky AI, lol.. Neither the programmers. It is the corporations who release it at freaking high prices!
Of course, if the programmer has released software with evil intent, such as virus writers, then the programmer is evil, but the software can't be evil in itself!!!
see page one edit

[darkmatter]

fair, but i think we are arguing over the choice of words here not the issue

Sorry, somantics...

In regards the the ethical issues, I will say that I am against any software designed with malicious intent as well as software designed to take freedom/power away from the user or to squash competition.

I do not believe that software needs to be FOSS to do this, however the authors of such software must allow for alternative choices for the end user (read: no patents, DRM, or other nasty little stranglehold tactics)

[skoal]

[...] I will say that I am against any software designed with malicious intent as well as software designed to take freedom/power away from the user or to squash competition.

I do not believe that software needs to be FOSS to do this, however the authors of such software must allow for alternative choices for the end user (read: no patents, DRM, or other nasty little stranglehold tactics)
How do you do that? Honestly, nothing comes to mind (of course it's been 2.6 hours since my last Skoal injection, so go figure)...

If you provide a closed source binary foo, how is anyone supposed to offer an alternative ^H^H^H^H x ~50...

...scratch that. I see what you mean now. For example, programmer1 creates an open platform audio codec (ogg, for example, I guess), programmer2 writes a closed source binary called fooogg, using prior open codec, and sells it. Programmer3 can come along and do the same with barogg, FOSS or otherwise...

As the machoman would say, "I can dig it..."

\\//_

[Kvark]

Yes, this is bad. However, it is still the PROGRAMMER who is bad (evil) in this scenario.

The program itself is still good, as it does exactly what it was intended to do.
I completely disagree. Humans are not good or evil. It is the things we do that can be judged as such. Some deeds such as teaching kids, fighting crime, developing a medicine or writing a useful program are good. Some deeds such as robbing a bank, stealing a car, cheating on your wife/husband or writing a virus are evil. But the human who did it is just a half good - half bad mixture who has done many deeds both good and bad in her life. Thats why the law (hopefully) judges based on your actions and not based on who you are. Because it is the actions, in this case the program, and not the person, in this case the author, that can be judged as good or evil.

[earobinson]

see page one

[mstlyevil]

What is it you are defining as Evil? I always thought Evil embodied something like the holocaust, genocide, and other atrocities that KILL PEOPLE! Software is a computer program. How has that directly and intentionally killed people. Some people are evil. But software is just a bunch of code that is only used as a tool. A tool is not evil in and of itself. It is the intention of the person that uses the tool that defines it pupose. So IMHO software is not evil. Just because it is made by a corporation does not make it evil. It is the pupose for witch it is used that determines good or evil.

[darkmatter]

What is it you are defining as Evil? I always thought Evil embodied something like the holocaust, genocide, and other atrocities that KILL PEOPLE! Software is a computer program. How has that directly and intentionally killed people. Some people are evil. But software is just a bunch of code that is only used as a tool. A tool is not evil in and of itself. It is the intention of the person that uses the tool that defines it pupose. So IMHO software is not evil. Just because it is made by a corporation does not make it evil. It is the pupose for witch it is used that determines good or evil.
Exactly.

[npaladin2000]

Hmm...evil is a sticky word here, since some consider anything that's closed-source to be evil no matter what. Someone said a program is like a book and everyone should be able to read it, but that's wrong. A program is built, not written A program has to be tested, a book doesn't. A program has to perform a function and interact; a book is just read. Finally, the book is distributed in the only form that can have value derived from it.

Finally, consider the following: even if books and music are open-source, so to speak, if you copy them and use them in your own work, even if you don't make any money off of it, you're still guilty of theft (ever heard of plagarism?)

Anyway, back to the topic. Software can act in an evil way, I suppose. Mostly if it does something undocumented or messes with a system in a way that is not disclosed (like when they install spyware) or if they prevent the installation of competing software (impeeding competion, no matter in what way, is very evil). I can understand the preference for open-source since it's easier to see if a piece of code does one of these things or not.

[earobinson]

ok my words may be a bit extreme lets say evil = unethical


Hmm...evil is a sticky word here, since some consider anything that's closed-source to be evil no matter what. Someone said a program is like a book and everyone should be able to read it, but that's wrong. A program is built, not written A program has to be tested, a book doesn't. A program has to perform a function and interact; a book is just read. Finally, the book is distributed in the only form that can have value derived from it.

Finally, consider the following: even if books and music are open-source, so to speak, if you copy them and use them in your own work, even if you don't make any money off of it, you're still guilty of theft (ever heard of plagarism?)

Anyway, back to the topic. Software can act in an evil way, I suppose. Mostly if it does something undocumented or messes with a system in a way that is not disclosed (like when they install spyware) or if they prevent the installation of competing software (impeeding competion, no matter in what way, is very evil). I can understand the preference for open-source since it's easier to see if a piece of code does one of these things or not.

Ok so a program is more like blueprints?

Plagarism is wrong but so is murder yet we still let people have guns (why not let people have the source code?) Just because you give a person the tool to do something wrong dont make insure that they will do something wrong. And even if one person dose something wrong why punish the rest of us. (just playing the devils advocate)

Also would love to hear from the gnu and open source people

[npaladin2000]

Ok so a program is more like blueprints?

That's actually a pretty good comparison, really. I'd say it'd be closer to say that source code is more like blueprints...source code and program are not always alike, except when dealing with an interpreted language. The source code is like the blueprint for the compiler to follow to construct the program. Blueprints are not always open to the public, but sometimes they are and can be used to build a house somewhere else by someone else. However, because it's a different environment (Different CPU, distro, or PC) the design might have to be adjusted to fit the new environment.


Plagarism is wrong but so is murder yet we still let people have guns (why not let people have the source code?) Just because you give a person the tool to do something wrong dont make insure that they will do something wrong. And even if one person dose something wrong why punish the rest of us. (just playing the devils advocate)

We let people have guns because we're a violent society and need entertainment. :grin: And actually, I think it's a slightly different situation. A gun can be used for right and wrong. Open-source code can be used for right and wrong. But if you give the source code of a closed program that they're not supposed to touch to someone, I can pretty much guarantee they'll do something wrong. Kinda like the bank leaving the safe open and then leaving for the night. ;)

If you think most people automatically follow the rules then I give you Enron, Tyco, Martha Stewart...these are people that don't even NEED to be doing wrong to get ahead, yet they do! ;) With a lot of people, given half a chance to do something wrong, they'll try and get away with it. Unfortunately, it appears to be human nature.

[Kvark]

We let people have guns because we're a violent society and need entertainment. :grin: And actually, I think it's a slightly different situation. A gun can be used for right and wrong. Open-source code can be used for right and wrong. But if you give the source code of a closed program that they're not supposed to touch to someone, I can pretty much guarantee they'll do something wrong. Kinda like the bank leaving the safe open and then leaving for the night. ;)
The police can use handguns to fight crime and hunters can use special hunting rifles to hunt. But if you give handguns that they aren't supposed to use to ordinary people. I can pretty much guarantee someone will do something wrong.

To let people have guns other then registered hunting rifles seems very wrong for someone who lives in an almost gunless society. But I do understand that for someone living in a society that does allow guns it must seem very wrong to ban them.

Hmm, I guess it is kind of the same situation with FOSS vs propriarity software. Using someone elses idea seems very wrong to Disney, Microsoft and people who are used to treat ideas like physical property. While restricting if and how other people use an idea you was first with seems very wrong to RMS, FSF and people who are used to treating ideas as something that can be shared.

I was going to say that guns are bad but it turns out I'm saying what you take for granted as a right and what you see as clearly wrong depends on what kind of society you are used to and could be even the opposite of what people from another society take for granted.

[poofyhairguy]

NOTE: lets say evil = unethical

Excellent. Two rules to remember community to not sound like zealots:

1. Use unethical, not evil. Different connotations,

2. Don't go on and on abotu Bill Gates. Bill Gates is not the CEO of MS. He does not control the future of MS, has not for a while. Balmer is the CEO of MS. Bill Gates is just the worlds largest philanthropist (of all time probably) and a board member at MS. He might play with Linux in his huge house, no one would know and it wouldn't matter because he does not control MS anymore. Just like Mr. Dell does not control Dell.

[earobinson]

Im pretty sure of this but if you buy a house are you not entitled to the blueprints?

[BWF89]

"As long as they dont block competition its NOT EVIL"

[npaladin2000]

Im pretty sure of this but if you buy a house are you not entitled to the blueprints?

yeah, but no one buys software. The way licensing agreements are, "buying software" is closer to signing an open-ended, one-time fee lease that the other party can revoke any time they like. More like renting....and if you're renting you're NOT entitled to the blueprints.

[npaladin2000]

Hmm, I guess it is kind of the same situation with FOSS vs propriarity software. Using someone elses idea seems very wrong to Disney, Microsoft and people who are used to treat ideas like physical property. While restricting if and how other people use an idea you was first with seems very wrong to RMS, FSF and people who are used to treating ideas as something that can be shared.

I was going to say that guns are bad but it turns out I'm saying what you take for granted as a right and what you see as clearly wrong depends on what kind of society you are used to and could be even the opposite of what people from another society take for granted.

Hmm, that's fairly well said. I have to point out that I don't quite agree with Microsoft and Disney thinking that ideas are property. However, software is more than an idea, and more than pure knowledge. Software is the result of a lot of work, effort, talent, skill and in many cases education (formal or otherwise) and the person who created the software has a right to profit from it if he or she chooses, just the same as the composer or the literary author. The problem is, it takes a printer to print the book (less hard these days but publishing still requires infrastructure), and it takes a band of some sort to play the music (even if it is "open-source"...and that band is going to want to be paid for their effort...and TO be paid for it, they must purchase rights from the original composer). However, any fool (well, ok, not quite ANY fool, but a lot of them) can compile source code. There's intrinsic protection for a majority of "knowledge" workers to make sure they get some sort of compensation for their hard work.

Unfortunately, computer programmers have the least protection of all of these, and RMS wants to remove that last bit of protection and force all code to be open no matter what. I don't agree with that. Programmers should have a choice...there's positives and negatives with each choice, and no one choice is the best for everyone. Kinda like no one gun control law is the best for all countries. :)

And guns aren't bad....the people who carry them might be bad. And if one of those guys shows up at my door I want the right to have one to shoot him before he shoots me ;) Because you'd better believe no "gun control" law is going to keep most of those guys from buying a machine gun off the back of a van in some alley. ;)

[earobinson]

yeah, but no one buys software. The way licensing agreements are, "buying software" is closer to signing an open-ended, one-time fee lease that the other party can revoke any time they like. More like renting....and if you're renting you're NOT entitled to the blueprints.
true but is that really ethical

[npaladin2000]

true but is that really ethical

Apparently. I'm no lawyer, but from the way the GPL seems to read, even that is revokable at will by the program author...not in so many words, but there's a couple of loops that can make it so. (Maybe that's why all the work on Version 3).

By obtaining a license, you're obtaining the right to use the software. The software itself, however, is still "owned" but the original copyright holder. Not the user.

[rjwood]

Wouldn't it be something if the first people developing the english or any other say language was able to patent it? That is really what we are talking about here I think. Evil is as evil does is a good gauge. Everything is subjective, isn't it? How would we communicate if everytime a new method evolved it had to be purchased? And for what price? Only unehtical or evil thing is when the rules favor the privledged. If I have a song that is offensive becaue of the words my responsabilit as a neighbor is to listen to it with like-minded people, if I am playing it too loud, I may want to turn it down. It is all about choices. Think of the matrix ( the movie) when the bad guy asks Nemo why he wants to endure everything he has even though it is all an illusion. What is his answer? BECAUSE I CHOSE TO!! Corporations play the power game (but its all an illusion) I do the community thing and family thing (my illusion or myth) The question is always the same " What illusion or myth am I living?". Evil is as evil does....

[earobinson]

Wouldn't it be something if the first people developing the english or any other say language was able to patent it? That is really what we are talking about here I think. Evil is as evil does is a good gauge. Everything is subjective, isn't it? How would we communicate if everytime a new method evolved it had to be purchased? And for what price? Only unehtical or evil thing is when the rules favor the privledged. If I have a song that is offensive becaue of the words my responsabilit as a neighbor is to listen to it with like-minded people, if I am playing it too loud, I may want to turn it down. It is all about choices. Think of the matrix ( the movie) when the bad guy asks Nemo why he wants to endure everything he has even though it is all an illusion. What is his answer? BECAUSE I CHOSE TO!! Corporations play the power game (but its all an illusion) I do the community thing and family thing (my illusion or myth) The question is always the same " What illusion or myth am I living?". Evil is as evil does....
true it is all subjective but softwair should be held accountable just like a car company would if they built a car that blew up in a low speed rear end collision.

[rjwood]

true it is all subjective but softwair should be held accountable just like a car company would if they built a car that blew up in a low speed rear end collision.

Your singin' to the chior my friend. I completely agree. Problem is that there has been a paridigm shift in our culture. Our leaders have decided that it is ok to give alot of leeway to corp. america because they have the notion that if they squew the rules towards the powerful than more people would try to become powerful. A very percoucious position for governments to take. Anyway it's very dangerous. That is what happens when we elect business people as government officials. They run countries like company's. It's not a company-----it's a country. But they are narrow minded as is most of the general public these day's unfortunatly...

[earobinson]

lol, ya i can do that this is something im really intrested as a programmer (i work for an open source company :), to bad they only do contract work)

[npaladin2000]

Your singin' to the chior my friend. I completely agree. Problem is that there has been a paridigm shift in our culture. Our leaders have decided that it is ok to give alot of leeway to corp. america because they have the notion that if they squew the rules towards the powerful than more people would try to become powerful. A very percoucious position for governments to take. Anyway it's very dangerous. That is what happens when we elect business people as government officials. They run countries like company's. It's not a company-----it's a country. But they are narrow minded as is most of the general public these day's unfortunatly...

True...and corporations are the ones who favor "intellectual property" laws. I say let them keep the part about software...because the fact is, software being able to be copyrighted and licensed DOESN'T favor said "big companies"...it favors the little one-man programming shop that writes and copyrights the next "big" application.

That's why corporations, while trying to enhance intellectual property laws, are ALSO trying to ban things like the GPL and make them illegal. I think that if suddenly software is out there with an illegal license it might become public domain and they can just steal it and make it THEIR "intellectual property."

But software licensing (Whether open source or not) actually protects us quite a bit.

[earobinson]

bit off topic but npaladin2000 i love your quote, so good for a lot of the community chat that has been going on latley. http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=54227 *cough*

[Angry penguin]

I am all for free enterprise and capitalism, but if the free software is better than the paid software then thats even better.

I guess my idea is that if you get software into the hands of enough people, sometime, somewhere, someone will have a truly revolutionary idea that is made possible through the use of that software that allows humans to really step forward in time. This "evolution" is hindered by capitalism in the sense that it limits who can access the software by placing a limiting factor on it, money.

Capitalism is great for economics because it encourages competition, and thereby "theoretically" increasing quality. But there seems to be a large disparity between economics and reality, just look at microsoft. They continue to compete but quality doesnt increase very much with each release, and yet they still make money.

Since capitalism doesnt seem to be working for the greater good, open source (good software) should be given its chance to shine.

**Oh and I almost forgot, Microsoft Sucks. (Evil)