# Suppose Free Software were made illegal?



## neilms (Jul 13, 2012)

Imagine a world where a Linux or FreeBSD user had pay a Â£200 fee to download a distribution. Anyone who did not pay the fee would be guilty of using illegal software - which carries a mandatory sentence of imprisonment for up to 1 year and a ban on using computers.

If the governments are already outlawing file-sharing, who knows what the next target will be?  And would you pay the Â£200 download fee?


----------



## sossego (Jul 13, 2012)

People still resort to physical copies of software.

The problem with file sharing is that it is used for distributing copyrighted materials for profit.
_Does everyone do this?_
*No.*
_For the few that do, do you think they give a rat's arse if it ruins things for others?_
*Oh,Hell no they don't.*

For those as part of the entertainment and software industries, only a small amount receives the largest sum of money. If profit is not up to par, those on the bottom will feel it. 

Now, those with power feel that removing the avenues of distribution will keep the shareholders happy.

Or

"Ninguem darei um voando foder neste mundo se que quando o vem a dinheiro."


----------



## gkontos (Jul 13, 2012)

neilms said:
			
		

> Imagine a world where a Linux or FreeBSD user had pay a Â£200 fee to download a distribution. Anyone who did not pay the fee would be guilty of using illegal software - which carries a mandatory sentence of imprisonment for up to 1 year and a ban on using computers.
> 
> If the governments are already outlawing file-sharing, who knows what the next target will be?  And would you pay the Â£200 download fee?



This is crap, sorry!


----------



## UNIXgod (Jul 13, 2012)

Well it would never happen. The source is in the public domain and therefor a commonwealth. The free and open source licenses are most certainly a clever legal response to the corporate closed source monoculture which began to emerge in the mid 70's. 

Also the concept of free is in many times misunderstood. Here is the definition which rms provided to understand the concept of freedom for the user in 4 specific freedoms: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Interesting historical note. When Thompson, Ritchie, McIlroy, etc. left the multics project in the late 60's; one thing they missed was the sense of community and collaboration. This was essential for Thompson to begin creating UNIX. After all is said and done how much of that has really changed with the internet and web?

Though your dystopian fantasy is an interesting one, open source will be here for a very long time to work with and study. Even after you and I are long gone.


----------



## kpa (Jul 13, 2012)

Question number one: How would the authorities monitor what type of software you are using on your computer? Someone already mention using physical copies of software or source code instead the net for distribution. You can quite easily make your open source operating system and applications pose as one of the commercial operating systems. So if you leave out 1984 type of methods, how would they do it?


----------



## xibo (Jul 13, 2012)

The authorities can just force you to install some worm (or just install that worm for you to begin with) to observe what you're using. Trojans are already installed in mobile phones in the EU/US/Israel/India uppon the order of the respective intelligence agencies, while those countries, as well as Russia and China are famous for having backdoors to any "private" company's internet gateways, so I wouldn't be surprised if they would be "required" to check what's running on your computer in order to fight "international terrorism", "tax fraud", or "child pornography" soon either.

On the topic, the open source idea wasn't born from the idea of being free of charge. In fact, the BSD licence allows commercial redistribution, and if you order a hardcopy you'll pay money for it, too. Originally you were required to posses a UNIX license to obtain BSD, and the UNIX license was worth _alot_ more then $200.
The foundation of open source software is freedom, as in freedom of choice. And the choice is about running a software or not doing so - or running a variation/alternative version, or modifying the software you were given to create a new variation on your own. I doubt having to pay (once again) would kill off OSS - it would kill a considerable market share of desktop linux though, as the majority of linux users don't care or even know about the OSS idea but only about not having to pay, and would certainly go "back" to Windows OS if their distribution was more expensive than a regular Windows copy.


----------



## maxum (Jul 14, 2012)

I have a good example about that people does not give a sh*t about their utility.

In Quebec, they are so irresponsible that all the roads are being repaired at once. While that, there is no cops around residential zones and teens are racing in our street at 2 am (  ). Where are they then? They are in the construction zones because tickets are worth double!!! This is crazy!


----------



## dclau (Jul 14, 2012)

neilms said:
			
		

> Imagine a world where a Linux or FreeBSD user had pay a Â£200 fee to download a distribution. Anyone who did not pay the fee would be guilty of using *illegal* software - which carries a mandatory sentence of imprisonment for up to 1 year and a ban on using computers.
> 
> If the governments are already outlawing file-sharing, who knows what the next target will be?  And would you pay the Â£200 download fee?



"...guilty of using *illegally* software", there is a difference. Both FreeBSD and Linux are still legal.


----------



## neilms (Jul 14, 2012)

gkontos said:
			
		

> This is crap, sorry!



So is your contribution to this thread, sorry!


----------



## gkontos (Jul 14, 2012)

neilms said:
			
		

> So is your contribution to this thread, sorry!



Thanks we have seen over the years many paranoid conspiracy theories.


----------



## ChalkBored (Jul 15, 2012)

I'd just buy a CD for a few bucks instead of downloading it.


----------



## swirling_vortex (Jul 15, 2012)

Actually, such an idea isn't too far-fetched for some crooked people out there. The IIPA (which conveniently falls under the same umbrella as the RIAA and MPAA) released a statement a few years ago attacking open-source as an IP and copyright violation.

http://opensource.org/node/510


----------



## Crivens (Jul 15, 2012)

If the use of free software is outlawed, only outlaws will use it. It would, for any country imposing the ban, be a really spectacular way to shoot the local IT industry into the foot, knee, head and everywhere else.


----------



## gkontos (Jul 15, 2012)

The OP was concerned regarding the concept of "File Sharing".

What is File Sharing and why would it become illegal?

Windows uses file sharing. Samba, afp and many other protocols are designed for file sharing. Google is selling file sharing via google apps. So does Apple and Microsoft.

So, who decides what is legal and what is not? 

If I choose to share my personal files then it is really my choice. If I choose to share copyrighted material then it is again my choice but this can definitely be illegal.

Regarding Open Source software. Again we are missing the point. Every software comes with a license. There is no democratic government in the world that can stop me from distributing my software under the BSD license.


----------



## sossego (Jul 16, 2012)

gkontos said:
			
		

> There is no democratic government in the world that can stop me from distributing my software under the BSD license.



Now, that's what's up and it's good.


----------



## Crivens (Jul 16, 2012)

gkontos said:
			
		

> There is no democratic government in the world that can stop me from distributing my software under the BSD license.



Some nagging part of me makes me wonder where such a democratic government can be found. Lobbycratic cleptomanic governments, yes. Plenty. No shortage there.

The OP drew up a vision of a future where usage of any free software would need some kind of expensive licence, the wet dream of any company which lives from software sales. Ironically, this is also the wet dream of any want-to-be police state. I would not put this vision away too easily. Because if you ignore any movement in that direction, no matter how small or absurd, suddenly you will find it in place and you will wonder how the fsck that had happend.

It has happend before. It will happen again if not opposed.


----------



## gkontos (Jul 16, 2012)

Crivens said:
			
		

> Some nagging part of me makes me wonder where such a democratic government can be found. Lobbycratic cleptomanic governments, yes. Plenty. No shortage there.



Don't forget that democratic governments are elected by people. Software developers, software users, OS users, etc. 



			
				Crivens said:
			
		

> The OP drew up a vision of a future where usage of any free software would need some kind of expensive licence, the wet dream of any company which lives from software sales. Ironically, this is also the wet dream of any want-to-be police state. I would not put this vision away too easily. Because if you ignore any movement in that direction, no matter how small or absurd, suddenly you will find it in place and you will wonder how the fsck that had happend.



Most big software companies have realized that they don't make money out of just selling software. They make their money out of providing support services.


----------



## Crivens (Jul 16, 2012)

gkontos said:
			
		

> Don't forget that democratic governments are elected by people. Software developers, software users, OS users, etc.


I know, but I also remember that the set of candidates to pick from is, let me phrase it a bit more politically correct, "oriented towards success, prefering short discussions in hand picket, competent circles and have a life long experience as a well connected politican".

So, it is true that these are elected by the people, but please keep in mind from what bin you get to choose, and that "the people" has a lot of other elements in them. There are even those who _read_ these papers with the big headlines instead of using it as fishwrap or sickbag, as the gods of print intended.



			
				gkontos said:
			
		

> Most big software companies have realized that they don't make money out of just selling software. They make their money out of providing support services.



Correct, but wouldn't it be so much better to have the additional income from the sales?
Or from the fees which can be collected from those who, nobody knows why, always shun the purchase of these truely well priced products?  </beancounter>

As always, hope for the best and prepare for the worst.


----------



## SR_Ind (Jul 16, 2012)

All it depends on definition of free. 

Free means freedom of use or absence of monetary transactions?

What is so extraordinary or unique about software that OP or some other posters are alluding to?

About the first, freedom of use, its not absolute, like all tools and equipments software too is governed by laws of the land (even that differs from country to country). Can you use your home brewed or borrowed OS to launch DOS on a neighbors server? Or to eavesdrop on WiFi traffic in neighborhood? All's well until you are caught. So in an absolute sense no software is free as "free as what I wish to do".

About the second, the monetary aspect, I believe deeds of gift are regular legal instruments in civilized world. If I can write away my house so do I can with my own written OS. This is a very old practice...gifting, predates the civil codes of the modern world and no ruling apparatus is going to create an exception for Software companies...it will simply not hold up in their own courts. Governments will have to change their constitutions, which in turn is very basis of legality of these governments.


----------



## Zare (Jul 16, 2012)

> Or to eavesdrop on WiFi traffic in neighborhood?



This is bit off topic, but monitoring open 802.11 networks shouldn't be illegal. 
It's like two guys shouting over the road, and anyone that's passing the road needs to cover his ears. Bullshit.


----------



## fluca1978 (Jul 16, 2012)

neilms said:
			
		

> Imagine a world where a Linux or FreeBSD user had pay a Â£200 fee to download a distribution. Anyone who did not pay the fee would be guilty of using illegal software - which carries a mandatory sentence of imprisonment for up to 1 year and a ban on using computers.
> 
> If the governments are already outlawing file-sharing, who knows what the next target will be?  And would you pay the Â£200 download fee?



A friend of a friend of a friend of mine once told me that people is using Microsoft systems without paying them, and that seems to be a whole market of _illegally_ distributed software out there. Supposing this is true, what is the difference with your statement? The _free_ in front of the system? Then, I suppose the system will not be more free, and will change its name in something like _enterprise superlux charged BSD_. 
Sorry, I don't see this happening.


----------



## kpa (Jul 16, 2012)

The following protocols that are not related to BitTorrent etc. in any way enable anonymous file sharing at the moment: 


```
HTTP
FTP
SSH
NNTP
```

If you're really desperate (it can be done trust me):


```
ICMP
```

Those may not be very efficient at file sharing but they work, should use of those protocols be outlawed as well?


----------



## Crivens (Jul 16, 2012)

kpa said:
			
		

> Those may not be very efficient at file sharing but they work, should use of those protocols be outlawed as well?


Should? No. No way.
But then again I live in a country where nmap (which is viewed as a "hacker tool") is outlawed, same for tcpdump.


----------



## TiberiusDuval (Jul 16, 2012)

If use of free software were made illegal, quite many people would still use it. Just load it from quite a many torrent sites, and install. Thats how things work in warez circles. Quite a many people use warez software nowadays even if it is illegal.


----------



## SR_Ind (Jul 16, 2012)

Zare said:
			
		

> This is bit off topic, but monitoring open 802.11 networks shouldn't be illegal.
> It's like two guys shouting over the road, and anyone that's passing the road needs to cover his ears. *Bullshit*.


Its not so trivial. Unless you advertise your network as a public one, which in fact applies to your shouting across the road analogy.

You cannot eavesdrop into an secured network, this situation implies the network owner has already taken whatever measures available and trespassers are not welcome. 

For networks left unsecured by technologically ignorant users, the public prosecutor only has to prove your intent. In fact the prosecuted are likely to be charged with intent to invade privacy and intent to commit cyber crime.

For police work a judicial warrant is needed.

Rest all depends on your country's cyber/IT laws and regulations.


----------

