[FM Discuss] pirated software is bad for oss

[Carla]

Hi Adam,

I've been lurking on the discuss list for a wee while and have finally
been prompted to return some info.  This started out as a pithy,
add-some-value and run email, but I'm afraid it has turned into something
of a laundry list as I've thought of yet more points.  You may find
particular points resonate better for you, or trigger other related
thoughts.  :-)

Hmm. "raise the awareness of why teaching pirated software is bad for free
software".  But then you go on to say "the fact that teaching pirated
> software puts a price on freedom, and that you do not support the
> principles of libre, if you promote it as secondary to the principles
> of gratis...perhaps for another post..."  I think that is exactly how
teaching pirated software is bad for free software.  Just because it
addresses issues which require thought doesn't necessarily mean it is
ideological.

But I may be missing your point.  {:-)

If I'm about right in interpreting your aim, here are some questions which
might be useful:

* What parts of the free/libre movement are harmed when pirated software
is taught instead of free software?
* How is that harm delivered?  What mechanism creates the harm and what
determines where that harm arrives?
* What type of harm is involved (functional, financial, moral, political,
environmental, etc.)?

>From my point of view, those questions raise the following:

If a teacher teaches in a way that sanctions use of unauthorised software
they strongly perpetuate the idea that that is the only software the
student could use in a professional capacity.  So much is it the only
software, it is legitimate to break the law to gain access to the software
as part of a learning process.  This is likely to restrict the student's
thinking about their tools, an effect which may take many years to recover
from.

By restricting a student's opportunities to use free/libre software they:
* weaken the perceived legitimacy of free/libre software (both
specifically for professional purposes and in general).  This unconscious
perception is likely to pervade the student's conversation for many years,
widening the impact to people around the student.
* reduce the chances that the student will be receptive to proposals to
use free/libre software in the future (it is harder to resile from a
position which justified breaking the law, it is also harder to decide to
explore software if you have a large investment in the current platform,
and don't know what the costs in learning would be of changing)
* directly reduce the number of subscribers to free/libre software
projects (and therefore the 'circulation numbers' the software can claim. 
This reduces the software teams' ability to garner publicity, momentum and
sponsorship for their project
* reduce the chances that the student will actively support the free/libre
software (by arguing for, donating, raising bugs, participating in forums,
let alone writing documentation, etc.)
* misses the opportunity to teach the social protocol of making donations
to projects which provide software the student uses (they should be
modeling this and explaining/encouraging the donation model)
* supports the perception of software as a final/immutable product (you
touch on this in your original article) - and misses the opportunity to
explain how to engage with altering the software to suit themselves (I
would expect a single hour on building/modifying your own modules would
have a massive effect on the numbers of students who eventually contribute
to the free/libre software projects).
* reduce the amount of time students spend learning how to use free/libre
software in general (and therefore their uptake of other free/libre
software - this includes operating systems)

By ensuring the students use proprietary software they also:
* reinforce the idea that the student can't work (and certainly can't work
professionally) without a using proprietary software - this is likely to
reduce the student' curiosity about free/libre software and whether they
can achieve a professional result with it.  Also it reinforces the idea
that things must be paid for to be professional in general.
* increase the student's investment proprietary software, and the chances
that the student will defend the proprietary software out of
self-interest.
* increase the chances that the student will eventually purchase a
professional license (partly due to perceived lack of choice, partly
because they used their eventual purchase of a full license to justify
unauthorised use of the software in the first place).  That money supports
the proprietary software company (which will continue to follow a
monopolistic approach), and reduces the amount of money available for
donations to free/libre software projects/groups.
* greatly weaken the teacher's credibility when they argue for the use of
free/libre software
* spend less of their time working to resolve difficulties in teaching
with free/libre software (teaching with any software requires investment -
which platform are they investing in)

I think you are right to want to explain that it is in a teacher's power
to teach using free/libre software.  Perhaps you could explain that some
of the perceived problems with teaching using free/libre problems have
been resolved - especially in the usability and textbook areas.  I
understand there is some pretty hot debate around the cost of text books,
perhaps you could leverage that?

I think there is also a significant problem with the 'we must teach them
the widely acceptable tools so they can get work' mindset.  Yes, students
should certainly be able to effectively use common tools, but that doesn't
mean they shouldn't also be informed about alternatives, and educated
about what parts of the industry's technology is proprietary and what
parts  aren't.  That understanding is a key part of being able to operate
professionally in their industries over time.  Also, it rather misses the
point of the free/proprietary debate to entrench the proprietary-only
approach in your role as an adviser.  One of my main reasons for
supporting oss is that young people should be given the tools to recreate
their world to meet their future needs (to paraphrase of some of the OLPC
info).

Thanks again for such excellent food for thought.  I tend to react against
coporatised software more from a 'monopolies are bad' default than
anything else, so it has been nice to get to clarify some of the vague
notions in my head.

cheers, Carla

p.s.  By way of a introduction to you all, I'm a tech writer from
Wellington, NZ.  Working on getting a book sprint soon, they look awesome.