On Monday 19. December 2016 21.14.22 Charles Cossé wrote:
I was not referring to legalities, but responding to your claim that I was somehow forbidding them to learn how the program works. If you have the complete source in-hand then you have the ability to learn how it works. Your statement remains factually incorrect.
But perhaps the point is that learning how something works may not be sufficient. What if you want to apply that knowledge?
What if you want to modify a program teaching letters and words, for example, to teach a different alphabet or a different language than the one supported? Will the author let you do this or will they bring a case of copyright infringement? What if you ask the author to support those things and they refuse?
What if you want to write your own program to do the same thing because there aren't any others that might? Does the author then claim that you are infringing their copyright, or failing to prove that, do they threaten you with infringement of their "special patented techniques"?
Yes, it's great that humans are creative and can make things that educate and entertain others, and it is possible to learn things from using proprietary software. But proprietary software can have a corrosive effect, tempting people into acquiring it and then obliging them to continue doing business with companies that exercise the control in the relationship.
Is it ethical to bind educational institutions to purchasing policies that they cannot easily escape, and to see them having to spend money on things because people (teachers/parents/children/management) expect a particular piece of software and then insist on it, regardless of whether it remains the right choice?
Paul