The document discusses ethical considerations around the use of open-source software. It notes that while developers can use open-source code to further their own projects, they must give proper credit to the original creators. When credit is not given, it can be seen as theft. The document examines the perspectives of utilitarianism and deontology on how to address uncredited use of open-source code. A utilitarian view would favor moderate actions to avoid lawsuits that could financially harm companies. A deontological view would support enforcing guidelines to prevent treating open-source creators as a means to an end and to ensure they receive proper recognition. The document concludes that a middle-ground approach is needed, such as voluntary codes of conduct, to

1. I. Name:
Justin Andrews
ACSG 575
Essay #2 – Ethical Considerations in Open-Source Software Usage
II. Introduction:
Free, open-source software is a movement which continues to increase in size as time
goes on. The growth has gotten to a point that it is affecting corporations and many
developers in the software world, whether or not they participate in developing the
specific software themselves. The reason for this is because of the fact that developers
may use the open-source software in order to further develop their own programs and
projects, and while there is nothing wrong with this initially, problems do ensue. The
problems mostly revolve around the fact that the code is not noted to have been acquired
from those who made it available, and with a lack of recognition being properly given.
Due to this recognition and credit not being given, the use of this code can be seen as
blatant theft. To combat this issue, people that support the movement do their best to find
open-source software that is used without proper credit being given, which may result in
lawsuits for the offenders. While such actions can help remove misunderstandings and
dishonest use of free software, an excess use of force in dealing with this may result in
unnecessary laws and regulations being passed. With code sometimes compared to being
that of ideas, attempts to protect such in an overdone manner can harm the creative force
driving the open-source movement, which is in contrast to why it was begun in the first
place. The problem that can be seen here is finding a proper balance, one that will help
ensure credit is given where due, and one that can ensure blatant thievery of such code
goes punished, while innocent mistakes are mended properly. It could also be considered

2. a question of whether or not it is right to try and enforce the guidelines that go with using
free software as if they were laws, especially considering the possible consequences.
III. Stakeholders:
Developers have reputation at stake as well as their own sense of a larger scope when
including the possibility that they have access to open-source code, yet must follow
specific guidelines if they plan on using such. Companies such as Google, Sony, and
Best Buy have similar factors at stake as their reputation could go down when their
products turn out to use open-source code without their knowledge. They also have
variations of cash at stake as lawsuits concerning the use of this code can hurt them
should they choose to ignore the guidelines that had been put in place regarding the use
of open-source software. Developers also have careers at stake should they prove to be
liabilities for companies that get targeted for lawsuits concerning these issues. Those
involved with free software have creativity and a community at stake being the type of
people who are developing this software, as they not only have to be watchful of people
ignorant of the guidelines but also be vigilant if they wish to keep the movement going as
a professional, competitive force in the world of computing. In a way, users have
everything on the line as excessive control over their code or a lack thereof can result in
the movement falling apart, and the community of users who take part in developing
open-source software could thus cease to exist. Users and customers can be seen as a
group with little at stake, yet any conflict that results between companies and users can
affect them negatively. On the other hand, cooperation between the two groups can result
in a more expansive field that can improve itself at a faster rate which will allow
customers access to much better technology much sooner.

3. IV. Utilitarian analysis:
A Utilitarian who happened to see the issue at hand may have trouble in choosing which
side to take, however it can be argued that their viewpoint would tend to favor companies
in having moderate and mild actions taken on violations of the guidelines regarding free
software. The reason behind this would have to do with the fact that the companies who
violate these guidelines, even though such violations may be unintentional, can face
major setbacks through complaints and lawsuits filed against them. Due to these
potential problems, companies could stand to lose business or trust in the consumers’
eyes, or lose money to the point that it would affect their business with their customers.
One specific issue that companies may encounter concern the costs from judicial
procedures. The software in question would have to be taken off the market in order to
fix legal compliance issues if the incident occurred post-release, or delay the
development process for a varied amount of time, which could in turn affect other
projects within a given corporation.1 Due to all these potential, unforeseen consequences,
all of which would result in much reduced happiness, it is easy to argue that enforcing the
guidelines as a sort of law would not be the best approach. While they may respect the
views and efforts of those who participate in the free software movement, these people
are a clear minority, and they are one that consumers are still in the process of
understanding and acknowledging. After some time has passed, and after working
through alternative means to resolving potential conflicts dealing with a lack of
recognition, it can be possible to have all interested parties happy, but for the moment,
the current situation would be one not well received by a Utilitarian.
1
“Legal Compliance: Open Source and Quality Assurance” Dr. Dobb’s “The World of Software
Development”
http://www.drdobbs.com/open-source/221901137

4. V. Deontological Analysis:
Through a sense of duty and the known consequences, a Kantian could see the issue
through different views, depending on the argument they wished to make. More likely
than not, however, it can be expected that through a sense of duty, justice should be
served in favor of getting people the deserved recognition and reputation for the software
they have developed. Due to this, even if the measures may be extreme, they can be seen
as those who would support actions such as issued laws and lawsuits in order to help
companies and developers understand the guidelines that come with using open-source
software. Whether or not violations of these guidelines were done intentionally, proper
actions would be supported in order to rectify any situations that had resulted from
ignoring them, even if they are not necessarily rules. With honesty being something held
in high regard, a Kantian would expect companies to understand the open-source
movement especially, as they are also a source of competition as much as they are a
source to help enhance their own efforts. Another way of looking at the situation would
show how the open-source software, along with those who participate in developing it,
are being used as means and not an end in themselves. A Kantian is known to object to
customers being used as a means to an end, regardless of the reason. Similarly, people
with that viewpoint would not stand for anyone else, even if they are a form of
competition, to be used accordingly, regardless of the reasons behind such treatment.
Due to this viewpoint in regards to means and ends, a Kantian would have further reason
to support participants in the free software movement in ensuring their software is not
used inappropriately in violation of the requirements that accompany its use. In the end,

5. it is clear that a Kantian would see nothing wrong with ensuring simple guidelines are
followed.
VI. Conclusion:
It is clear that a simple lack of knowledge has caused many types of open-source
software to be used without proper recognition being given to the original developers of
the many instances of code. Due to such an oversight on behalf of companies and
developers, those who are a part of the free software movement have in turn issued
complaints and lawsuits in order to rectify the problem. Whether or not this is the proper
way to handle the situation, it is an action that many companies are showing concern
over, and favoring either side in this situation may prove harmful to all involved parties,
including customers of the many companies. A utilitarian would like to see a minimal
amount of damage done to all concerned parties, and the simplest way to follow this
practice would be to limit the amount of lawsuits filed, as companies will lose business
and money due to them. As long as the many companies are not negatively affected,
complaints would be seen as a fair approach in order to get the point across, and try to
convince developers that people who manage the open-source software have a reputation
at stake that must be upheld. A Kantian, on the other hand, would support those involved
in free software as the companies, through neglect, are causing these people a great deal
of harm which in the end can be summed up as treating them as means to an end. Before
and after performing these analyses, I would have to agree with a Kantian that the many
companies are at fault here, even if through no fault of their own. However, I myself
would look for some kind of middle ground for reasons that my Utilitarian analysis
expresses. I believe such is necessary due to the whole field risking damage from the

6. many potential lawsuits and laws that can be put in place against the use of free software,
which in an extreme could make the movement rather hypocritical. As far as codes of
conduct could go, one for developers to follow should focus on ensuring that the original
developers are given proper credit and recognition. Out of respect, the conduct should
also state that those who plan to use open-source software take the time to understand
how to use it, as well as ensure it is clear they themselves have used such for the
programs and projects they are working on. The code of conduct for organizations to
follow is closely similar to that for developers, yet differs as it is something an entire
organization must take care to pay attention to. For organizations, the code of conduct
should clearly state this in conjunction with the proper citations of whose open-source
code was used. The code of conduct for users differs as it is more informative than
anything else, and should be one that informs users and customers how it is important to
recognize the use of open-source software on its own and within organizations, like that
of Cisco. On a similar note, a code of conduct for those who develop free software
would also be more informative, as it should be one that motivates these developers to
help ensure everyone is aware of their presence along with how they are making an
impact in the world of computing.