A precise origin is unclear, but we are aware of where it got refined, Greece.
In Ancient Greece the goto guy for ethics or ethos, meaning specifically
@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ character, was Aristotle,
-
+
Socrates also did some good work in the field of ethics, but didn't write
anything down, leaving that to Plato instead, then he got into trouble by
@@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ didn't end well.
Yet another polymath, these people just keep popping up, don't they. He wrote
@@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ at creating a fairer society, in the vein of Plato's ideology.
-
+
He has also been claimed to be a scientist, although this term didn't
exist at the time.
@@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ historian William Whewell.
-
+
You studied BCS Ethics in the second year of your degree. That was business
ethics, a specific branch of the subject, and one required if you are later
@@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ individual developers in order to deliver a product.
-
+
Why this matters is because while you need customers to 'buy in' to your
product, you also need your developers on board as well.
@@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ concerns a career you intend to embark on.
-
+
Organisations like the Free Software Foundation take Ethical computing to an
extreme, claiming no code should be written in exchange for money.
@@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ oversight?
-
+
I'm not saying they should be paid directly for any specific code, such as the
code in the above example, but organised oversight and error checking/testing
@@ -215,12 +215,12 @@ updates or patches.
-
+
Mozilla is set up in a way similar to this, except they do have a secret
branch of code, with security aspects they don't share.
Similarly, their final build comes from a codebase inaccessible to any but
-internal developers, nd they fold in code from the publicly available code. I
+internal developers, and they fold in code from the publicly available code. I
can understand why they do this perfectly.
Given the current climate, with cyber crime being so prevalent, I can't see
any reason why an Open Source company would share all of their security
@@ -232,7 +232,7 @@ code and associated systems.
-
+
Open Source is claimed to be more ethical, but what does this mean?
I think they say this and hope people will just accept it as not as bad as
@@ -249,7 +249,7 @@ it, most likely at a cost of many millions.
-
+
The term ethical is too often used without really understanding what it
means.
@@ -267,7 +267,7 @@ Home Life Balance.
-
Ethics and Open Source
+
Ethics and Open Source
You'd think Open Source would require that all software written using this
label had to be ethical, yes?
@@ -285,7 +285,7 @@ won't work. Primarily because it would be unenforceable if challenged in court <
-
Brief Case Study: What if No Military Application Was Allowed?
+
Brief Case Study: What if No Military Application Was Allowed?
Right now there are an estimated 110 million anti-personnel mines in the
ground.
@@ -302,7 +302,7 @@ the most heavily traded commodity on the stock market.
-
+
20,000 people are killed each year by landmines. Bosnia and Herzegovina is
so heavily covered in mines whole regions are inaccesible and may never be
@@ -319,7 +319,7 @@ Source advocates are against.
-
+
Plus any advances would be available to the military. I can't see how this
would be a bad thing myself, they should clean up after themselves, and it
@@ -336,7 +336,7 @@ these former battlefields would have been cleared a long time ago.
A precise origin is unclear, but we are aware of where it got refined, Greece.
+
In Ancient Greece the goto guy for ethics or ethos, meaning specifically
+character, was Aristotle, this guy.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Socrates also did some good work in the field of ethics, but didn't write
+anything down, leaving that to Plato instead, then he got into trouble by
+annoying the people who ran Athens and got forced to kill himself, so that
+didn't end well.
Known as the father of Arab philosophy, and also a polymath (I couldn't fit
+all of them into that lecture) he was the first of the Islamic peripatetic
+philosophers, following on from the teachings of the ancient greek
+philosophers, specifically those who followed the Aristotelean school (hence
+peripatetic).
+
While he wrote treatises on Ethics, much of his work is now lost, and known
+mostly by his influence on other scholars.
Yet another polymath, these people just keep popping up, don't they. He wrote
+on diverse subjects. Ethics (obviously, or I wouldn't have included him in
+this lecture) political philosophy, metaphysics, and logic.
+
In addition he was a cosmologist, mathematician and music scholar.
+
His concept of Ethics, much like that of todays Open Source people, was aimed
+at creating a fairer society, in the vein of Plato's ideology.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
He has also been claimed to be a scientist, although this term didn't
+exist at the time.
+
There was no clear distinction in his time, or for a long time after, between
+natural philosophy (the investigation of the natural world) and what we now
+call being a scientist.
+
The term did not exist until 1834 when it was coined by Cambridge University
+historian William Whewell.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Al-Farabi (872 - 950)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
You studied BCS Ethics in the second year of your degree. That was business
+ethics, a specific branch of the subject, and one required if you are later
+take the BCS examination.
+
Open Source takes a broader view of ethics, since software as a product is
+viewed in a different way.
+
Some concepts are the same, but in many cases the needs of the developer are
+also important, where business tends to ignore the interests and rights of
+individual developers in order to deliver a product.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Why this matters is because while you need customers to 'buy in' to your
+product, you also need your developers on board as well.
+
The Commercial world is filled with stories of developers who get treated so
+badly while developing software they leave, so the final product has to be
+supported by developers new to the product.
+
A few links, but this is a large subject, one worth investigating, since it
+concerns a career you intend to embark on.
Two of those are games related, but the problem isn't.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Organisations like the Free Software Foundation take Ethical computing to an
+extreme, claiming no code should be written in exchange for money.
+
This, much like Plato's ideal forms linky, is an idea which cannot be
+realised.
+
To use a somewhat extreme edge case, how many people do you think would board
+a plane who's operating system was written by someone working without any
+oversight?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
I'm not saying they should be paid directly for any specific code, such as the
+code in the above example, but organised oversight and error checking/testing
+costs money, because it takes people time to do.
+
Any such system would need an ethically sound organisation, with open code
+written by full time paid members who were not paid for the code they wrote,
+and who oversaw any external contributions.
+
What few people seem to realise is, even in the closed source world, most code
+written isn't bought by the customer directly. Instead it's provided as
+updates or patches.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Mozilla is set up in a way similar to this, except they do have a secret
+branch of code, with security aspects they don't share.
+
Similarly, their final build comes from a codebase inaccessible to any but
+internal developers, nd they fold in code from the publicly available code. I
+can understand why they do this perfectly.
+
Given the current climate, with cyber crime being so prevalent, I can't see
+any reason why an Open Source company would share all of their security
+code and associated systems.
+
I can see good reasons to be open about a lot of it, but that's not my call.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Open Source is claimed to be more ethical, but what does this mean?
+
I think they say this and hope people will just accept it as not as bad as
+those commercial companies, but ethics is a little more complex than that.
+
Certainly the commercial world can be unethical, I would hope you knew this
+before taking my class, but I've attempted to demonstrate that you wouldn't
+board a plane with an operating system written by some random developer
+releasing his code under the GPL on Github.
+
You'd want a major aircraft builder to have either written, or commissioned
+it, most likely at a cost of many millions.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
The term ethical is too often used without really understanding what it
+means.
+
This is why I started the lecture by referring back to Ethicists from the
+past, I advise you to look them up.
+
It has a much wider meaning than don't rip off customers because it's bad
+for business, although when I took the class this seemed to be the primary
+focus.
+
Quality of Life, Satisfaction, Not Working Under Duress and a good Work and
+Home Life Balance.
+
These are what ethical practices in business should embody now.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Ethics and Open Source
+
+
You'd think Open Source would require that all software written using this
+label had to be ethical, yes?
+
But how do you define ethical behaviour? I started this lecture by showing
+ethics has been debated for thousands of years. What is the right way to
+behave?
+
You could say No Open Source Software can be used to develop weaponry, but
+what about the extremely real problem of leftover armements from conflicts all
+around the world.
+
Bruce Perens thinks that imposing ethical behaviour via a licence is silly and
+won't work. Primarily because it would be unenforceable if challenged in court linky.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Brief Case Study: What if No Military Application Was Allowed?
+
+
Right now there are an estimated 110 million anti-personnel mines in the
+ground.
+
Most of these are in areas occupied by people without the resources to clear
+them.
+
In Vietnam people are still being killed or maimed by leftover weaponry from
+the war in the 1960's. Primarily in area's where they grow coffee for use in
+Instant brands.
+
These are not rich farmers, in spite of mass produced coffee like this being
+the most heavily traded commodity on the stock market.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
20,000 people are killed each year by landmines. Bosnia and Herzegovina is
+so heavily covered in mines whole regions are inaccesible and may never be
+cleared.
+
Unless that is major technological changes occur, right now it's simply too
+dangerous to try in many places, and not worth the risk of one being missed.
+
Open Source (both software and hardware) would seem an ideal place for such
+innovation, but any move in this direction would, of necessity mean
+co-operation with creators of military hardware, something many hardcore Open
+Source advocates are against.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Plus any advances would be available to the military. I can't see how this
+would be a bad thing myself, they should clean up after themselves, and it
+might make them obsolete as weapons.
+
In fact to get it working properly, working directly with the military would
+probably a good idea, after a period of initial development.
+
Work is still going on to clear ordinance from World War One, each year human
+remains are recovered among this ordinance, identified as far as possible and
+repatriated, so simply blowing them up en-masse isn't an option. If it were
+these former battlefields would have been cleared a long time ago.
Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0
+International by Dr Carey Pridgeon 2020
+
(Licence does not cover linked images owned by other content creators)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
diff --git a/20-21/Lectures/Ethics.org b/20-21/Lectures/Ethics.org
index 1ecb6f4..7a0ca24 100644
--- a/20-21/Lectures/Ethics.org
+++ b/20-21/Lectures/Ethics.org
@@ -101,7 +101,7 @@
- Mozilla is set up in a way similar to this, except they do have a *secret*
branch of code, with security aspects they don't share.
- Similarly, their final build comes from a codebase inaccessible to any but
- internal developers, nd they fold in code from the publicly available code. I
+ internal developers, and they fold in code from the publicly available code. I
can understand why they do this perfectly.
- Given the current climate, with cyber crime being so prevalent, I can't see
any reason why an Open Source company would share *all* of their security