In general, the goal of a copyright is to protect a work by giving its author or creator the ability to control who can use and distribute it, according to WIPO. The main ethical / societal goal of distributing and protecting copyrights is to encourage creators to practice their art. If there were no protections in place, it would be difficult for artists or companies to actually make a profit or other gains off of the work, as it could be distributed freely once a copy was released.
I think it is difficult to describe open or closed source software as “better” as that is such a vague descriptor. They both have theirs strengths and their weaknesses. The major benefit of open source software that I see from a quality standpoint is that it is available for public scrutiny. This is useful, for example, in cryptography cases, where having the code available for anyone to read can help prevent bugs that would weaken the strength of the software. On the flip side, the benefit of closed source software is that it is more difficult to locate the bugs that may exist, as the code cannot be easily analyzed. This realistically means that proprietary software can get away with more bugs and other issues in the software, as they may not manifest themselves or be exploited as easily. Ultimately, no software, no matter the methodology or the rigor put into it, can be perfect. I think it is even difficult to choose one as generally better, because to me it really seems to be a question that needs to be posed on a case by case basis.
I think the distinction between free software and open source is more of a mindset issue than a classification issue. This is something Stallman touches on lightly in his writings, pointing out that they both describe an almost identical group of software. Of the two licenses mentioned, I actually think the BSD license is the more free. Because the GPL attempts to preserve freedom by requiring people to also release the modified software as free, it is actually imposing burdens on the users of the programs and thus limiting their freedom. This also restricts many groups ability to use the software, who for any number of reasons, cannot release the software they create as open source. If I am trying to create software for good, I would want that software to be useable by as many people as possible, so I would choose the BSD license.
I believe that of all organizations, the ones that should be endorsing open source software the most are governments and public organizations. These are groups that, by definition, are for the people. The tools that they create are all intended to help the populace. A great way to accomplish that goal is to also release the code behind those tools. I realize that this may not be a practical goal for all software created, as some software depends on the secrecy of its implementation. However, releasing the source code is something that should always be on the mind of organizations, and acted upon whenever possible. When groups make use of existing open source projects, I think that they have an obligation to give back to that community. This can be simple, such as bug fixes or publicity. It can also go further, such as taking partial ownership or committing extended man-hours to support the project. This is mutually beneficial, as the company is enhancing the software for its own use, as well as supporting the project and building rapport with the community at large.
kosercseethics 