Ask HN: Is it ethical to create an open source clone of proprietary software? - samwiseg
======
kjksf
Yes. Competition is how we get better, cheaper things.

Also, "cloning" is a poor word for such activity. Writing code is hard and
time consuming even if you're merely replicating functionality of an existing
product. To me "cloning" implies that it somehow cheap or easy and it just
isn't.

~~~
seanwilson
> Writing code is hard and time consuming even if you're merely replicating
> functionality of an existing product.

Not all the time to be honest. Creating a finished, complete and useful
product can involve a huge amount of prototyping and several redesigns. You
have to try lots of ideas that don't work, throw code away, redesign the UI as
it becomes more clear how the product is used, test on users etc. If you
heavily base your product on an existing complex one you're likely taking a
big shortcut.

------
shitgoose
let's make it interesting. also, is it ethical to create a proprietary clone
of an open source project?

~~~
davismwfl
Sure, as long as you are not utilizing any of the code from the open source
project.

Crossing the line is using other people's work and calling it your own,
regardless of open/closed source.

~~~
meric
What if you're creating a proprietary version of yacc, and you're using yacc
to parse domain specific language for your clone?

I think that's fair enough?

~~~
davismwfl
I'd agree in that case, mostly because the code does not have a restrictive
license. Also, to me if you disclose that you are using yacc then you are
being totally up front and have side stepped any issues. But in the case of
like byacc the license specifically states you can use it in commercial or
public code without restriction, so it is fair to use in my opinion.

Me personally, even in like this case where it isn't required or requested,
I'd likely attribute the author or repository in my license file, credits or
readme.

------
rubyfan
Yes. Commercial competitors are inspired by each others work all the time.
That the clone is FOSS doesn't really matter.

------
insoluble
A game is not fair if the rules are not the same for everyone. At least, I
would like to believe that anyone who watches sports would agree with this
statement. Moreover, a game played with unfair rules is by its nature an
unethical game. That's my opinion on the matter.

If in society it were made clear that copying everyone else's designs and
market research were okay and to be sought when possible, then there would be
little wrong with an open-source project copying the designs of a proprietary
project. On the other hand, if a proprietary project is not allowed, in
practice, to copy the designs of its competitors due to fears of legal
problems or public backlash, then it would be unethical for an open-source
project to copy other projects' designs since that would give the open-source
project an unfair advantage.

At the same time, there is still an element of exploitation if in practice the
only ones investing significantly in market research and R&D are the
proprietary firms. After all, any time someone is reaping the benefits of
someone else's work without giving back equally in one form or another, there
is a type of exploitation going on.

Now, we should avoid thinking in black-and-white. We should avoid saying x is
ethical while y is unethical. In the real system that is society, there are
many variables involved, and these variables are floating point. You would
need to plug all the values into the formula of ethics to really see the
relative balance of ethics followed by any given project or company at a given
time.

I can tell you from my own experience with (embedded software/hardware) R&D
that coming up with a fully functional, reliable product in terms of design
and approach is a _very_ costly operation. Simply measuring and cloning
someone else's product is worlds easier than designing it in the first place.
After all, the people doing the R&D are filtering out all the bad ideas for
you -- and most ideas are bad ideas, often for reasons not clear from the
start.

Like I said, however, one of the most important factors to consider is whether
everyone is playing by the same rules. Doing things your competitors are not
allowed to do without getting into trouble is cheating. And cheating is
unethical -- despite the inner animal in us thinking there's nothing wrong
with cheating as long as we're the one benefiting. Remember: The question is
not whether you _can_ do it, but whether it's _ethical_. These are not the
same thing.

------
brudgers
That's what many of the surviving *nix's in the world are.

------
throwaway420
Is it unethical to open a restaurant in a city if that city already has
another restaurant?

~~~
Someone
I don't think that is a fair comparison. Is it unethical to clone the printed
menu of a restaurant? The set of dishes it offers to its customers? A single
dish?

If your clone would be used in a competing for profit restaurant, I would
answer "yes, it is unethical" in all 3 cases (getting inspired by a dish feels
different to me, and can easily be ethical, depending on scale and similarity.
Getting inspired by 20 dishes from a single restaurant? Unethical in my book,
unless there is a truly tremendous lot of inspiration involved.)

The world, however, sees things different for software. For example, you can
legally clone the PC BIOS or fonts, as long as you only look at its outside.
That is like cloning dishes from a restaurant based only on looking at what
they present you when you buy the dish (= without visiting the kitchen,
quizzing the cook, or dumpster diving to discover what the ingredients are)

But that is legally. For the first, most people would agree it is ethical. For
the second, you'll find differing opinions.

Now, the open source angle adds a twist that makes my answer "it depends/I
wouldn't know". Somehow, cloning, say, a product that isn't for sale anymore
or doesn't run on modern hardware, and was produced by a huge company feels
more ethical than cloning a $5 product created by a single developer who makes
just enough to live from it from that product. In either case, cloning feels
more ethical to me if it is done for one's own use, more so the less wealthy
the cloner (cloning for own use, AFAIK, is legal around the world. For
example, you can create a Rietveld chair for your own home, but not sell it or
give it away as a present. The first copy of cloned software that you use for
yourself, for me, is in the same boat. I know it doesn't make sense, but the
millions of additional copies one can make from that 'for own use' software
more or less are collateral damage)

