What is the consequentialist justification for laws that give ownership and control of software to individuals or corporations (proprietary software)? What is the basic dilemma in giving individuals the ownership and control of software they wrote? Is there any alternative to working with privately-owned (proprietary) software?
Answers
Answer:
Once taken for granted as morally legitimate, legal protection of intellectual property rights have come under fire in the last 30 years as new technologies have evolved and severed the link between expression of ideas and such traditional material‐based media as books and magazines. These advances in digital technology have called attention to unique features of intellectual content that problematize intellectual property protection; any piece of intellectual content, for example, can be simultaneously appropriated by everyone in the world without thereby diminishing the supply of that content available to others. This essay provides an overview and assessment of the arguments and counterarguments on the issue of whether intellectual property should be legally protected.
A software license is a legal instrument governing the use or redistribution of software. ... Many proprietary or open source software houses sell the SW copy with a license ... more control over the way their software is used by keeping ownership of ... so one will have to buy a base product before they can use other modules.
Explanation: