He really doesn't have the rights to those things. Yes, one of the tenets of
the free software movement is that all software should be free, but not all
software is free. Your assertion that everyone has a right to the source code
of any software they have received implies that people are obligated to
distribute the source code of anything they distribute, but that's just not
true. True freedom includes the freedom to release anything you create to the
public, in part or in whole, with or without explanation, with or without
source code, with or without documentation, under any license you choose or
no license at all, and on any time schedule you wish. Just as much as freedom
allows for the existence of proprietary software, freedom allows me to
abstain from all use of it.
People are not being denied a fundamental right by not being given extra
information concerning the hardware or software they purchased. You
rightfully said, "the free software movement says that it is wrong when
someone denies someone these essential rights, even if it may be legal". The
problem is, it's wrong for us to force the creator(s) or inventor(s) of
anything to do anything they don't want to, no matter how much we may desire
them to. It's wrong for them not to release such things, but it's wrong for
anyone to force them. The major exception here in the software world is when
people make derivative works from something with a copyleft license and fail
to release the source code, which they're bound and obliged to do by law. But
when software or hardware was never developed or released under any lax
license, the maker(s) have a right to do with it what they wish, including
keep it secret. I'm not defending proprietary software, I'm defending the
natural God-given right to keep private or secret anything we create, just as
we have the right to share anything we create.
Just because software is distributed to others doesn't mean that the software
code should be free and open. Do the authors of "freeware" have no rights to
privacy concerning their source code? Can they not lawfully create their own
licenses that people must adhere to or face legal and financial consequences,
just as the GNU project has done? When somebody insists that you have to pay
for something they created, and you find some way around that but still click
agree to their EULA and TOS agreements, you're using unlawfully obtained
software because you're breaking the contract(s) you agreed to. Most people
don't care if you say unlawfully obtained or stolen, but you seem to be
different.
Regardless, I wasn't originally even speaking of stealing software, I was
speaking of stealing or otherwise "unlawfully obtaining" source code and
documentation that has been lawfully, though wrongfully, withheld from the
users of hardware/software. Software should be free, but we can't force it.
Maybe one day, all the "should be"s will become "is"s.
In these days when personal privacy and security are on the edge of being
eradicated, I really think it would behove everyone to grant to others the
same rights you reserve for yourself.
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye
even so to them" - Jesus, Matthew 7:12
"I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must
share it with other people who like it. I cannot in good conscience sign a
nondisclosure agreement or a software license agreement. So that I can
continue to use computers without violating my principles, I have decided to
put together a sufficient body of free software so that I will be able to get
along without any software that is not free." - Richard Stallman, GNU Initial
Announcement, Sept. 27, 1983
