I think you bring up points that I hadn’t considered. As software engineers, we may be writing platforms for other people to contribute to. This site is an example, but there are plenty - Facebook, Twitter, Quora, the entire Stack Exchange network, Reddit - some of the largest websites on the Internet, plus countless smaller sites.
I don’t think that working with other people’s creative content is covered. In my interpretation of this section, it is exclusively “computing artifacts” being discussed. That is, a requirements, designs, code, executables, users manuals, music and graphical assets, and so on, that are part of work done by computing professionals. Looking through, I’m not sure if I explicitly see information about how we, as computing professionals, work with and around user-generated content that we may come across, especially when we may disagree with the content.
When I read this section:
What I see is a requirement to respect intellectual property law - copyrights, patents, trade secrets, NDAs, licenses, and so on. However, in the second paragraph, I see that I should not oppose reasonable uses of my work.
Here’s a scenario:
The software engineer working on the medical device doesn’t have the right to use my software. However, one could argue that having these algorithms could allow the company to get a better product to market in less time for less money. One could argue that this is a public good - doctors and hospitals will be able to buy this software for less money faster and start using it to diagnose patients earlier. The way I’m reading this code, I should not oppose that use, even though it is illegal.
I think this interpretation is backed up by Principle 2.3 which gives people permission to violate the law on ethical grounds assuming they are willing to accept the consequences. However, this Principle says that the person who is being harmed by the law being broken should do nothing.
Now, maybe I’m misreading or misinterpreting this section. In that case, rewording is necessary. But it seems like the intention is clear.