A few days ago I finished reading Richard Stallman’s “Free Software, Free Society”. The book consists of a number of interesting, well-written essays on the philosophy and history of the free software movement.

Most people heard of open source as a practical development paradigm and distribution method. Eric Raymond’s “The Cathedral and the Bazaar” describes that in more detail so I will not delve much into that topic. Besides I get the impression that many people understand the goals of open source. But not so many understand the reasoning behind free software, which made open source possible.

As Richard Stallman says, free software is “free as in speech not as free beer”. The goal of free software is to bring freedom to software. The freedom of letting users and developer do whatever they want with the software, within limits. The limits being not to take away the freedoms associated with a program and its source code. Richard Stallman explains the cultural heritage benefits and freedom benefits in his book very well.

Many critics of the free software movement voice their concerns over “ownership” of and “marketability” of free software. Some even go so far to call the entire movement “communist” utopia. Me thinks these critics don’t (or don’t want to) understand either how free software works or free markets for that matter.

I will not go into details why a free market is desirable. These ideas are well documented by theorists from Adam Smith to Ludwig von Mises to Milton Friedman. For sake of argument lets assume a free market is desirable. Free markets depend on people owning “capital”. These owners exchange their “capital” with a customer for greater material wealth, which becomes more “capital”.

Free software unlike proprietary closed source software, gives “ownership” to a user. You can only own a piece of software if you have its source code, be able to modify it for a task, and distribute it to whoever you please. The only restriction is that you must not take away those freedoms. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, Abraham Lincoln once said. The free software with its “give back others freedom” clause, maintains the software’s freedom in perpetuity. Interestingly, this “give back” clause meets the most opposition.

In proprietary software, you get a license to run the program. Usually only one program on one computer by one person, and you are not allowed to give out copies of that program. And you can’t change the program because you don’t have the software. You don’t own the software.

Lets compare this to what happens in real life. You go to the store, and buy a drill. Now you own that drill. You can do whatever you want to with it. You can sell it. You can use it. You can disassemble it. You can use it to power your motorboat if you choose to. It might void your warranty. But you can be sure whatever you do with that drill, and you don’t break a law while using it; you will not have the police coming to your door.

If anything free software is far from being communistic. It gives you more ownership than the closed source software does. Free software encourages a free market, but also asks you to do so ethically. It asks for you to respect the freedoms of another person. Respecting the freedoms of another person is what a free society is about. Respecting the freedoms of a customer is what an ethical seller in a free market does. Furthermore free software with its “give back” clause promotes the idea of giving away “capital” in the form of ideas, work, code, documentation and the software itself; which gives the giver more capital. In fact it gives back more capital for everyone. Everyone wins, and everyone keeps their liberties.

Communism tramples on the freedoms of individual ownership. Free software promotes the freedoms of individual ownership.

Free software promotes ethical behaviour in programmers, cause your code is for all to see. Free software promotes ethical, sustainable entrepreneurs, who know they benefit if everyone benefits. Also often free software ability to be given away, increases a software’s exposure to potential client, better than any sale force can. Free software is also probably the only thing that lets the software market have any chance of become free of interference from corporations and governments. Only a few greedy monopolies and individuals will suffer from free software, but these people don’t care about hurting others to make a bit of cash.
A few days ago I finished reading Richard Stallman’s “Free Software, Free Society”. The book consists of a number of interesting, well-written essays on the philosophy and history of the free software movement.

Most people heard of open source as a practical development paradigm and distribution method. Eric Raymond’s “The Cathedral and the Bazaar” describes that in more detail so I will not delve much into that topic. Besides I get the impression that many people understand the goals of open source. But not so many understand the reasoning behind free software, which made open source possible.

As Richard Stallman says, free software is “free as in speech not as free beer”. The goal of free software is to bring freedom to software. The freedom of letting users and developer do whatever they want with the software, within limits. The limits being not to take away the freedoms associated with a program and its source code. Richard Stallman explains the cultural heritage benefits and freedom benefits in his book very well.

Many critics of the free software movement voice their concerns over “ownership” of and “marketability” of free software. Some even go so far to call the entire movement “communist” utopia. Me thinks these critics don’t (or don’t want to) understand either how free software works or free markets for that matter.

I will not go into details why a free market is desirable. These ideas are well documented by theorists from Adam Smith to Ludwig von Mises to Milton Friedman. For sake of argument lets assume a free market is desirable. Free markets depend on people owning “capital”. These owners exchange their “capital” with a customer for greater material wealth, which becomes more “capital”.

Free software unlike proprietary closed source software, gives “ownership” to a user. You can only own a piece of software if you have its source code, be able to modify it for a task, and distribute it to whoever you please. The only restriction is that you must not take away those freedoms. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, Abraham Lincoln once said. The free software with its “give back others freedom” clause, maintains the software’s freedom in perpetuity. Interestingly, this “give back” clause meets the most opposition.

In proprietary software, you get a license to run the program. Usually only one program on one computer by one person, and you are not allowed to give out copies of that program. And you can’t change the program because you don’t have the software. You don’t own the software.

Lets compare this to what happens in real life. You go to the store, and buy a drill. Now you own that drill. You can do whatever you want to with it. You can sell it. You can use it. You can disassemble it. You can use it to power your motorboat if you choose to. It might void your warranty. But you can be sure whatever you do with that drill, and you don’t break a law while using it; you will not have the police coming to your door.

If anything free software is far from being communistic. It gives you more ownership than the closed source software does. Free software encourages a free market, but also asks you to do so ethically. It asks for you to respect the freedoms of another person. Respecting the freedoms of another person is what a free society is about. Respecting the freedoms of a customer is what an ethical seller in a free market does. Furthermore free software with its “give back” clause promotes the idea of giving away “capital” in the form of ideas, work, code, documentation and the software itself; which gives the giver more capital. In fact it gives back more capital for everyone. Everyone wins, and everyone keeps their liberties.

Communism tramples on the freedoms of individual ownership. Free software promotes the freedoms of individual ownership.

Free software promotes ethical behaviour in programmers, cause your code is for all to see. Free software promotes ethical, sustainable entrepreneurs, who know they benefit if everyone benefits. Also often free software ability to be given away, increases a software’s exposure to potential client, better than any sale force can. Free software is also probably the only thing that lets the software market have any chance of become free of interference from corporations and governments. Only a few greedy monopolies and individuals will suffer from free software, but these people don’t care about hurting others to make a bit of cash.

Free software is good for society. Its good for business. Its good for customers. Its good for developers and the future of software.

You can download a copy of Richard Stallman’s “Free Software, Free Society” here:
http://www.gnu.org/doc/book13.html