Should Software Be Free?

I recently read this article this article by Richard Stallman on "Why Software should be Free". It is somewhat dated, but touches on some intersting ideas.

In it, he says that the concept of software having ownership is unproductive in many ways. First, it makes software less useful because it cannot be readily modified for personal use. It inhibits innovation because a programmer cannot base his or her work off of the work of other programmers- every program must start back at square one. For this reason, it also makes programming less efficient. People have to write code that has already been written, but is unavailable.

Stallman proposes various alternatives to the “intellectual property” approach to software. He claims that before big profits came into the picture, programming was a labor of love. People were glad to program just for the heck of it. I can attest to this. I have friends who spend many hours of their lives writing programs for things just to see if it can be done. He claims that programming is like art and music- plenty of people do it regardless of personal profits. If we can pay them a living, all the better. But we don't have to offer huge riches to get all the programmers that we need, and that the slack produced by having a few less programmers would be picked up by the fact that they will be able to do their work more efficiently.

He also asserts that programming should be treated as an academic field. Universities, public institutions and individual programmers could easily provide for our programming needs. Additionally, companies that thrive off of software (like hardware developers and support companies) will want to produce software to boost their own business. An intellectual programming community would thrive in the place of the current secretive world of programming.

It seems that Stallman has a very good point. Copyright, especially when it comes to software, is an artificial construction and has been distorted to the point that it is beginning to severely infringe on the public good, and indirectly hurts individuals. There is nothing natural or obvious about it. If we rethought our ideas about software ownership, the world would not end. In fact, it would get better as we saw more and more innovative and creative code that is better suited to our needs.

The success and utility of current open source software seems to back up thee claims, as does the proliferation of illegal software designed to crack games (those cracks don't program themselves, and it is unlikely for anyone ever to get rich off of a crack). We've seen a huge amount of innovation coming from free software, and if fewer programmers were lured into situations where their code remains secret (like most corporations) it seems that we might only see more.

I know that this position rubs some folks the wrong way. I'm interested in what people have to say on the subject.

Peace.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Unfortunately Stallman is a crusader, and crusaders have tunnel vision. If I spend a few years working on a kick-arse programme, I want some money for it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Jesus christ!,
Goofy,
you dont want the Software engineers to be prosperous do you?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No,i dont want softwares to be free.is that why you"re so much against Microsoft.(and yeah that is the only reason i like MS.it has earned money that i am planning to earn...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)...




bye!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

oh yeah,i"ll have to meet this man who has such thoughts...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

bye!

 

To go in the proper direction that is suggested here will be fought with BIG bucks by the software giants. You wouldn't see the money flow to the politicians that hold the key votes but you can bet it would be wine, women, and song till it was back in their pocket. (Or whatever takes their place in the political world) I think that it should be more in the line of it could be renewed for "X" number of years then it is public domain.

 

Should software be free? I guess that's a decision for the creator(s) of the software to decide. Personally, I am very pro-open source. Open source produces better code, when lately it seems that the industry keeps falling on it's face as it tries to write more complex software and make software more compatible with more things. How many times have we run into the problem that some software doesn't work on our system and we have no idea why? Sometimes there will be a patch six months or more down the road, and sometimes not. Sometimes tech support can help you, often times not. And there's little chance you can return the software once you've opened it.
I'm sure there will always be people who want to be paid for their code. A few people here have already posted, and I too want to be in a job some day where I am paid to code. So my ideas are somewhat contradictory on the surface. I have no problem with paying for programs if they are good. I especially believe that good games are worth the money. I also believe, however, that open source gives people, although right now mostly only the tech-savvy, an option to the crap that commercial companies try to push on us.
For me, it comes down to this. When I'm at work, I'm writing code to do what they want, as close as I can get it. Right now, it's custom solutions, although someday I may work for a software company, who knows. But when I'm at home, in my free time, coding on something for me or for someone else, that's free. That's my time, and I decide what to do with it. If I'm working on something because I want to, then I don't want to be paid for it. On the contrary, I feel slightly obligated to give it back to the open source community that has given so much to me.
I'm sure there will be commercial software for a long time to come. Will open source give commercial software a run for it's money in many areas? You bet. Many companies and governments are going to open source software and there will be more to follow. This will force commercial software companies to shape up, or go out of business. And in the end, I think that will be good for all of us.

 

Carrying on Wet1's thoughts...

i think thats what i and Km agreed in some other thread.we agreed for 5 years i think a soft should be sold and then become educational.


bye!

 

Totally and uttley up to the developer.
I work as a software engineer and if the software that i helped write was free god knows what i'd have for dinner to night or any night for that matter.

Like someone said, coding/programming is like making music, its an art form and people do it because they like it but look at metallica, they started to get pizzed when people started distrubuting there songs on napseter without their consent.

Basically if you make a living out of software development you sure as hell dont want software to be free. On the other hand if you develop something in your own time for the intention of helping others the if you want to make it free go ahead, just dont forget some shifty bastard right around the corner might make a buck or 2 from your code.

 

Malisha,One of the last lines you mentioned are very true.Most of the times this happens.if you"re doing it for educational purpose(as they say)other guys will make money out of the same free thing.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and this is bad.


bye!

 

Software should be free if the developers want it to be. If someone made it in their free time for fun and want to give it away, then so be it. If a company spends millions of dollars to produce a great game/app/etc they have every right to ask for money!

I'm all for open source and all that crap, but there is a big difference between advocacy and zealotry (i think i spelt both of those wrong!). You wouldn't want to fly on an airplane guided by open source software that was developed just for fun right? Closed source has its advantages too.

 

Abandonware

Well, software is never going to be free. That's a given.

What I want to say is only valable for games : they should be released as freeware after a period of time, say 3 years.

Why does ID software hang on to Doom? Why don't they give it away? Are they really making lots of money selling it on their website? Are those packages "Doom episode I + II + bonus" really keeping them poor guys from starving?

Gamesoftware evolves very fast. Lots of games are just "hanging there" under their copyrightholders, who do nothing with it. that's a shame.

 

Well, ID Software gave away Quake I and II! They were very secretive about it, though, and it seems like only open source kiddies will be able to get it working (needs to be compiled,etc).

 

So...

it wouldn't be a problem to copy Quake II from a friend or the library and install it? Or even download it from some website? Are you absolutely sure about that?

Or isn't that the same thing as compiling that source code?

 

OK i talked to some people...

The source is free, but you'll have to pay if you want models, levels, and textures

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(Sorry

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) But you should be able to pick up a copy of the cd for around 20 bucks from most places... and once you own a license its probably not morally wrong to copy from someplace else..

 

That's what I thought

NEVER EVER believe that something is free!

I constantly have to remind myself of that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Actually I decide if software is free. To me Microsoft products are always free. That is what CD burner is for.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I've recently rethought my thoughts.. here is my conclusion.

Software should NOT be free.

Some should, but some shouldn't. First of all, people shouldn't design life saving software in their free time. Second of all, free software is only good (like linux, or games made in somebody's free time) because there is commercial software. The idea of commercial software pisses off most nerds to write really good free software.

Fin.

(Ahhh, using french makes it seem so much more artistic somehow, wow )