Free Software ?
"Should" Software Be Free?
One of the "other" things that I do with my spare time is teach classes online. Currently, I'm the instructor for an "Introduction to Programming" class being offered by HP. A student in that class left a message that finished up with the ringing battle cry, "Great software should be for all, not just the people that can afford it!"
Ah ... It stirs the heart. It stirred mine! Enough to motivate me to write an essay in response. And I decided that readers here might want to weigh in with their own thoughts about it. So here's the essay I wrote to the students in my Intro to Programming class. Let me know what you think about it ...
--------------
One of the most interesting developments in computers in the thirty or so years I have been involved has been the rise of the "Free Software Movement". In a way that is almost unique in human history, a large and persistent part of the people involved in software believe that there's something wrong with the concepts of "ownership" or "profit" where software is involved.
One of the ways that the Free Software Movement is unique is their success!
Linux is putting a serious scare into Microsoft these days. Apache, the web server partner of Linux, is doing more than that. They're winning the race world wide if you measure simply by the number of installations. (http://news.netcraft.com/) And there are serious contenders in other major categories: Mono, Firefox, PHP, and so forth.
This is virtually unprecedented in any other area of human activity.
One of the reasons this has happened is the unique history of software. If you go back in history as recently as the 1960's, nobody predicted the phenominal success of computers and software. Certainly, nobody predicted the Web! It's probably the biggest "miss" in guessing about the future - ever.
So those of us (and I'm one of them) who gave their lives to computers back in the 1960's did it for entirely different reasons than one would become, say, an accountant or a pharmacist. We did it simply because we loved it. And since nobody expected to get rich in the beginning (Well ... maybe Bill Gates did, but Steve Wozniak certainly didn't), we gave away the fruits of our labor and sort of expected that everyone else felt the same way.
The people who decided to become programmers only because they thought it would be a good way to make money came as a shock to us.
(As a comparison, there has been a small, but generally unsuccessful "free music" movement for a lot of the same technology reasons: It's hard to protect both music and software from copying. But there aren't enough people who create music who believe it "should" be free. In general, only the people who copy it feel that way. And making money from music has a much longer history. People have been making music - and making money doing it - since Gog and Ugh formed the first "rock band" with real rocks. So there has been a dedicated, relentless, and pretty successful effort from the producers of music to make sure that if you consume music, you pay for it.)
But free software continues to be a major force in the world and I continue to love to watch the contest. It's one of the things that makes programming still the most interesting thing in the world to do.
References:
Comments
I am sure that most programmers obtained their programming experience writing software for a profit.
Many wanted to give something back to the many that helped them with problems along the way and freely gave away some of the programs they wrote as a way of giving back to those that helped them (one source of free software).
But when all software is free, who is going to write it. If you are not going to be paid for it you will be too busy earning a living to learn programming skills. Software production will slow to a trickle.
You can’t have it both ways. Those people who are writing all of this free software you mentioned are probably making their living writing software for someone, somewhere.
They didn’t just one day quit their jobs and decide they were going to spend all of their time writing Linux (and starving while doing so). And it certainly wasn’t written by amateurs.
So, for those that think all software should be free better get busy learning to program.
I liked your article, it is an iteresting perspective. I hate to dispute such a minor part of your article, but I know more musicians who play for free than programmers who program for free. In addition, I know more musicians who believe music should be free than I know programmers who believe so!
Jack,
I freely admit that I don’t know many musicians and I wondered about that. I’m glad you’re sharing your perspective.
But I do know that music producers (who may share more characteristics with the spotted hyena than with musicians) have been more successful in stamping out the efforts to make published music free. It was the lack of a successful free music industry that I highlighted in my essay.
Your essay presents a very relevent dilema, not only for programmers, but for anyone who engages in any creative pursuit. I am a freebie junkie. I don’t mind being someone else’s beta tester, since I have enough expertise not to let their work-in-progress thrash my machine, but for mission critical stuff, I prefer the security of buying the best I can afford. I beleive in the dictum ‘you get what you pay for’. Pay for nothing, and more often than not, you’ll eventually get nothing. Even ‘open sourcers’ have to eat (and please don’t bother trying to convince me they wouldn’t love a Ferrari as a signing bonus when there’s a hot looking chick next door).
One disturbing trend I’ve noticed, however, especially in the anti-malware field, is subscription based software. Antispyware and antivirus I can understand; but firewalls, HIPS, and sandboxing apps, are a stretch for me. Turning all software into services is a money grab, imo. Call me retro, but I’d rather own Microsoft Word 97 outright, than pay a subscription to use the latest version. A lot of financial wizards will tell you it’s better to own, than to rent/lease, unless it’s a commodity. I don’t consider software a commodity yet. My attitude, as both a writer and a programmer, is perfectly articulated by something Leonard Cohen said in a documentary: ‘I don’t want to work for pay, but I want to be paid for my work.’
Anyway, I gotta go…there’s a hot looking chick next door and I’m writing a VB app that will convert decimal numbers into binary (it’s all I can think of, since I don’t have a Ferrari).
Retro!!! Lookit the retro-dude!
(You told me to do it.)
I already wrote the program (http://visualbasic.about.com/library/weekly/aa032903a.htm). But I doubt a hot looking chick anywhere will pay any attention.
Yeah … Microsoft is trying HARD to convince business to sign up for their indentured servitude system (aka … “Software Assurance”) because it basically means that you buy it whether you like it or not ’cause you already bought it. This is a big reason why they decided to murder VB 6 in a back alley. They couldn’t have people deciding on their own NOT to upgrade, now could they?
Thanks for writing!
‘But I doubt a hot looking chick anywhere will pay any attention.’
I don’t know about where you live, but here, if a hot looking chick presses a button and it makes one number turn into another, she goes all giggly. After that, it’s a turkey shoot to get her over to your place to see your other apps (the ‘top secret’ ones in your bedroom). C’mon, dude, get with the 90s.
Ooooo … that’s retro-PC! and I don’t mean “personal computer”.
What I meant to say was that the really hot ones are all far more advanced in their technical appreciation.
As long as free software remains voluntarily free, I think it’s a great thing.
What concerns me is when I hear talk of forcing software to be free via laws or abolishing copyright. I believe going down such a road would be a huge mistake.
If that were to ever happen, a new free software movement would have to arise to replace the artificially created situation.
It’s been my experience that “free software” is worth every penny. To be sure, there are some applications out there that are quite capable of performing the tasks they were designed for. Unfortunately, those apps tend to work the way the programmer(s) thought was cool. There’s not often any research into what the end users might want or how those users think and work. That one reason alone is enough to keep an otherwise competent application from being commercially viable. And that, I think, is the foundation of the free software movement; programmers who believe they know better than the end users of their programs what those end users “really want and need”.
The bottom line is this: If the software being offered was all that good, the programmer(s) would be able to sell it.
I have this conversation with a friend and colleague of mine on a regular basis. Mostly fuelled by alcohol it must be admitted, but there you go.
Most of us working in the industry actually DO provide software free of charge some of the time. Even if it’s just writing a quick and easy web-site for a friend or needy charity. I know I certainly do. (By the way my musician buddies NEVER play a free gig.)
One question that never fails to be answered by the free software movement is what will happen:
1. To all the folks working for Microsoft, SAP, Oracle….. And therefore, by extension, what are the proposals for the effect on the various economies of the world?
2. Who is going to provide professional grade support for free software, given that the people who wrote it are going to be workign at their day job when support calls have to be logged?
When either of these questions can be answered in an informed manner, then that is when I for one will take the whole thing more seriously.
Hi Dan,
you wanted comments on free software. I think everyone should use free
software, nut with open mind, avoiding falling into holes.
I, for one, will not be upgrading to Windows Vista. I have already used
Linux as a second OS for a couple of years having in mind that some day
removing Windows and that day comes closer and closer.
I own three computers, all with legal Windows licenses, if I would to
upgrade all it would cost me my shirt! Is Microsoft digging their own
ditch again?
There’s a lot of good free software out there, Linux with apache and all
other components, OpenOffice.org, Nvu and k3b for example.
I’m using a lot of free software, but I’m also buying software when it’s needed. I can pay for Linux and as reward i get commercial software like LinDVD which is WinDVD but for Linux.
I hope all of you investigate the options before upgrading to Vista, because there are options…,
I forgot to mention, I’m a programmer, I have been working hard against the copyright issues within the EU, keeping free software free.
Quoting Dales post:
The bottom line is this: If the software being offered was all that good, the programmer(s) would be able to sell it.
It isn’t that the programs are not good enough to be sold. Often it is that the programmers don’t have the business experience, or care to do the business side of things. I program stuff for free because I think it would be cool/I don’t have experience in that particular area so it would be a good learning experience, I don’t want to sit on a phone answering questions about code I’ve already done.
That is why I charge for my day job where I have to deal with end users problems rather than do what I want to do, but will code a GPL video game for free. Part of it is me acknowledging that the free stuff is new to me so my hourly employer wouldn’t be getting his money worth paying me to read up on something when he could hire someone that has already done it before. The other side is with free software if it stops being fun you quit and move on, it is harder to do that with your regular job.
What bothers me is that they will sell the OS for $25 in Thailand and then have us pay hundreds for the same thing. MS is just like your street corner drug dealer – give em a free taste until their hooked and then squeeze them for everything they got.
I have three computers and have no plans to update for years.
Roger …
Good point. The new $3 Windows is only going to be available OUTSIDE the US.
But I hear the same complaint from both sides. For example, you couldn’t take advantage of the free Visual Studio offer unless you were IN the US. Several people in the UK complained about that one.
Does anyone else but me find it ironic that so much of the “free open source” software like Apache or Linux servers is used largely by “For Profit” organizations trying to save a few bucks?
Has anyone in the “free software” movement noticed that they have simply entered into voluntary servitude to corporations who are exploiting their labor for money?
Maybe “the people” or nonprofits are benefiting to some degree. I don’t know many everyday people using open source software and while I find free software for nonprofits laudable, the savings often go to salaries for those running such organizations, not just to charitable activities. Feel like supporing a nonprofit director making 90K a year?
Who’s kidding who here?
Dan-
We may have missed predicting the web, and the use of the computer, but I think we can be sure that there will be no permanent future in free. Free is a temporary marketing condition to build the market. Somebody is having to pay ultimatley. Either the employer, in lost productivity, or the government in terms of welfare, or if your independently wealthy you draw down your own cash supply.
The consumer loves free – but I found that you usually get what you pay for.
Charlie p –
I actually avoided stating my own opinion too strongly in my opening blog because I was more interested in what my readers thought about it. But I think your comment matches my own opinion more closely than anything so far.
“Free” is a temporary condition that represents part of the investment that an entrepreneur puts into a product to get it into the marketplace.
A good example is PaintShop Pro. Years ago, it was completely free – no strings attached whatsoever. Then the early versions remained free but the most recent one started to be sold. Today, the original developer sold out to Corel, who is busy integrating it into the rest of their product line and mining the customer base by trying to “upsell” and “sidesell” other products.
Even the “free” Express editions from Microsoft are just an attempt to both capture a certain market segment and simultaneously prevent others from capturing the same segment. Absolutely as soon as the perceived “threat” of competition disappears, so will the “free” editions.
But this does not explain the relatively long standing and exceptionally successful phenomenon of Linux and Apache. Although you can “purchase” copies of this software bundled with support, the base is still “free” and it seems like they’re going to stay that way into the forseeable future.
How does this work?
Dan,
Being a professional programmer of long experience (although not quite as long as you) and also someone who has never had much money for buying software, I’m somewhat of two minds on the subject. Programmers deserve to get paid just like anyone else. But free (or at least cheap) stuff can be nice, assuming it actually works well. As the other Dale said, often free software is worth every penny.
I myself have written a couple of freeware programs. Generally these began as applications that I wanted to have for my own purposes, then realized that others might benefit from it as well. (My latest is an app that searches a variable star database for possible observing targets. Obviously this is an app with a somewhat limited audience.) Because I am a professional, I write my freeware apps in a professional manner, making it as bullet proof and as easy to use as possible, and I do listen to any user comments I get back. For one thing, I don’t want to release even as freeware something that will reflect badly on me. For another, when I decide to release something as freeware I’m doing it as a service, often to a community of users that shares some interest of mine. So I want it to be a service and not a hinderance.
But I’m not feeding my family by writing freeware, either, so I would hope that there would be people out there willing to pay for software.
It really annoys me that people expect software for free. You dont expect to get anything else for free (cars, foods, clothes..) so why should software be any different?? I believe in being able to see the sourcecode, like you can see an engine to a car, but come on! You want software, you pay!
hey
its very interesting article.
Good post.
realy good post
thx