mirror of
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/emacs.git
synced 2024-12-22 10:26:20 +00:00
820 lines
40 KiB
Plaintext
820 lines
40 KiB
Plaintext
(For more information about the GNU project and free software,
|
|
look at the files `GNU', `COPYING', and `DISTRIB', in the same
|
|
directory as this file.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why Software Should Be Free
|
|
|
|
by Richard Stallman
|
|
|
|
(Version of April 24, 1992)
|
|
|
|
Copyright (C) 1991, 1992, Free Software Foundation, Inc.
|
|
Verbatim copying and redistribution is permitted
|
|
without royalty; alteration is not permitted.
|
|
|
|
Introduction
|
|
************
|
|
|
|
The existence of software inevitably raises the question of how
|
|
decisions about its use should be made. For example, suppose one
|
|
individual who has a copy of a program meets another who would like a
|
|
copy. It is possible for them to copy the program; who should decide
|
|
whether this is done? The individuals involved? Or another party,
|
|
called the "owner"?
|
|
|
|
Software developers typically consider these questions on the
|
|
assumption that the criterion for the answer is to maximize developers'
|
|
profits. The political power of business has led to the government
|
|
adoption of both this criterion and the answer proposed by the
|
|
developers: that the program has an owner, typically a corporation
|
|
associated with its development.
|
|
|
|
I would like to consider the same question using a different
|
|
criterion: the prosperity and freedom of the public in general.
|
|
|
|
This answer cannot be decided by current law--the law should conform
|
|
to ethics, not the other way around. Nor does current practice decide
|
|
this question, although it may suggest possible answers. The only way
|
|
to judge is to see who is helped and who is hurt by recognizing owners
|
|
of software, why, and how much. In other words, we should perform a
|
|
cost-benefit analysis on behalf of society as a whole, taking account of
|
|
individual freedom as well as production of material goods.
|
|
|
|
In this essay, I will describe the effects of having owners, and show
|
|
that the results are detrimental. My conclusion is that programmers
|
|
have the duty to encourage others to share, redistribute, study and
|
|
improve the software we write: in other words, to write "free"
|
|
software.(1)
|
|
|
|
How Owners Justify Their Power
|
|
******************************
|
|
|
|
Those who benefit from the current system where programs are property
|
|
offer two arguments in support of their claims to own programs: the
|
|
emotional argument and the economic argument.
|
|
|
|
The emotional argument goes like this: "I put my sweat, my heart, my
|
|
soul into this program. It comes from *me*, it's *mine*!"
|
|
|
|
This argument does not require serious refutation. The feeling of
|
|
attachment is one that programmers can cultivate when it suits them; it
|
|
is not inevitable. Consider, for example, how willingly the same
|
|
programmers usually sign over all rights to a large corporation for a
|
|
salary; the emotional attachment mysteriously vanishes. By contrast,
|
|
consider the great artists and artisans of medieval times, who didn't
|
|
even sign their names to their work. To them, the name of the artist
|
|
was not important. What mattered was that the work was done--and the
|
|
purpose it would serve. This view prevailed for hundreds of years.
|
|
|
|
The economic argument goes like this: "I want to get rich (usually
|
|
described inaccurately as `making a living'), and if you don't allow me
|
|
to get rich by programming, then I won't program. Everyone else is like
|
|
me, so nobody will ever program. And then you'll be stuck with no
|
|
programs at all!" This threat is usually veiled as friendly advice
|
|
from the wise.
|
|
|
|
I'll explain later why this threat is a bluff. First I want to
|
|
address an implicit assumption that is more visible in another
|
|
formulation of the argument.
|
|
|
|
This formulation starts by comparing the social utility of a
|
|
proprietary program with that of no program, and then concludes that
|
|
proprietary software development is, on the whole, beneficial, and
|
|
should be encouraged. The fallacy here is in comparing only two
|
|
outcomes--proprietary software vs. no software--and assuming there are
|
|
no other possibilities.
|
|
|
|
Given a system of intellectual property, software development is
|
|
usually linked with the existence of an owner who controls the
|
|
software's use. As long as this linkage exists, we are often faced
|
|
with the choice of proprietary software or none. However, this linkage
|
|
is not inherent or inevitable; it is a consequence of the specific
|
|
social/legal policy decision that we are questioning: the decision to
|
|
have owners. To formulate the choice as between proprietary software
|
|
vs. no software is begging the question.
|
|
|
|
The Argument against Having Owners
|
|
**********************************
|
|
|
|
The question at hand is, "Should development of software be linked
|
|
with having owners to restrict the use of it?"
|
|
|
|
In order to decide this, we have to judge the effect on society of
|
|
each of those two activities *independently*: the effect of developing
|
|
the software (regardless of its terms of distribution), and the effect
|
|
of restricting its use (assuming the software has been developed). If
|
|
one of these activities is helpful and the other is harmful, we would be
|
|
better off dropping the linkage and doing only the helpful one.
|
|
|
|
To put it another way, if restricting the distribution of a program
|
|
already developed is harmful to society overall, then an ethical
|
|
software developer will reject the option of doing so.
|
|
|
|
To determine the effect of restricting sharing, we need to compare
|
|
the value to society of a restricted (i.e., proprietary) program with
|
|
that of the same program, available to everyone. This means comparing
|
|
two possible worlds.
|
|
|
|
This analysis also addresses the simple counterargument sometimes
|
|
made that "the benefit to the neighbor of giving him or her a copy of a
|
|
program is cancelled by the harm done to the owner." This
|
|
counterargument assumes that the harm and the benefit are equal in
|
|
magnitude. The analysis involves comparing these magnitudes, and shows
|
|
that the benefit is much greater.
|
|
|
|
To elucidate this argument, let's apply it in another area: road
|
|
construction.
|
|
|
|
It would be possible to fund the construction of all roads with
|
|
tolls. This would entail having toll booths at all street corners.
|
|
Such a system would provide a great incentive to improve roads. It
|
|
would also have the virtue of causing the users of any given road to
|
|
pay for that road. However, a toll booth is an artificial obstruction
|
|
to smooth driving--artificial, because it is not a consequence of how
|
|
roads or cars work.
|
|
|
|
Comparing free roads and toll roads by their usefulness, we find that
|
|
(all else being equal) roads without toll booths are cheaper to
|
|
construct, cheaper to run, safer, and more efficient to use.(2) In a
|
|
poor country, tolls may make the roads unavailable to many citizens.
|
|
The roads without toll booths thus offer more benefit to society at
|
|
less cost; they are preferable for society. Therefore, society should
|
|
choose to fund roads in another way, not by means of toll booths. Use
|
|
of roads, once built, should be free.
|
|
|
|
When the advocates of toll booths propose them as *merely* a way of
|
|
raising funds, they distort the choice that is available. Toll booths
|
|
do raise funds, but they do something else as well: in effect, they
|
|
degrade the road. The toll road is not as good as the free road; giving
|
|
us more or technically superior roads may not be an improvement if this
|
|
means substituting toll roads for free roads.
|
|
|
|
Of course, the construction of a free road does cost money, which the
|
|
public must somehow pay. However, this does not imply the inevitability
|
|
of toll booths. We who must in either case pay will get more value for
|
|
our money by buying a free road.
|
|
|
|
I am not saying that a toll road is worse than no road at all. That
|
|
would be true if the toll were so great that hardly anyone used the
|
|
road--but this is an unlikely policy for a toll collector. However, as
|
|
long as the toll booths cause significant waste and inconvenience, it is
|
|
better to raise the funds in a less obstructive fashion.
|
|
|
|
To apply the same argument to software development, I will now show
|
|
that having "toll booths" for useful software programs costs society
|
|
dearly: it makes the programs more expensive to construct, more
|
|
expensive to distribute, and less satisfying and efficient to use. It
|
|
will follow that program construction should be encouraged in some other
|
|
way. Then I will go on to explain other methods of encouraging and (to
|
|
the extent actually necessary) funding software development.
|
|
|
|
The Harm Done by Obstructing Software
|
|
=====================================
|
|
|
|
Consider for a moment that a program has been developed, and any
|
|
necessary payments for its development have been made; now society must
|
|
choose either to make it proprietary or allow free sharing and use.
|
|
Assume that the existence of the program and its availability is a
|
|
desirable thing.(3)
|
|
|
|
Restrictions on the distribution and modification of the program
|
|
cannot facilitate its use. They can only interfere. So the effect can
|
|
only be negative. But how much? And what kind?
|
|
|
|
Three different levels of material harm come from such obstruction:
|
|
|
|
* Fewer people use the program.
|
|
|
|
* None of the users can adapt or fix the program.
|
|
|
|
* Other developers cannot learn from the program, or base new work
|
|
on it.
|
|
|
|
Each level of material harm has a concomitant form of psychosocial
|
|
harm. This refers to the effect that people's decisions have on their
|
|
subsequent feelings, attitudes and predispositions. These changes in
|
|
people's ways of thinking will then have a further effect on their
|
|
relationships with their fellow citizens, and can have material
|
|
consequences.
|
|
|
|
The three levels of material harm waste part of the value that the
|
|
program could contribute, but they cannot reduce it to zero. If they
|
|
waste nearly all the value of the program, then writing the program
|
|
harms society by at most the effort that went into writing the program.
|
|
Arguably a program that is profitable to sell must provide some net
|
|
direct material benefit.
|
|
|
|
However, taking account of the concomitant psychosocial harm, there
|
|
is no limit to the harm that proprietary software development can do.
|
|
|
|
Obstructing Use of Programs
|
|
===========================
|
|
|
|
The first level of harm impedes the simple use of a program. A copy
|
|
of a program has nearly zero marginal cost (and you can pay this cost by
|
|
doing the work yourself), so in a free market, it would have nearly zero
|
|
price. A license fee is a significant disincentive to use the program.
|
|
If a widely-useful program is proprietary, far fewer people will use it.
|
|
|
|
It is easy to show that the total contribution of a program to
|
|
society is reduced by assigning an owner to it. Each potential user of
|
|
the program, faced with the need to pay to use it, may choose to pay,
|
|
or may forego use of the program. When a user chooses to pay, this is a
|
|
zero-sum transfer of wealth between two parties. But each time someone
|
|
chooses to forego use of the program, this harms that person without
|
|
benefiting anyone. The sum of negative numbers and zeros must be
|
|
negative.
|
|
|
|
But this does not reduce the amount of work it takes to *develop*
|
|
the program. As a result, the efficiency of the whole process, in
|
|
delivered user satisfaction per hour of work, is reduced.
|
|
|
|
This reflects a crucial difference between copies of programs and
|
|
cars, chairs, or sandwiches. There is no copying machine for material
|
|
objects outside of science fiction. But programs are easy to copy;
|
|
anyone can produce as many copies as are wanted, with very little
|
|
effort. This isn't true for material objects because matter is
|
|
conserved: each new copy has to be built from raw materials in the same
|
|
way that the first copy was built.
|
|
|
|
With material objects, a disincentive to use them makes sense,
|
|
because fewer objects bought means less raw materials and work needed
|
|
to make them. It's true that there is usually also a startup cost, a
|
|
development cost, which is spread over the production run. But as long
|
|
as the marginal cost of production is significant, adding a share of the
|
|
development cost does not make a qualitative difference. And it does
|
|
not require restrictions on the freedom of ordinary users.
|
|
|
|
However, imposing a price on something that would otherwise be free
|
|
is a qualitative change. A centrally-imposed fee for software
|
|
distribution becomes a powerful disincentive.
|
|
|
|
What's more, central production as now practiced is inefficient even
|
|
as a means of delivering copies of software. This system involves
|
|
enclosing physical disks or tapes in superfluous packaging, shipping
|
|
large numbers of them around the world, and storing them for sale. This
|
|
cost is presented as an expense of doing business; in truth, it is part
|
|
of the waste caused by having owners.
|
|
|
|
Damaging Social Cohesion
|
|
========================
|
|
|
|
Suppose that both you and your neighbor would find it useful to run a
|
|
certain program. In ethical concern for your neighbor, you should feel
|
|
that proper handling of the situation will enable both of you to use it.
|
|
A proposal to permit only one of you to use the program, while
|
|
restraining the other, is divisive; neither you nor your neighbor should
|
|
find it acceptable.
|
|
|
|
Signing a typical software license agreement means betraying your
|
|
neighbor: "I promise to deprive my neighbor of this program so that I
|
|
can have a copy for myself." People who make such choices feel
|
|
internal psychological pressure to justify them, by downgrading the
|
|
importance of helping one's neighbors--thus public spirit suffers.
|
|
This is psychosocial harm associated with the material harm of
|
|
discouraging use of the program.
|
|
|
|
Many users unconsciously recognize the wrong of refusing to share, so
|
|
they decide to ignore the licenses and laws, and share programs anyway.
|
|
But they often feel guilty about doing so. They know that they must
|
|
break the laws in order to be good neighbors, but they still consider
|
|
the laws authoritative, and they conclude that being a good neighbor
|
|
(which they are) is naughty or shameful. That is also a kind of
|
|
psychosocial harm, but one can escape it by deciding that these licenses
|
|
and laws have no moral force.
|
|
|
|
Programmers also suffer psychosocial harm knowing that many users
|
|
will not be allowed to use their work. This leads to an attitude of
|
|
cynicism or denial. A programmer may describe enthusiastically the
|
|
work that he finds technically exciting; then when asked, "Will I be
|
|
permitted to use it?", his face falls, and he admits the answer is no.
|
|
To avoid feeling discouraged, he either ignores this fact most of the
|
|
time or adopts a cynical stance designed to minimize the importance of
|
|
it.
|
|
|
|
Since the age of Reagan, the greatest scarcity in the United States
|
|
is not technical innovation, but rather the willingness to work together
|
|
for the public good. It makes no sense to encourage the former at the
|
|
expense of the latter.
|
|
|
|
Obstructing Custom Adaptation of Programs
|
|
=========================================
|
|
|
|
The second level of material harm is the inability to adapt programs.
|
|
The ease of modification of software is one of its great advantages over
|
|
older technology. But most commercially available software isn't
|
|
available for modification, even after you buy it. It's available for
|
|
you to take it or leave it, as a black box--that is all.
|
|
|
|
A program that you can run consists of a series of numbers whose
|
|
meaning is obscure. No one, not even a good programmer, can easily
|
|
change the numbers to make the program do something different.
|
|
|
|
Programmers normally work with the "source code" for a program, which
|
|
is written in a programming language such as Fortran or C. It uses
|
|
names to designate the data being used and the parts of the program, and
|
|
it represents operations with symbols such as `+' for addition and `-'
|
|
for subtraction. It is designed to help programmers read and change
|
|
programs. Here is an example; a program to calculate the distance
|
|
between two points in a plane:
|
|
|
|
float
|
|
distance (p0, p1)
|
|
struct point p0, p1;
|
|
{
|
|
float xdist = p1.x - p0.x;
|
|
float ydist = p1.y - p0.y;
|
|
return sqrt (xdist * xdist + ydist * ydist);
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
Here is the same program in executable form, on the computer I
|
|
normally use:
|
|
|
|
1314258944 -232267772 -231844864 1634862
|
|
1411907592 -231844736 2159150 1420296208
|
|
-234880989 -234879837 -234879966 -232295424
|
|
1644167167 -3214848 1090581031 1962942495
|
|
572518958 -803143692 1314803317
|
|
|
|
Source code is useful (at least potentially) to every user of a
|
|
program. But most users are not allowed to have copies of the source
|
|
code. Usually the source code for a proprietary program is kept secret
|
|
by the owner, lest anybody else learn something from it. Users receive
|
|
only the files of incomprehensible numbers that the computer will
|
|
execute. This means that only the program's owner can change the
|
|
program.
|
|
|
|
A friend once told me of working as a programmer in a bank for about
|
|
six months, writing a program similar to something that was commercially
|
|
available. She believed that if she could have gotten source code for
|
|
that commercially available program, it could easily have been adapted
|
|
to their needs. The bank was willing to pay for this, but was not
|
|
permitted to--the source code was a secret. So she had to do six
|
|
months of make-work, work that counts in the GNP but was actually waste.
|
|
|
|
The MIT Artificial Intelligence lab (AI lab) received a graphics
|
|
printer as a gift from Xerox around 1977. It was run by free software
|
|
to which we added many convenient features. For example, the software
|
|
would notify a user immediately on completion of a print job. Whenever
|
|
the printer had trouble, such as a paper jam or running out of paper,
|
|
the software would immediately notify all users who had print jobs
|
|
queued. These features facilitated smooth operation.
|
|
|
|
Later Xerox gave the AI lab a newer, faster printer, one of the first
|
|
laser printers. It was driven by proprietary software that ran in a
|
|
separate dedicated computer, so we couldn't add any of our favorite
|
|
features. We could arrange to send a notification when a print job was
|
|
sent to the dedicated computer, but not when the job was actually
|
|
printed (and the delay was usually considerable). There was no way to
|
|
find out when the job was actually printed; you could only guess. And
|
|
no one was informed when there was a paper jam, so the printer often
|
|
went for an hour without being fixed.
|
|
|
|
The system programmers at the AI lab were capable of fixing such
|
|
problems, probably as capable as the original authors of the program.
|
|
Xerox was uninterested in fixing them, and chose to prevent us, so we
|
|
were forced to accept the problems. They were never fixed.
|
|
|
|
Most good programmers have experienced this frustration. The bank
|
|
could afford to solve the problem by writing a new program from
|
|
scratch, but a typical user, no matter how skilled, can only give up.
|
|
|
|
Giving up causes psychosocial harm--to the spirit of self-reliance.
|
|
It is demoralizing to live in a house that you cannot rearrange to suit
|
|
your needs. It leads to resignation and discouragement, which can
|
|
spread to affect other aspects of one's life. People who feel this way
|
|
are unhappy and do not do good work.
|
|
|
|
Imagine what it would be like if recipes were hoarded in the same
|
|
fashion as software. You might say, "How do I change this recipe to
|
|
take out the salt?", and the great chef would respond, "How dare you
|
|
insult my recipe, the child of my brain and my palate, by trying to
|
|
tamper with it? You don't have the judgment to change my recipe and
|
|
make it work right!"
|
|
|
|
"But my doctor says I'm not supposed to eat salt! What can I do?
|
|
Will you take out the salt for me?"
|
|
|
|
"I would be glad to do that; my fee is only $50,000." Since the
|
|
owner has a monopoly on changes, the fee tends to be large. "However,
|
|
right now I don't have time. I am busy with a commission to design a
|
|
new recipe for ship's biscuit for the Navy Department. I might get
|
|
around to you in about two years."
|
|
|
|
Obstructing Software Development
|
|
================================
|
|
|
|
The third level of material harm affects software development.
|
|
Software development used to be an evolutionary process, where a person
|
|
would take an existing program and rewrite parts of it for one new
|
|
feature, and then another person would rewrite parts to add another
|
|
feature; in some cases, this continued over a period of twenty years.
|
|
Meanwhile, parts of the program would be "cannibalized" to form the
|
|
beginnings of other programs.
|
|
|
|
The existence of owners prevents this kind of evolution, making it
|
|
necessary to start from scratch when developing a program. It also
|
|
prevents new practitioners from studying existing programs to learn
|
|
useful techniques or even how large programs can be structured.
|
|
|
|
Owners also obstruct education. I have met bright students in
|
|
computer science who have never seen the source code of a large
|
|
program. They may be good at writing small programs, but they can't
|
|
begin to learn the different skills of writing large ones if they can't
|
|
see how others have done it.
|
|
|
|
In any intellectual field, one can reach greater heights by standing
|
|
on the shoulders of others. But that is no longer generally allowed in
|
|
the software field--you can only stand on the shoulders of the other
|
|
people *in your own company*.
|
|
|
|
The associated psychosocial harm affects the spirit of scientific
|
|
cooperation, which used to be so strong that scientists would cooperate
|
|
even when their countries were at war. In this spirit, Japanese
|
|
oceanographers abandoning their lab on an island in the Pacific
|
|
carefully preserved their work for the invading U.S. Marines, and left a
|
|
note asking them to take good care of it.
|
|
|
|
Conflict for profit has destroyed what international conflict spared.
|
|
Nowadays scientists in many fields don't publish enough in their papers
|
|
to enable others to replicate the experiment. They publish only enough
|
|
to let readers marvel at how much they were able to do. This is
|
|
certainly true in computer science, where the source code for the
|
|
programs reported on is usually secret.
|
|
|
|
It Does Not Matter How Sharing Is Restricted
|
|
============================================
|
|
|
|
I have been discussing the effects of preventing people from copying,
|
|
changing and building on a program. I have not specified how this
|
|
obstruction is carried out, because that doesn't affect the conclusion.
|
|
Whether it is done by copy protection, or copyright, or licenses, or
|
|
encryption, or ROM cards, or hardware serial numbers, if it *succeeds*
|
|
in preventing use, it does harm.
|
|
|
|
Users do consider some of these methods more obnoxious than others.
|
|
I suggest that the methods most hated are those that accomplish their
|
|
objective.
|
|
|
|
Software Should be Free
|
|
=======================
|
|
|
|
I have shown how ownership of a program--the power to restrict
|
|
changing or copying it--is obstructive. Its negative effects are
|
|
widespread and important. It follows that society shouldn't have
|
|
owners for programs.
|
|
|
|
Another way to understand this is that what society needs is free
|
|
software, and proprietary software is a poor substitute. Encouraging
|
|
the substitute is not a rational way to get what we need.
|
|
|
|
Vaclav Havel has advised us to "Work for something because it is
|
|
good, not just because it stands a chance to succeed." A business
|
|
making proprietary software stands a chance of success in its own narrow
|
|
terms, but it is not what is good for society.
|
|
|
|
Why People Will Develop Software
|
|
********************************
|
|
|
|
If we eliminate intellectual property as a means of encouraging
|
|
people to develop software, at first less software will be developed,
|
|
but that software will be more useful. It is not clear whether the
|
|
overall delivered user satisfaction will be less; but if it is, or if
|
|
we wish to increase it anyway, there are other ways to encourage
|
|
development, just as there are ways besides toll booths to raise money
|
|
for streets. Before I talk about how that can be done, first I want to
|
|
question how much artificial encouragement is truly necessary.
|
|
|
|
Programming is Fun
|
|
==================
|
|
|
|
There are some lines of work that few will enter except for money;
|
|
road construction, for example. There are other fields of study and
|
|
art in which there is little chance to become rich, which people enter
|
|
for their fascination or their perceived value to society. Examples
|
|
include mathematical logic, classical music, and archaeology; and
|
|
political organizing among working people. People compete, more sadly
|
|
than bitterly, for the few funded positions available, none of which is
|
|
funded very well. They may even pay for the chance to work in the
|
|
field, if they can afford to.
|
|
|
|
Such a field can transform itself overnight if it begins to offer the
|
|
possibility of getting rich. When one worker gets rich, others demand
|
|
the same opportunity. Soon all may demand large sums of money for doing
|
|
what they used to do for pleasure. When another couple of years go by,
|
|
everyone connected with the field will deride the idea that work would
|
|
be done in the field without large financial returns. They will advise
|
|
social planners to ensure that these returns are possible, prescribing
|
|
special privileges, powers and monopolies as necessary to do so.
|
|
|
|
This change happened in the field of computer programming in the past
|
|
decade. Fifteen years ago, there were articles on "computer
|
|
addiction": users were "onlining" and had hundred-dollar-a-week habits.
|
|
It was generally understood that people frequently loved programming
|
|
enough to break up their marriages. Today, it is generally understood
|
|
that no one would program except for a high rate of pay. People have
|
|
forgotten what they knew fifteen years ago.
|
|
|
|
When it is true at a given time that most people will work in a
|
|
certain field only for high pay, it need not remain true. The dynamic
|
|
of change can run in reverse, if society provides an impetus. If we
|
|
take away the possibility of great wealth, then after a while, when the
|
|
people have readjusted their attitudes, they will once again be eager
|
|
to work in the field for the joy of accomplishment.
|
|
|
|
The question, "How can we pay programmers?", becomes an easier
|
|
question when we realize that it's not a matter of paying them a
|
|
fortune. A mere living is easier to raise.
|
|
|
|
Funding Free Software
|
|
=====================
|
|
|
|
Institutions that pay programmers do not have to be software houses.
|
|
Many other institutions already exist which can do this.
|
|
|
|
Hardware manufacturers find it essential to support software
|
|
development even if they cannot control the use of the software. In
|
|
1970, much of their software was free because they did not consider
|
|
restricting it. Today, their increasing willingness to join
|
|
consortiums shows their realization that owning the software is not
|
|
what is really important for them.
|
|
|
|
Universities conduct many programming projects. Today, they often
|
|
sell the results, but in the 1970s, they did not. Is there any doubt
|
|
that universities would develop free software if they were not allowed
|
|
to sell software? These projects could be supported by the same
|
|
government contracts and grants which now support proprietary software
|
|
development.
|
|
|
|
It is common today for university researchers to get grants to
|
|
develop a system, develop it nearly to the point of completion and call
|
|
that "finished", and then start companies where they really finish the
|
|
project and make it usable. Sometimes they declare the unfinished
|
|
version "free"; if they are thoroughly corrupt, they instead get an
|
|
exclusive license from the university. This is not a secret; it is
|
|
openly admitted by everyone concerned. Yet if the researchers were not
|
|
exposed to the temptation to do these things, they would still do their
|
|
research.
|
|
|
|
Programmers writing free software can make their living by selling
|
|
services related to the software. I have been hired to port the GNU C
|
|
compiler to new hardware, and to make user-interface extensions to GNU
|
|
Emacs. (I offer these improvements to the public once they are done.)
|
|
I also teach classes for which I am paid.
|
|
|
|
I am not alone in working this way; there is now a successful,
|
|
growing corporation which does no other kind of work. Several other
|
|
companies also provide commercial support for the free software of the
|
|
GNU system. This is the beginning of the independent software support
|
|
industry-an industry that could become quite large if free software
|
|
becomes prevalent. It provides users with an option generally
|
|
unavailable for proprietary software, except to the very wealthy.
|
|
|
|
New institutions such as the Free Software Foundation can also fund
|
|
programmers. Most of the foundation's funds come from users buying
|
|
tapes through the mail. The software on the tapes is free, which means
|
|
that every user has the freedom to copy it and change it, but many
|
|
nonetheless pay to get copies. (Recall that "free software" refers to
|
|
freedom, not to price.) Some users order tapes who already have a copy,
|
|
as a way of making a contribution they feel we deserve. The Foundation
|
|
also receives sizable donations from computer manufacturers.
|
|
|
|
The Free Software Foundation is a charity, and its income is spent on
|
|
hiring as many programmers as possible. If it had been set up as a
|
|
business, distributing the same free software to the public for the same
|
|
fee, it would now provide a very good living for its founder.
|
|
|
|
Because the Foundation is a charity, programmers often work for the
|
|
Foundation for half of what they could make elsewhere. They do this
|
|
because we are free of bureaucracy, and because they feel satisfaction
|
|
in knowing that their work will not be obstructed from use. Most of
|
|
all, they do it because programming is fun. In addition, volunteers
|
|
have written many useful programs for us. (Recently even technical
|
|
writers have begun to volunteer.)
|
|
|
|
This confirms that programming is among the most fascinating of all
|
|
fields, along with music and art. We don't have to fear that no one
|
|
will want to program.
|
|
|
|
What Do Users Owe to Developers?
|
|
================================
|
|
|
|
There is a good reason for users of software to feel a moral
|
|
obligation to contribute to its support. Developers of free software
|
|
are contributing to the users' activities, and it is both fair and in
|
|
the long term interest of the users to give them funds to continue.
|
|
|
|
However, this does not apply to proprietary software developers,
|
|
since obstructionism deserves a punishment rather than a reward.
|
|
|
|
We thus have a paradox: the developer of useful software is entitled
|
|
to the support of the users, but any attempt to turn this moral
|
|
obligation into a requirement destroys the basis for the obligation. A
|
|
developer can either deserve a reward or demand it, but not both.
|
|
|
|
I believe that an ethical developer faced with this paradox must act
|
|
so as to deserve the reward, but should also entreat the users for
|
|
voluntary donations. Eventually the users will learn to support
|
|
developers without coercion, just as they have learned to support public
|
|
radio and television stations.
|
|
|
|
What Is Software Productivity?
|
|
******************************
|
|
|
|
If software were free, there would still be programmers, but perhaps
|
|
fewer of them. Would this be bad for society?
|
|
|
|
Not necessarily. Today the advanced nations have fewer farmers than
|
|
in 1900, but we do not think this is bad for society, because the few
|
|
deliver more food to the consumers than the many used to do. We call
|
|
this improved productivity. Free software would require far fewer
|
|
programmers to satisfy the demand, because of increased software
|
|
productivity at all levels:
|
|
|
|
* Wider use of each program that is developed.
|
|
|
|
* The ability to adapt existing programs for customization instead
|
|
of starting from scratch.
|
|
|
|
* Better education of programmers.
|
|
|
|
* The elimination of duplicate development effort.
|
|
|
|
Those who object to cooperation because it would result in the
|
|
employment of fewer programmers, are actually objecting to increased
|
|
productivity. Yet these people usually accept the widely-held belief
|
|
that the software industry needs increased productivity. How is this?
|
|
|
|
"Software productivity" can mean two different things: the overall
|
|
productivity of all software development, or the productivity of
|
|
individual projects. Overall productivity is what society would like to
|
|
improve, and the most straightforward way to do this is to eliminate the
|
|
artificial obstacles to cooperation which reduce it. But researchers
|
|
who study the field of "software productivity" focus only on the
|
|
second, limited, sense of the term, where improvement requires difficult
|
|
technological advances.
|
|
|
|
Is Competition Inevitable?
|
|
**************************
|
|
|
|
Is it inevitable that people will try to compete, to surpass their
|
|
rivals in society? Perhaps it is. But competition itself is not
|
|
harmful; the harmful thing is *combat*.
|
|
|
|
There are many ways to compete. Competition can consist of trying to
|
|
achieve ever more, to outdo what others have done. For example, in the
|
|
old days, there was competition among programming wizards--competition
|
|
for who could make the computer do the most amazing thing, or for who
|
|
could make the shortest or fastest program for a given task. This kind
|
|
of competition can benefit everyone, *as long as* the spirit of good
|
|
sportsmanship is maintained.
|
|
|
|
Constructive competition is enough competition to motivate people to
|
|
great efforts. A number of people are competing to be the first to have
|
|
visited all the countries on Earth; some even spend fortunes trying to
|
|
do this. But they do not bribe ship captains to strand their rivals on
|
|
desert islands. They are content to let the best person win.
|
|
|
|
Competition becomes combat when the competitors begin trying to
|
|
impede each other instead of advancing themselves--when "Let the best
|
|
person win" gives way to "Let me win, best or not." Proprietary
|
|
software is harmful, not because it is a form of competition, but
|
|
because it is a form of combat among the citizens of our society.
|
|
|
|
Competition in business is not necessarily combat. For example, when
|
|
two grocery stores compete, their entire effort is to improve their own
|
|
operations, not to sabotage the rival. But this does not demonstrate a
|
|
special commitment to business ethics; rather, there is little scope for
|
|
combat in this line of business short of physical violence. Not all
|
|
areas of business share this characteristic. Withholding information
|
|
that could help everyone advance is a form of combat.
|
|
|
|
Business ideology does not prepare people to resist the temptation to
|
|
combat the competition. Some forms of combat have been made banned with
|
|
anti-trust laws, truth in advertising laws, and so on, but rather than
|
|
generalizing this to a principled rejection of combat in general,
|
|
executives invent other forms of combat which are not specifically
|
|
prohibited. Society's resources are squandered on the economic
|
|
equivalent of factional civil war.
|
|
|
|
"Why Don't You Move to Russia?"
|
|
*******************************
|
|
|
|
In the United States, any advocate of other than the most extreme
|
|
form of laissez-faire selfishness has often heard this accusation. For
|
|
example, it is leveled against the supporters of a national health care
|
|
system, such as is found in all the other industrialized nations of the
|
|
free world. It is leveled against the advocates of public support for
|
|
the arts, also universal in advanced nations. The idea that citizens
|
|
have any obligation to the public good is identified in America with
|
|
Communism. But how similar are these ideas?
|
|
|
|
Communism as was practiced in the Soviet Union was a system of
|
|
central control where all activity was regimented, supposedly for the
|
|
common good, but actually for the sake of the members of the Communist
|
|
party. And where copying equipment was closely guarded to prevent
|
|
illegal copying.
|
|
|
|
The American system of intellectual property exercises central
|
|
control over distribution of a program, and guards copying equipment
|
|
with automatic copying protection schemes to prevent illegal copying.
|
|
|
|
By contrast, I am working to build a system where people are free to
|
|
decide their own actions; in particular, free to help their neighbors,
|
|
and free to alter and improve the tools which they use in their daily
|
|
lives. A system based on voluntary cooperation, and decentralization.
|
|
|
|
Thus, if we are to judge views by their resemblance to Russian
|
|
Communism, it is the software owners who are the Communists.
|
|
|
|
The Question of Premises
|
|
************************
|
|
|
|
I make the assumption in this paper that a user of software is no
|
|
less important than an author, or even an author's employer. In other
|
|
words, their interests and needs have equal weight, when we decide
|
|
which course of action is best.
|
|
|
|
This premise is not universally accepted. Many maintain that an
|
|
author's employer is fundamentally more important than anyone else.
|
|
They say, for example, that the purpose of having owners of software is
|
|
to give the author's employer the advantage he deserves--regardless of
|
|
how this may affect the public.
|
|
|
|
It is no use trying to prove or disprove these premises. Proof
|
|
requires shared premises. So most of what I have to say is addressed
|
|
only to those who share the premises I use, or at least are interested
|
|
in what their consequences are. For those who believe that the owners
|
|
are more important than everyone else, this paper is simply irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
But why would a large number of Americans accept a premise which
|
|
elevates certain people in importance above everyone else? Partly
|
|
because of the belief that this premise is part of the legal traditions
|
|
of American society. Some people feel that doubting the premise means
|
|
challenging the basis of society.
|
|
|
|
It is important for these people to know that this premise is not
|
|
part of our legal tradition. It never has been.
|
|
|
|
Thus, the Constitution says that the purpose of copyright is to
|
|
"promote the progress of science and the useful arts." The Supreme
|
|
Court has elaborated on this, stating in `Fox Film vs. Doyal' that "The
|
|
sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring
|
|
the [copyright] monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the
|
|
public from the labors of authors."
|
|
|
|
We are not required to agree with the Constitution or the Supreme
|
|
Court. (At one time, they both condoned slavery.) So their positions
|
|
do not disprove the owner supremacy premise. But I hope that the
|
|
awareness that this is a radical right-wing assumption rather than a
|
|
traditionally recognized one will weaken its appeal.
|
|
|
|
Conclusion
|
|
**********
|
|
|
|
We like to think that our society encourages helping your neighbor;
|
|
but each time we reward someone for obstructionism, or admire them for
|
|
the wealth they have gained in this way, we are sending the opposite
|
|
message.
|
|
|
|
Software hoarding is one form of our general willingness to disregard
|
|
the welfare of society for personal gain. We can trace this disregard
|
|
from Ronald Reagan to Jim Bakker, from Ivan Boesky to Exxon, from
|
|
failing banks to failing schools. We can measure it with the size of
|
|
the homeless population and the prison population. The antisocial
|
|
spirit feeds on itself, because the more we see that other people will
|
|
not help us, the more it seems futile to help them. Thus society decays
|
|
into a jungle.
|
|
|
|
If we don't want to live in a jungle, we must change our attitudes.
|
|
We must start sending the message that a good citizen is one who
|
|
cooperates when appropriate, not one who is successful at taking from
|
|
others. I hope that the free software movement will contribute to
|
|
this: at least in one area, we will replace the jungle with a more
|
|
efficient system which encourages and runs on voluntary cooperation.
|
|
|
|
---------- Footnotes ----------
|
|
|
|
(1) The word "free" in "free software" refers to freedom, not to
|
|
price; the price paid for a copy of a free program may be zero, or
|
|
small, or (rarely) quite large.
|
|
|
|
(2) The issues of pollution and traffic congestion do not alter
|
|
this conclusion. If we wish to make driving more expensive to
|
|
discourage driving in general, it is disadvantageous to do this using
|
|
toll booths, which contribute to both pollution and congestion. A tax
|
|
on gasoline is much better. Likewise, a desire to enhance safety by
|
|
limiting maximum speed is not relevant; a free access road enhances the
|
|
average speed by avoiding stops and delays, for any given speed limit.
|
|
|
|
(3) One might regard a particular computer program as a harmful
|
|
thing that should not be available at all, like the Lotus Marketplace
|
|
database of personal information, which was withdrawn from sale due to
|
|
public disapproval. Most of what I say does not apply to this case,
|
|
but it makes little sense to argue for having an owner on the grounds
|
|
that the owner will make the program less available. The owner will
|
|
not make it *completely* unavailable, as one would wish in the case of
|
|
a program whose use is considered destructive.
|
|
|