It’s now the middle of December, which signals the end of my first semester ofgrad school. I took two classes, both focused on HCI: cognitive psychology andsocial implications. The paper I just finished writing for the socialimplications course was about answering the question of whether all softwareshould be free, and required a lot of research into open source, the FreeSoftware Foundation, and a lot of deep thinking about what I felt was right.

The definitions of freedom offered by the Free Software Foundation act on theassumption that computers are central to a persons well being, and that theuser of a computer should have full and complete access to the source code ofthe computer based on a natural right of well being. However, it is myposition that computers, or any other form of technology, only serve toincrease personal freedom of the user in proportion to the increase inoverall quality of life of the user of the technology.

Richard Stallman, in his essay entitled “Why Software Should Not HaveOwners” claims that authors ofsoftware can claim no natural right to their work, citing the differencebetween physical products and software, and rejecting the concept of atradition of copyright. Stallman uses an example of cooking a plate ofspaghetti to explain the difference between software and physical products:

When I cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else eats it, because then Icannot eat it. His action hurts me exactly as much as it benefits him; onlyone of us can eat the spaghetti, so the question is, which one? The smallestdistinction between us is enough to tip the ethical balance. But whether yourun or change a program I wrote affects you directly and me only indirectly.Whether you give a copy to your friend affects you and your friend much morethan it affects me. I shouldn’t have the power to tell you not to do thesethings. No one should.

However, what Stallman does not address what gives the second person whoreceives the software the right to benefit from the authors work withoutgiving something in return.

Before the industrial revolution, most people learned a skill and worked forthemselves in small communities. A single village would have all of the skillsets necessary to sustain itself, and each member of the community wouldapprentice into a particular skill set to contribute and earn a living. Theindustrial revolution pushed skilled workers into factories and assemblylines, work that was both distasteful and disdainful to an artisan in thecraft. However, corporations were able to reduce cost and increase profits,and the platform has persisted into current work environments.

In the information age, the assembly line mindset has created oceans ofcubicles filled with programmers who use their skills in small parts of largesoftware projects, sometimes to great success, but far too often to failure.The Internet and popularity of lower priced computers has created a market forhigh quality third party software, the kind that is created by someone with apassion for what they are doing. This passioncomes from learning a craft, and using that skill to earn a living, just likethe workers from before the industrial revolution. Instead of livingphysically in small villages, these new age artisans live online and createcommunities built around social networking.

In many ways, this is a return to a more natural way of life, and a simpleform of commerce. One person can create an application and sell it, andanother person can buy it from him. The person selling the software benefitsfrom being able to purchase shelter, food, and clothing for his family, andthe person who buys the software benefits from the use of the software. It isa very simple transaction, and a model that is not adequately explained in theGNU essays. If all proprietary software is wrong, then an independentdeveloper who sells software as his only job is also wrong. GNU supporterscould argue that there is nothing stopping the programmer from selling hissoftware, but he should give away the source code under a license that permitsredistribution along with the software once it is sold. At this point, sellingthe original program no longer becomes a viable business model. A programmercan not continue to sell his software when the user can, and is encouraged to,download his software from somewhere else for free.

While it may be the ethically right thing to do to purchase the software ifyou intend to use it, ethics alone are often insignificant motivation toencourage people to spend their money. If the choice of supporting thedevelopment of the software or not is entirely up to the user of the software,then purchasing the software becomes a choice that the user can make on awhim, with no real implications on the conscience of the user with eitherdecision. GNU and the GPL place this decision squarely on the user, andencourage the users to not feel in any way obligated to pay.

The ethics of open source come into question when the requirement of adheringto the free software philosophies result in an independent developer not beingable to support a moderate, middle-class lifestyle by developing a relativelypopular application. Kant’s first formulation asks what would happen if alldevelopers gave away the source of their code for free. In this imaginaryworld where all developers did this, the quality of software would go down tothe lowest common denominator of acceptability. Each developers motivationwould be to develop for himself, and since he would need to find a source ofincome elsewhere, only in the free time allotted to him. This would result ina wide variety of software availability, with very little integration ortesting, mirroring the current state of GNU/Linux based desktop operatingsystems. Current software companies would move to a business model arrangedaround providing support to customers of their software. Competition, andtherefore innovation, based on pure software features would decrease, sincethe source code of any feature another group could develop would be easilycopied and integrated into competitors products.

A second implication of business providing support as their primary source ofincome is that the support becomes the product, not the software itself.Businesses then have a vested interest in creating software that requiressupport, resulting in intentionally complicated user interfaces.

From a utilitarian point of view, the outcome of proprietary software hasclearly been to produce more pleasure for more people than open source has upto this point. Open source software is often more complicated, difficult tolearn and maintain, and harder for the average computer user to use. Appleproduces proprietary software and hardware, and states their mission to “makethe best stuff”. Using their position as a leading software company, andleveraging their control over their computing environment, including iPads,iPods, iPhones, and Mac computers, Apple has been able to successfullynegotiate deals with entertainment companies. The deals Apple has made allowthe consumer to download music, television shows, and movies off of theInternet and watch them on any Apple branded device, and output the media totheir televisions or home stereo systems. Because of the limits of DigitalRights Management, open source or free systems have not been able to providethis level of entertainment.

Free software enables the user to learn the intricacies of how the softwareworks, and modify the software to suit his needs. Free software also providesa legal and ethical alternative to expensive proprietary software indeveloping nations or areas where the cost of obtaining a license for legaluse of the software is prohibitive. Public institutions, like schools andgovernment offices, where the focus of the organization is the public good,have the option to use software that is in the public domain and is notcontrolled by any one company.

However, proprietary software is also beneficial to the public, as well asrespectful of the original authors rights regarding their creative work.Software is the result of a person’s labor; it does not matter how easy it isto copy that work, the author still retains a natural right of ownership,according to John Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government. Proprietarysoftware enables products like the iPad, which is being used to enable elderlypeople, nearly blind with cataracts, to create creative works of their own.The iPad is also being used by caretakers of severely disabledchildren toenable them to communicate and express themselves. It is possible that theiPad would have been created if the software used to power it had been free,but that is unknown. What is known is that the net result of the device is tobetter peoples lives, which is the true purpose of technology. Any technologyis merely an enabler to get more satisfaction and enjoyment out of life. Whatthe free software movement does is exaggerate the importance of a specifictype of freedom, without addressing the proper place of technology in ourlives.

However, the existence of free and open source software alongside proprietarysoftware creates a mutually beneficial loop, wherein consumers and developersare able to reap the rewards of constant innovation and competition. There isa place for both proprietary and free software, and it is the authors naturalright to their creative work that gives them the freedom to choose how and whytheir software will be distributed.