Why free software?
[CONTENT OMITTED]
There are those that question the economic sustainability of the free software model, and I admit that this has been a vexing question for me as well when I consider to what extent I ought to commit myself professionally to free software. In his seminal document “The Cathedral and the Bazaar,” Open Source superstar Eric Raymond convincingly demonstrates that the open-source model for software development is capable of consistently generating software of higher quality (better performance, tighter security, etc.) than the proprietary software model of which Microsoft is the prime example. But it is fair to ask what is the motivation for creating quality software if it is to be ultimately given away.
It is true that Linux companies such as Red Hat, in addition to selling distributions of Linux, are making money providing consulting and service to corporate and individual users of Linux. But it is unclear to me that this model has been proven viable for a broad range of players in the market. (I’d be very interested in reading some sort of research report in this market.) Additionally, what incentives guarantee the continuing generation of free software programs? After all, it is probable that with the current global economic downturn, investment by IT firms in free software development has dropped off significantly, if not almost completely, in favor of projects that contribute more clearly to the bottom line. In my extensive reading on the topic, I had never found an adequate response to this challenge until I came across an FAQ on the site of Via Libre, the Argentine free software organization where I’ve worked as a volunteer. I quote it at length (from my translation):
To answer this question we must first clarify that software differs from other intellectual creations (such as books or works of art) in various ways; software is really more similar to scientific knowledge, and the development of software similar to scientific research. In the scientific world, the freedom to use previous knowledge and the free circulation of knowledge are important, respected values that generate progress. When Sir Isaac Newton said, “If I have seen further, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants,” he was appreciating the liberties, granted by the “giants,” that permitted him to carry out his work. Similarly, in the world of free software, the work of “giants” is available as a foundation on which to base true innovation instead of reinvent the wheel again and again. Like scientists, free software developers have as one of their incentives the prestige of intellectual creation that comes through the publication of their work.
That software development was anything but a job or hobby–as opposed to a method of participating in the venerable tradition of scientific research–had not occurred to me, but I find this explanation compelling, and a reason to hope that free software development will continue to make important strides and maintain competitive with proprietary alternatives in spite of a languishing economy. Moreover, it is refreshing to be able regard a profession that is typically considered a quotidian means of making a living from a point of view based on something other than “market values.”
Finally, when speaking of the economics of free software, it is very important to distinguish between the rich world (especially the U.S., where nearly all of the most important proprietary software companies are headquartered) and the developing world. While I’m convinced that free software is advantageous for the individual user of whatever nationality, and particularly for the user interested in computer technology, what the macroeconomic effects of a major shift to free software use in the United States would be are unknown. In the developing world, however, it seems clear that the effects would be positive.
A widespread adoption of free software in the third world could help plug the “brain drain” that robs countries of their best and brightest by offering challenging work and greater interaction with talented software professionals worldwide, who work on free software projects in common.
Again I quote from the Via Libre website:
For ambitious programmers, it takes a special kind of will to stay in Argentina when software development is done mostly abroad by companies that make a point of keeping everybody out of the loop. The only advanced software projects in the country are found either in universities or in the free software arena, so it’s either one of those, or get a job installing Windows. The main reason Free Software seems to be gaining momentum over here is because it makes it possible for local programmers to actually become part of the development process, and enables them to provide true support to the user that goes beyond pressing the reset button and reinstalling components at random.
In short, free software in the developing world holds out the promise of dignified work for computer professionals, work that moreover contributes to the sustainable development of local economies, rather than contributing chiefly to the well-being of proprietary software companies in the U.S. One doesn’t have to be an anti-globalization activist to regard this is a very positive thing.
To summarize, I never did attain the goal I set for myself of making up for my lack of a computer science education with intensive self-study and hard work. My involvement with information technology will likely become increasingly “high-level” (abstracted from the machinery itself) as time goes on. But I continue to be captivated by the power of the digital computer, and especially the networked digital computer, which, at the risk of making a hackneyed observation, is doubtless the most important invention since the automobile, if not the printing press. The principles of free software offer the greatest possibilities to the broadest number of people of a thorough knowledge–and therefore a responsible use–of this powerful technology.