Stalled Software

Stallman makes some important arguments about free software. Some of his arguments were more convincing than others. His refutation of the emotional argument states that the work of a programmer is quickly signed over to a large corporation, undermining its status as an integral “extension” of the programmer. It may be true that many programmers work for large corporations, but not all do. Is it okay to steal the software of those programmers who sign over their work to their employer and not okay for those who do not sell their work? It seems like the only distinction being made between the two is a comfort distinction. The author is comfortable taking from someone who he doesn’t have to face, someone who he doesn’t know. It would be uncomfortable for him to steal a program from his neighbor, for example. Stallman attempts to justify taking the software (which is illegal) through emotional arguments of his own. His argument that restricting access to software (charging money for it) causes “psychosocial harm” was one of his more ridiculous notions. Supposedly, restricting (is white bread restricted because people have to pay $1.50 for it?) software changes people’s relationships with each other, making them less likely to share. This argument would be great if it didn’t implicate almost every other commodity bought and sold in our country.

There are points made by Stallman that I think have merit. By implementing an “ownership” system of software, certain innovative capabilities are severed for aspiring programmers. Curious students are unable to view the source code for many programs, making it impossible to learn from the coding. In the interest of education, should all software be unprotected and fully available? Perhaps. But since when was it “the spirit of competition” to force a company to reveal its method or secret to success? Isn’t Dr. Pepper successful, because the Coca Cola Company spent the time, effort and money to cultivate the perfect flavor? Software isn’t soda, I know. But what is the basis for giving programmers no ownership of, credit for or rights to their own work? Stallman says that even with free software, programmers would still develop new programs (for some reason). That may be the case, but what motivation could a programmer, or a company for that matter, have to develop cutting-edge software that will change people’s lives? I think benevolence only gets us so far. I think benevolence maybe could get us “Word Perfect” or “Paint,” but not the Microsoft Office Suite. I think we need to think about the real consequences of unregulated, royalty-free software before jumping into the great unknown.
PS: I definitely think Stallman should move to Russia.