Software development is a multi-billion dollar field, especially for programmers who create proprietary software that requires users to acquire a license. Proprietary software developers keep the source code a secret to limit their copying, modification, and use. While the secrecy ensures that the developers make a living out of their work, it contravenes the spirit of communism. Richard Stallman’s article titled ‘Why Software Should be Free’ attempts to advocate for free software, which is bound to benefit more users. It is important to note that the term ‘free’ does not indicate price but rather the freedom to use, copy, share or modify the software. Stallman’s position is that software developers should not be too focused on being wealthy due to their work but instead fulfill the needs of their users. The author provides various arguments to support his position by establishing that it is still possible to make money with free software.
Explication of Stallman’s Position and Arguments
The author argues that software obstruction through licenses and secretive source codes does more harm than good in users' cases. According to Stallman (2020), restrictions on the use, distribution, and modification of software are associated with three material harm levels. The first level of harm is that fewer people will use the program, considering that they do not have the right to modify it. If the users do not have these rights, the software loses its value and cannot possibly regain the effort, time, and resources that went into developing it. Stallman (2020) goes ahead to claim that if a program loses its value as fewer people use it, it means that writing it harms society since it does not provide direct material benefits. A license fee required before an individual could use a software becomes a disincentive even if the program is widely useful. This argument makes sense, considering that developers will still engage in a lot of work to find out that they do not achieve user satisfaction. For this reason, Stallman advocates for free software that gives users the autonomy to modify programs. While there is a possibility that most developers may feel that free software denies them a chance to get rich, such a decision would translate to higher levels of efficiency. This claim is that more people will buy the software, meaning that developers will be able to meet marginal costs and get enough money from their efforts.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Proprietary software that is most common today denotes ownership as the contents therein are secured to limit modification. While patenting and license are crucial aspects in a competitive business environment, it does more harm than good for both developers and users. Stallman (2020) asserts that proprietary software obstructs custom adaptation, considering that users cannot modify the programs. Ease of modification is regarded as one of the greatest technological advancements for paving the way for older versions' improvement into practical ones. However, proprietary software interferes with this advancement since users have no right to edit programs even if they pay for them. Stallman (2020) indicates that software is meant to be modified, and it is for this reason, programming languages entail + and - signs so that they could be changed with ease. Proprietary software denies users this opportunity, meaning that developers who are keen on developing programs that are almost similar to the available ones have start from scratch. Stallman (2020) feels that doing so translates to a loss of valuable time and resources which would have been saved if the software was free. The author laments that proprietary software goes against the spirit of self-reliance, considering that users have no say in their usage of the software.
The Most Damaging Criticism of the Argument or Position that Stallman Explicates
Stallman is an advocate of free software with source code to enhance modification, distribution, and sharing. The author claims that free software is more flexible, an aspect that would encourage users to buy software as it gives them more autonomy. While this assertion makes sense, it paves the way for criticism regarding whether free software is as useful as Stallman argues. The most evident and damaging criticism that counteracts Stallman’s view has to do with the quality of open-source software. Critics establish that free software paves the way for creating low-quality programs as the developers no longer have a sense of ownership. McKimmy (2017) notes that one of the reasons that drive developers to create software is the thought that they have express rights to modify it, an aspect that denotes autonomy. The idea that other individuals will have the right to edit their work that took so much dedication, time, and resources pave the way for low-quality software. Stallman (2020) believes that software developers are not only concerned with monetary gains but instead are pursuing their passions. While this assertion makes sense, it is not exhaustive, considering the amount of work that goes into the process. The claim may not apply to the current capitalist environment where the focus is on personal gratification rather than social good.
Software developers are keen on coming up with programs that would solve various challenges and improve the well-being of the users. However, in as much as Stallman claims that the developers are in this profession because it is fun, he fails to factor in the real value of proprietary. Developing software takes a lot of effort, especially if the programmers have to begin from scratch owing to policies that do not favor open-source software. In instances where the developers anticipate that all the work they put into the development will be prone to modification, they may create a program that has glitches or miss crucial features (Tesoriere & Balletta, 2017). While free software allows users to modify the programs to become the basis for incorporating more elements, it does not warrant adaptability. Maggiolino & Montagnani (2017) refute that free software is an avenue for developers to give back to society by allowing the usage of their products. Instead, free software paves the way for programs that would not be a sufficient basis for creating new ones, although they can be modified. The Free Software Foundation, which advocates for open source software, for instance, has not managed to guarantee the designing of high-quality programs. Tesoriere & Balletta (2017) note that the foundation has limited financial and human resources, meaning that it is not in a position to assist projects and companies to comply with free licenses. These outcomes show that it is virtually impossible to convince developers to forego proprietary software in place of open-source ones. In as much as Stallman anticipates that software development is more of a commitment to achieve social good, programmers are after monetary gains. Free software development does not guarantee these gains, considering that it stops being a patented product to a public one which reduces profitability and shelf-life.
How Stallman would Defend Argument(s) against Critique
The call to develop open-source software paves the way for the focus on both the benefits and the challenges of achieving this objective. Opponents of this move indicate that advocating for free software creates room for creating low-quality software that will not satisfy user needs. Moreover, they affirm that agencies advocating for free software, including FSF, have not convinced them that it is a viable alternative to proprietary software. Stallman would think otherwise and insist that it is time that software developers demonstrated cooperation by creating programs that are easy to share and modify. On the other hand, critics of open software believe that developers must be assured of autonomy to come up with high-quality software. According to Coelho & Valente (2017), proprietary software should be the norm in the field as it points to high-skilled individuals willing to spend time, effort, and money to solve problems. In response to this claim, Stallman insists that a time has come for developers to shift their focus from financial benefits to social ones. According to Stallman (2020), proprietary software foregoes ethical convictions in that developers are unwilling to share the results of their hard work when they seal source codes. In retrospect, they do not hesitate to give up their rights when large corporations pay them vast sums of money for what they have developed. Stallman advocates for the development and distribution of free software that will not only benefit organizations but also individual users. In this way, programmers will still make money and at the same time enhance social cohesion by becoming good neighbors who are willing to share their innovations.
Software development is an arduous undertaking that requires a lot of time, effort, and financial resources to come up with programs that exhaustively address pitfalls. This aspect pushes developers to secure the source code to ensure that no one tampers with the program through modification. While this assertion is justifiable, it does not make sense, considering the developers may not get a fair reward for their effort, especially if the software is proprietary. According to Stallman (2020), the software is only beneficial if it is widely used, but if it is proprietary, then a few people will buy it. If the software is not widely sourced, the developer will have wasted precious resources and effort and pave the way for reduced user satisfaction.
In this case, it would have been better if software developers created free programs, as they would translate to a higher return on investment. Stallman (2020) emphasizes that developers should not think that free software has to with the price, but rather the freedom to modify and share programs. In such instances, it will mean that developers will still be spending similar resources in developing free software but have a broader market. Simultaneously, software developers would be fulfilling their social and ethical obligation by giving back to society for the common good.
Critics of open source software establish that granting users the freedom to run, study, redistribute and improve programs will interfere with the common good. Shannon & Rice (2017) note that software developers usually have specific objectives which they hope the program will achieve if used accordingly. The freedom to improve software paves the way for malicious users, and without the license to regulate these programs, there is no way of knowing how they may be used. Stallman, however, anticipates that software developers and users will align with ethical provisions of fair usage. According to Stallman (2020), free software serves a utilitarian objective instead of personal motives since they are the basis for improving user interfaces. He provides the example of a graphics printer by Xerox, which used to run on free software, thus allowing for convenient features. However, later they received a new printer, which ran on proprietary software on a dedicated computer. The new printer came with so many challenges as there was no way of notifying employees if the machine had jammed. This example shows the harms that proprietary software could cause, thus an insistence on free software which allow for improvements that serve the greater good.
References
Coelho, J., & Valente, M. T. (2017, August). Why modern open-source projects fail. In Proceedings of the 2017 11th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (pp. 186-196).
Maggiolino, M., & Montagnani, M.L. (2017). Open innovation and patent pledges. In Patent Pledges (pp. 30-45). Edward Elgar Publishing.
McKimmy, P. (2017). Free software and open-source movements: From digital rebellion to Aaron Swartz: Responses to government and corporate attempts at suppression and enclosure . Zed Publishing.
Shannon, L.J.Y., & Rice, M. (2017). Scoring the open-source learning management systems. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 7 (6), 432-436.
Stallman, R. (2020). Why software should be free . GNU Operating System. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html
Tesoriere, A., & Balletta, L. (2017). A dynamic model of open source vs proprietary R&D. European Economic Review, 94 , (3), 221-239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2017.02.009
