Why Free Software/Open Source 'Beer Freeness' is Bad (September 3, 2003)
Submitted by Taran on Tue, 05/18/2004 - 11:28
In advocating Free Software and Open Source in Trinidad and Tobago - and I imagine, other similar regions - a lot of things are said which I think are counterproductive. One such thing is 'Free as in Beer'.
Things like OpenOffice.org are often shown to people as being 'Free as in Beer' (which I'll shorten into bFree). GNU/Linux ('Linux') is shown as bFree. A lot of very useful and cost effective applications are displayed as bFree, and that's counterproductive.
Why do I say that? Well, it's rather simple if you look at the bigger picture. One of the greatest advantaged of Free Software and Open Source is the fact that it can help make a countries economy more self reliant when it comes to IT - but if the country simply leeches from all these bFree products, nothing is gained.
How does that help the businesses within that country?
It doesn't. They switch one set of software dictators for another; if the users of the software do not contribute somehow to the commons, then it's a parasitic relationship on many different levels. The developing country still depends on the developed countries to provide software.
How does that help the software developers within that country?
It Doesn't. You trade one piece of software for another, and there's no apparent progress when it comes to employability of developers. You trade one form of software support for another form of software support. All things being equal, a developing country can find itself just as reliant as it is now - possibly more so.
Offering Free Software at a bFree price is counterproductive; it's also dishonest in a way - because there are costs involved, and we're fools if we don't admit that. There's the cost of training, the cost of supporting the commons, the cost of ongoing support (which may be direct or indirect).
By not telling people about these costs when educating them, it creates problems. It perpetuates the thought that software is bFree, that the developers don't deserve money, and that local support within the developing country isn't needed. By perpetuating this, it takes away some of the strongest factors of Free Software and some Open Source.
Yes, OpenOffice is free to download. Yes, GNU/Linux is free to download. Other packages as well. But if you expect support, you need to support them. You support by contributing.
Contribution can take many forms. It could be sending someone cash. It could be a company funding development on things in a Free Software/Open Source package (even employing local people to do so). It could be through assisting in documentation - or even the creation of another package which others may find useful.
If you're going to advocate, you need to understand the big picture, and if you're not interested in the big picture - you're not an advocate.
By selling bFree, you're encouraging leeching of the commons. That is what I consider worse than what proprietary software companies call 'piracy' on an ethical level. You're taking advantage of a situation where someone is giving you something in the hope that it will magically replenish itself - a foolish idea.
Freedom comes with responsibility. Don't tell people it's bFree. Tell them they are free to contribute as they can, and that the overall cost for their company or even their home use can be lower.
Tell them how they can contribute, and tell them how contributing can help them and their community.
Anything less, and the spirit of Free Software and Open Source is lost.
Posted by Taran at September 3, 2003 03:05 PM
Comments
I think you have a point but are overstressing it.
Because, a guy or girl can go out, get a bFree OS, with a bFree webserver, a bFree database, a bFree server-side scripting language, and be in business. He or she doesn't have to give anything back. He or she can get rich or famous all with bFree software.
Stop the morality! If you want to use bFree software, go ahead.
FeelFree with bFree !
Read GNU GPL carefully, it says nothing about 'giving back to the community'...
bFree is cool !
That said, in a larger frame of mind, I stongly urge everyone that uses Free Software professionally, to give something back to the community. That's a long term policy, and it takes time for individuals and organisations to adapt to that model.
_Ace
Posted by: Ace at September 3, 2003 04:54 PM
Post new comment
I agree with Ace.
I never *expect* anyone to give anything abck to my projects.
On the other hand I agree with Taran in that we need to make sure everyone is aware of *how* they can contribute back to the product. Too often people think they need to program. Advcay and documents are two ways non-programmers can contribute.
And of course, if you are making money out of free software, a little cash to us poor developers never goes amiss ;-)
Posted by: Ross Gardler at September 3, 2003 06:53 PM
Ace and Ross nailed it - contributing back to the community isn't *required* by the GPL, but in the long term it is *required* for the same software to persist.
Posted by: Taran at September 3, 2003 07:11 PM
Taran, bFree may encourage people seeking free as in beer stuff and not willing to contribute to the commons, but I believe this is the Free Software equivalent to saying "'step into my parlour' said the spider to the fly" It's a good trap though, not like M$'s own where you can't get out even though you want to because of vendor lock-in. In this case, you have to remember that an organisation is a dynamic entity, with constantly changing and evolving needs. Software made once is made for a static need. FLOSS allows for the dynamicism to be accomodated by allowing modification without addition dollar costs. This is when those not willing intentionally to contribute to the commons do so. They beta test for us, they bring complaints, they ask for things, which we deliver happily and free of charge (those of us who believe in bFree at least) But we have gained intellectual capital because we understand our user's business needs better. We create better products. Their discontent is what drives us to make things better. And in so doing, we become better communities of coders and documentors. I am however, told that I live in an idealistic world, so this belief I have will be modified to suit reality as time goes by and I understand more about the arguments of properietary vs non-proprietary and perhaps that's where the end product is where your open source philosophy and my free software philosophy will meet.
Posted by: Nissan at September 5, 2003 03:00 PM
Nissan,
I am no spider, I want no flies.
Advocacy shouldn't be a trap.
Posted by: Taran at September 5, 2003 03:38 PM