Ethical debate over free software!!

“Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept,one needs to think of it as free speech and not free beer”

When Richard Stallman, Founder & President of the Free Software Foundation, said so he was clearly flabbergasted by the encroaching hypocrisy of the suit clad, board room dweller executives of Goliaths of the trade. When this movement was started back in 1985, it started as a social movement,a copyleft-based movement which aims to promote the universal freedom to create, distribute and modify computer software. But this movement, however admirable were its contributions and achievements, its hatred in commercial software world was highly widespread and disturbing. Then they coined the magic term open source in 1998.

As much as they look like each other, they are very different at their cores. While free software stands for freedom, a social reform, an ethical solution; Open source stands for profit, optimal solution. Open source is anything but for freedom, a calculated and heavily funded campaign to crush the free software movement that became a threat to the czars of the business.

But lets find out that even with all the goodwill why this movement was overshadowed. When we look into the motives of writing a free software we find that for some people,often the best programmers, writing software is the greatest fun, especially when there is no boss to tell you what to do. Nearly all free software developers share this motive. Also if you write a successful, useful free program, it will suffice to enhance your professional reputation. And then there is Gratitude, if you have used the community's free programs for years, and it has been important to your work, you feel grateful and indebted to their developers. When you write a program that could be useful to many people, that is your chance to pay it forward. But apparently it was not enough to sustain the consumerist needs of ever hungry human which always demands more compensation than effort.

Then comes the Issue of Ownership which has many aspects to it. Why and How does a person claims ownership? Firstly, the idea of name calling or legacy, where one cannot just use somebody else's creation and put one's own name on it. Secondly, economic loss (however exaggerated), caused by uncontrolled copying and distribution of the product. Thirdly, by the law, in form of intellectual property rights heavily supports the owner. Fourthly, the natural right, where author's desires and interests concerning the program simply outweighs those of anyone else. But then there are arguments that neutralize the some of these aspects like Constitution only permits such system like copyright and doesn't require one.

The Free Software revolution rejects the concept of the programmer as being the owner of the software. Ownership is being completely transferred at the time of purchase. By doing this it is negating the concept of ownership as whole which can lead to a very slippery slope.

Our Economic system depends upon the concept of difference and uniqueness.Without the concept of copyrights and owners, the Free Software Movement would eventually make the business structure working today obsolete.

Free Software revolution also violates Autonomy of the Author ,as once the software is sold to the individual, the buyer is free to do as he deems fit, irrespective of the intent of the programmer.

Despite all this there are some good things about this revolution. In the overall picture it causes beneficence to society, as Free Software provides users the source codes, loopholes in the software can then be removed by the user. It also discourages monopolistic practices and drives out the self interest driven part in the development of the program which in some cases can be against the common good of society. It strengthens the Autonomy of the User as Non-Free Software violates the autonomy of the user by not allowing customizations in the software to better suit the needs of the user.

The revolution is still fighting and hanging on to a loose thread of morality and freedom.I could have been the modern revolution in internet like the modern revolution in Arts which gave immense privilege and authority to the audience, but i guess we were not yet ready for that.