EARLIER FEATURES

FEATURES CONTENTS

LATER FEATURES

"FREE" SOFTWARE

Brian Grainger

brianATgrainger1.freeserve.co.uk

In a recent review of software in the ICPUGSE Newsletter, (You can see the full article at "http://www.icpug.org.uk/se/se_magaugsep08no161 1st try.htm"), Joe Griffin finished with the following comments.

Quote

I work as a software developer. I either work to a client's specification (often a very woolly spec) for a day rate or fixed fee or if I've identified a gap in the market, I'll develop a system in my own time, then offer the result as a packaged solution to one or more of my clients. It's an ages old system; client has a need; I can satisfy that need; client pays me money to do so; I get to eat!

However, there are a number of people who believe that software shouldn't cost. A short time ago, (Ed: see here), Brian Grainger was moaning about being required to pay for a licence to unlock a utility of Isobuster which would allow him to recover a load of pictures off a "sick" CD. He was quibbling over 15 quid! For heaven's sake; how much is his data worth? (Back in the PET days, one of my "party-pieces' was being able to recover all the files off a corrupted or "short-headered' floppy disk. It took a lot of time to learn how to do it and buy or build the tools to do it.) The guy who developed that software will have spent a fair old chunk of time learning how to do it and then coding it up. He deserves his crust!

If you find a piece of shareware which you like and you want to use it, then do the decent thing and register it. If a piece of shareware is popularly supported, then there is an incentive for the author to support and develop it. If the author gets no support, then he's unlikely to bother.

Unquote

On reading this, my first reaction was to be annoyed at the personal attack. Microsoft lovers who comment at 'The Register' give people such as myself the derogatory description, "freetard". There seems to be a stigma attached to getting things for free.

My second reaction was to consider how emotional this rant was. It reads as if the likes of me are stopping Joe from earning a living. Finally, I carefully considered my own actions with regard to buying software and whether I was at fault. I decided that my actions are guided by my belief in 'free as in freedom' software and that a response to this rant could serve as a vehicle for explain what such software was all about, what it isn't about and why it is important.

Before talking of that I would like to rebuff some statements that Joe made.

• I do not believe software shouldn't cost - I believe software should be free as in freedom and that is not the same as free as in beer, (= shouldn't cost).
• I did not moan about being required to pay for a licence. If I moaned about anything it was the fact that Isobuster Pro was priced in dollars or euros, but not pounds. This makes it more difficult for use Brits to pay for it and probably makes it more expensive as we have to pay conversion charges.
• Isobuster was NOT shareware. The Pro version had to be paid for. The free version had reduced functionality. My actions met the terms of the licence. The fact that I could obtain, by means of the free functionality, one function that the software authors thought had to be paid for is not my problem. It makes a change for a possible software bug to benefit the user! There are other useful non-free functions that I cannot obtain by means of free functionality.

Let me now look in detail at Joe's rant.

There are people who believe software shouldn't cost and will go out of their way to pirate software or otherwise contravene the licence for use. I am not one of them, although I do believe some software costs too much.

I have bought many pieces of software. My first copy of Microsoft Word cost £300 and I upgraded a number of times, (usually at a cost of £100 or more each time), until I got off the Microsoft gravy train with Office 97. I don't use Word 97 much differently to that first version of Word 4 (for DOS). OK, I have a spelling checker now and perhaps some other benefits, but in essence you keep upgrading the software to keep up with the changes of operating software or document format. Is the upgrade really worth that much?

I have had free software off magazines and then bought software after a favourable experience. Redshift astronomical software is an example.

I have also not used software because it does cost money when free versions exist. Winzip is an example of this. Winzip is shareware. I used it and I liked it. However, PKZip, which existed before Winzip, was free and I got the Windows version of that instead.

Sometimes I will not buy software because of the barriers to doing so. Not being priced in pound sterling is such a barrier to me. Having to register for some service, such as Paypal, is another. I started using a Sudoku program, by SadMan Software, when the craze first started. I provided advice for the initial versions, which were free. Suddenly it was made commercial and I was not happy with the sudden change. Nowadays the program has changed immeasurably for the better and I would gladly send a cheque in the post for it. However, again it is priced in dollars, despite the fact it is an English company! It is further compounded by having to use a service, SWREG, that others allege has dubious business practices.

In essence I will pay for software when it is of value to me and when I do not have to go through hoops to pay for it.

The question of value leads me to the concept of 'free as in freedom' software. This is very valuable to me. The fundamental concepts of such software is:

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
• The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbour (freedom 2).
• The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

You an tell that a geek drew up these freedoms - why else would they be numbered starting from 0! Notice that in those 4 freedoms there is no mention of no charge. You can make a charge for 'free as in freedom' software.

Freedom 1 and freedom 3 are very important to me. These along with freedom 2 were the essence of how ICPUG operated. Of course, ICPUG made a small charge for software from the software libraries, to cover cost. There is nothing to stop one from charging enough to make a profit in any of those freedoms. We are not out to stop you earning a living Joe! You are providing a service to a customer by doing the coding that they cannot or will not do for themselves. You are entitled to your crust.

If software does not meet these freedoms it is of less value to me and I may well decline to purchase or use it. That is my prerogative. That Sudoku program is a case in point. There are a couple of areas I would like to change to make it better for me. Also I would like to be able to run it on Linux and not Windows. If the source code was available then it would be possible for me to at least investigate both of those options. Sadly, it isn't.

Joe argues that to register, and thus pay for shareware, the author is encouraged to support it. This is possibly true up to a point. However, if an author has no interest in Linux he is unlikely to create a Linux version. Similarly, if he or she does not think your request is of interest then it is unlikely to be looked at. This does not matter if the source code is available and can be shared with anybody. The whole community who use the software are potential sources of support.

Putting the responsibility for support solely in the hands of the supplier gives them power to hold the user to ransom. This is most evident when an author, or more likely a company, decides a piece of software is no longer going to be supported and maybe replaced by a new version. With Free Software the community can still support any version they wish. This happens with Puppy Linux. It is currently at version 4 but part of the community thinks that series 2 or series 3 is better. Each version has updates made for it.

Now let’s look at the other main point that Joe makes. The software developer spends a lot of time working out how to do something and then coding it. He deserves to be paid for this effort.

I’ve got no dispute that the developer deserves reward for the coding effort. If he is providing a service by coding then fair enough. Even so, it is amazing how many people in the Free Software community are prepared to develop code for rewards other than cash, such as prestige and the good feeling obtained from having contributed something. These people usually get their money to live from other work.

The problem comes with agreeing that the developer should be rewarded for working things out. The trouble is that usually what they have worked out is then kept secret. Some commercial companies take great pains in keeping things secret and try to make money out of the so called intellectual property rights and software patents. With this, I and the Free Software community totally disagree. I come from a science background. As Stephen Fry said in a recent message to celebrate the 25th Anniversary of the start of the Free Software Movement, (obtained here: http://www.gnu.org/fry/), we don't keep things secret in science. We investigate and may get paid to investigate. However, the results of science are disseminated to the community at large so that others may build upon them. This is how science progresses.

Why should it be any different for software? I don't think it should be different for software. You should not patent ideas. You can patent the incorporation of ideas in specific products but not the ideas themselves. These should be free for others to build upon.

Coming back to Isobuster, if I bought that program licence I would still be none the wiser about the ideas and algorithms behind the software code. The developer is keeping them secret in order to stop others coming in and competing with his product. Competitors may perhaps produce a better product that would be of benefit to the user. Too bad - you have got to work out the ideas for yourself - such a duplication of effort.

To sum up my response to the rant:

Wanting Free Software does not mean I do not want to pay for it.

If Joe, or anyone, provided software I wanted I would be prepared to pay for its coding, provided it met my requirements. My requirements include having the freedoms mentioned earlier. If Joe wants to deny me those freedoms then I may consider that more important than the need for the software and Joe has lost a sale. I am not trying to take the bread from Joe's mouth. His chosen business model is the problem!

Just as some people buy their houses and do what they like with them, this customer just wants to own the software he pays for and be allowed to do with it as he wishes. I do not want to rent software where the supplier tells me what I can do. That, in essence, is what 'free as in freedom' software is all about.

TOP