In the Dock: Free Software

31st of July 2010 0

In the Dock: Free Software

In the Dock: Free Software

The Case for the Prosecution: Antony Cawte

Within the British judiciary – and almost every other modernday judicial system for that matter – it is accepted that one should talk not of innocence, but of an absence of guilt. Indeed, this subtle but vital distinction is one of the foundations upon which criminal law is based.

Which is a right pain in the backside as it happens. Because frustratingly, that very premise is rather a key element in this prosecution. You see, while there may (or may not) be an absence of guilt where free software is concerned, it’s certainly not as innocent as its fan boys and butterwouldn’t- melt adherents would have us all believe. First of all let’s talk about the word ‘free’ for a minute.

For most of us, free means well.. free. Without cost. Complimentary. Gratis. On the house. But not, seemingly, in this case. At least not entirely. Because the word free as in ‘free software’ is somewhat open to interpretation. In fairness, it can and very often does mean free of charge. Sort of. But it can also mean ‘politically and spiritually’ free; free from proprietary control; free upfront but with ongoing monthly subscription costs… and, too often, free from responsibility. Also, though it’s easy to miss when the only sound you can hear is KERCHING!! it scarcely matters whether or not there’s a capital cost; there’s certain to be an operational one – and it’s often substantial. Neither does free equate to easy here; often belying as it does the need for a great deal of costly developmental and integration work.

Even putting the Trade Descriptions Act aside, the accused is clearly not all it makes itself out to be. And its misdemeanors don’t stop at semantics. There is too often an agenda where free software developers are concerned – a four legs good, two legs bad schtick that makes the assumption on your behalf that all proprietary vendors care about is emptying your wallet. There are always shades of grey of course, but it’s fair to say that proprietary providers have a vested interest in delivering stuff that works; they have to; their livelihoods depend upon it.

Equally, and for the opposite reason, developers on the other side of the divide have no such concerns: they don’t care about your business; they don’t have to. Security? Data protection? Yeah, whatever. And when it comes to deploying technology even the best of us sometimes still need a supplier’s hand to hold and shoulder to cry on – not to say their throat to choke when things go pear-shaped. Not here mate. Not on your nelly.
I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point.

Finally and crucially though, it’s the foolhardy organisation that doesn’t look to its future. And there’s the nagging worry here that – like another kind of dealer – some providers might, just might, be luring us in with free jam today for money tomorrow. Consider a certain Mr Murdock’s attempts to monetise online content. Can you be sure that won’t happen to your free software somewhere down the line when you’ve sunk massive money, time, and resource into integrating it? Free? Fantastic. But at what cost?

The Case for the Defence: Gareth Kershaw

There’s no such thing as a free lunch. All that glitters is not gold. Nothing worthwhile ever came for free. Beware Greeks bearing gifts. Better the devil you know… OK, any more empty, fusty old platitudes worth dusting off and adding to those rolled out by the prosecution? No? Then how about we try these on for size? A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. A penny saved is a penny earned. A fool and his money are soon parted.

And – most pertinently – people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Because the prosecution can whine about “an absence of guilt” as much as he likes – the fact is that there’s simply no case to answer here. First there’s his plaintiff bleat about the semantics of the word ‘Free’. How many Ks in pedantic, Ant? Of course free software carries operational, integration, and development costs – as if proprietary alternatives don’t! Do me a favour.

Then there’s free software’s alleged “agenda”. Fours legs good, two legs bad? He doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The fact is that most free software developers do what they do because they’re passionate about it; not out of some rampant desire to undermine the proprietary software industry. Or because of polemic. Or cost. Is it really so hard to believe that some people might be willing to share what they know in return for something other than short-term monetary gain?

That while some people still want to “own the world”, others want to give it all away? Get over yourself. As for “caring” about our businesses, well the prosecution has a point there – because we all know how caring, sharing, altruistic, and completely selfless most traditional software vendors are! Why, they wouldn’t dream of trying to make a profit out of anybody!

The truth is that free software developers are responsible at a much deeper and more fundamental level than he understands. They care about what they do. They care about the code. They care whether it works. They received help in the past and they want to pass it on – to Pay It Forward, to invoke a slightly hokey filmic analogy. Their philosophy is about more than just your business – that’s the point, and that’s what makes what they do so worthwhile and so valuable, especially for start-ups and smaller firms. And when it comes to monetising their offerings (the cheek!) there’s no reason that this needs to be to our detriment if or when it happens. I believe the likes of Spotify are doing pretty well without screwing anybody. How to sum it all up in a way the prosecution will understand though? It isn’t wise to bite the hand that feeds you. You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. And ah yes: never look a gift horse in the mouth.

Subscribe to iQ read the full article

The verdict? You decide. Discuss this on our Forum