Free Software: Good vs. Evil?
Via the iQubed blog, this article describes a lecture by Richard Stallman, leader of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) about the morals, ethics and politics. He says of free-software (free of restrictions, not necessarily free of charge): "This is about ethics [...] that is, good and evil".
Of course, free software is the good and by extension, commercial software with restrictive licenses sold by companies such as Microsoft and others, must be the evil.
While there is a place for free software, I have a somewhat different view to Stallman. When Stallman and the FSF talk about "free", they don't mean no cost. They refer to certain rights (or freedoms) that the user of the software is guaranteed. Nevertheless, much free software is in fact free of charge and this fuels a common perception that free software is, well, free. In my view, this is where the danger lies. The misleading name has created a ubiquitous public perception that software has no intrinsic value. It has lead to widespread public misunderstanding about the way software is sold and the attitude that piracy is acceptable and harmless. This perception is damaging to the software industry. People who will pay hundreds or thousands for a piece of hardware are unwilling to spend a few tens to acquire the software that makes it work - the ingredient that truly adds value is considered worthless by the majority.
To reiterate, I believe there is a place for free software, but we've got to stop calling it "free". I dislike the term intensely because it is so misleading. Free is a term widely understood to mean "no cost" and the FSF definition of "free software" is explicitly at odds with that understanding.