How the Free Software movement has damaged the industry

Some advocates of Free Software attack the concept of intellectual property. They claim that the work of others should be made available to the world because it's the "right thing to do." Some developers buy into it in the hope of gaining exposure that could help them later in their careers and because they believe they are doing something beneficial for the world. I believe that, in the long run, both groups hold a terribly distorted view. In fact, after participating in the industry for 34 years now, I believe the Free Software movement has irreparably damaged the industry.

[[MORE]]

Software development is an almost purely intellectual task. In that sense, it's similar to writing a book, designing a building, writing a play, composing a song or painting a picture. As with those skills, writing good software is supremely difficult. In the same way that anyone can write a short story or draw a picture, anyone can write a simple program. But modern, full-featured software is full of complexity, depth and richness that exceeds most other human endeavors.

The logic of many users and advocates of Free Software is flawed. For example, they often encourage studying the source code. In addition to benefiting from the use of the software, they also benefit from the creativity, education and programming skills of the original developers. Their employers are penalized by having to pay their staff to learn about and possibly maintain the code. While that's a potential necessity in some businesses, for most it amounts to significant added cost. The advocates distort the truth to their employers by emphasizing the fact that the software is free, while failing to acknowledge the significantly higher labor costs.

Users of Free Software also often claim that ownership of intellectual property doesn't make any sense. They say things like "how can you own an idea?" or "making a copy doesn't cost the developer anything extra" or "knowledge belongs to everyone." What they're really saying is that they want the benefits from the hard work of others, but without paying for it. They are rejecting the concept of private property at its core. If a person can't own the things they create with their own mind then what can they own? One result of this is that a lot of Free Software contains multiple patent licensing violations, which are ignored by the users as "not important."

From the developer's perspective, giving their work away for free encourages the concept that software has no real value. Rather than increasing the value of their future labor by gaining exposure in the community, the value of that future work is in fact minimized. If developers don't value their work enough to charge for it, then why should potential future employers feel compelled to pay? If all software is free, then the people who create it must not be worth very much, if anything. Competing against free software is a continual challenge. If no one is willing to pay for software, then how will companies pay the salary of those developers?

Imagine a band that gave away all of their music, then suddenly published a new recording that they wanted to charge for. They've created a market barrier for themselves. Actors have this problem, too. After being on TV for a while, their value is diminished for movies; movie-only actors can charge much more per film, as a result of audience expectations. In a similar way, software developers are denying themselves the possibility of future ownership and profits.

Let's say a developer comes up with a wonderful application that could benefit the lives of millions. They have given away all of their previous work. But now this idea is so special that they want to own it and charge people for it. How would the market respond? Rather than suddenly recognizing value in the new work, which I believe is the common self-deception, the market will instead reject the new application in favor of additional Free applications, in spite of the difference in quality or character of the new app, because they have been conditioned to expect that developer's code to be free. The developer has inadvertently shot themselves in the foot.

Personally, I use as much commercial software as I can. I do so because it's to my benefit. I am helping to support the value of my time as a developer, and I'm minimizing my support and maintenance costs by being able to call for support when I need it. Even so, I do use some free software when better alternatives aren't available (such as WordPress) – but I do so without adopting the mantra of many advocates that "all software should be free." Property rights are the cornerstone of Liberty, and must be defended at every opportunity.