The topic of “open source” software where the underlying code is made available for you to modify (and learn from if you are so inclined) is now almost a daily news item. Everybody has heard of Linux, and it’s namesake, Linus Torvalds but not many laypeople know that it was made possible only through the implementation of the GNU open software (gcc) compiler created by Richard Stallman in 1987. Mr Stallman suggests it should be called GNU/Linux and has some controversial views on software ownership - basically that its an oxymoron, but they are pretty compelling. Read on for a synopsis of his points or read the article:Copyright was instituted at the time of the first printing presses (in Europe) to limit the mass producers of copies. It was a good fit to the problem and didn’t infringe on the rights of readers at all.

Owners of software (usually big businesses and not the actual programmers themselves) claim that ownership of software is like ownership of material items. This falls apart quickly since you can take away material items but software is copied. Nothing is “stolen” in the material sense.

Owners of software claim “damages” due to loss of revenue. However it is likely that most of those who “steal” software would never have purchased the software anyway. These “losses” then are exaggerated at best.

Owners use the argument that copying software is wrong because “It is against the law”, but this argument falls on its face. Because something is against the law doesn’t make it right.

Some authors of software claim that it is a natural right of the software programmer to “own” the code they create. Although Mr Stallman points to the arguments that “stealing” the code hurts the author somehow (he doesn’t agree) and that intellectual property is somehow an American value (he claims the opposite is true - citing only a grudging nod to a copyright in the constitution), I think the best argument against this point is that writing software depends to a huge extent on the routines and code written by others and the argument dissoves under the weight of ancestral claims.

Software owners point to the economic incentive to write software as the driving force behind software innovation. Mr Stallman agrees that this is a worthy goal (in that its ultimate aim is to satisfy endusers of the software), but it is twisted by the fact that in ownership of few other products harm the producer so little (at least directly) through the sharing of it. (I can have the software and not affect the author’s ability to have the software too).

How do you feel about Open Source software?