After being brought up on Free Software and its philosophy, I now find myself actually feeling guilty if I am tempted to pay for software. The little voice in my head (not the one that reminds that I have no money and can't afford it anyway, I succeeded in silencing that one a long time ago) chimes "All Software Should be Free!". However, on a number of occasions I have become dependant on some great pieces of software that I got for free. At other times I have become dependant on a great piece of closed source shareware. On both occasions I feel like the authors really deserve something for thier work and the fact that it is so useful to me. However, I have never contributed financially to the first three projects, but to the fourth I have (by purchasing a registered version). What's the difference? Certinaly not the program quality. No, the difference is that with (for example) AudioHijack, I have to pay to keep using it. Legally and technically (it stops working of a number of days). My moral watchdog flags up this kind of shareware as bad news, but at the same time, I love the program and don't mind paying for it (its not very expensive anyway).
I think the real solution is a compromise between the two. I have often thought there is simply not enough encouragement in the free software community to highlight the fact that the software is free as in speech, but not neccessarily as in beer. If I was encouraged to 'register' my copy of Mutt or Emacs or whatever, I think I would probably do so. However, if I was forced to register, I probably wouldn't have started using those programs in the first place because of my enthusiasm for the free software ethic. So perhaps the solution is simply a better promotion of the fact that these projects need funding, without any change to the license (you don't have to pay, its just nice if you do). This donation process could be assisted by the techniques in use by small shareware companies such as RegNet.
Having said that though, I realise that there is one major difference between a traditional and successful shareware product, and a GNU-style free one. That is the warranty. If you register a shareware program, you expect to have a certain level of after sales support, and more importantly, to have your payment be a form of guarentee that that support will be available. With a free software package however, while this support is usually available via discussion groups and your own DIY attitude (the source is available, after all), the project maintaners are rarely in a position to guarentee that support or its quality. For that reason, free software is almost always distributed with a no warranty disclaimer.
But does that have to be the case? There is currently a lot of buzz surrounding the fact that free software is currently poised to enter the mainstream, with great projects such as Gnome and OpenOffice. The current model seems to be that which gave RedHat its success: a group of geeks doing it for themselves create great software, then a commercial organisation with the required structure and management provides customer and support and takes in all the profit. Perhaps these organisations should be combined. Companies should be formed which create the traditional polished, boxed, high quality software that is found in your local PCWorld, but at the same time having it distributed by a liberal license (this is similar to what Apple have been doing with MacOSX, but the freedom is not extensive enough: it only covers the underlying foundations of the OS, not the entire shrinkwrapped package). The majority of buyers may not even be aware of this latter fact, but thier payment will guarentee that they get the kind of support they have come to expect from the software they buy. The free software faithful would be able to buy this software without sacrificing any of thier beliefs, while still getting the benefit of the kind of software that can be written when the programmers are getting paid for it and doing at as full time job. Those who genuinely cannot afford the product need not be left out, because they have a legal right to aquire it for free if they can find a source. However, people who can pay should be encouraged to do so. No more need for complicated student certification processes, it will all work on an honour system. I think that with a successful and popular product, the numbers and social pressure will make it work. But I could be wrong.
Posted by sakar at December 10, 2003 02:32 PM | TrackBack