Stallman's Case
Against
Software
Ownership
(or "Down with
Microsoft!")
Adam Moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJi2rkHiNqg
Group Work
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJi2rkHiNqg
1.
Form groups of 3 or 4 students. Write your
names at the top of a piece of paper. Pick a
group spokesperson.
2.
Reconstruct Stallman’s argument for free
software found in the video
3.
Present and explain two problems for Stallman’s
argument.
4.
Turn in your work. . .at the end of class
Overview

Stallman argues that software ownership and hoarding is
"one form of our general willingness to disregard the
welfare of society for personal gain." Stallman claims
the fencing (ownership) of software has led to a number
of harms, which include the restricted use of programs,
the inability to adapt or fix programs, the loss of
educational benefits for programmers, and what he calls
"psychosocial" harm. The latter kind of harm refers to
the loss of social cohesion and altruistic spirit that would
prevail if ownership were eliminated. He concludes by
arguing that the free software movement will contribute
to sending the right message — that a good individual is
one who cooperates, "not one who is successful in taking
from others."
I. Stallman's Attack on the Emotional
Argument and the Economic Argument
A. The Emotional Argument for Software
Ownership:
It wouldn't have existed but for me. I put my
sweat, my heart, my soul into this program. It
comes from me, so it is mine.
Stallman's Reply: This hardly justifies ownership,
and seems irrelevant. Some software producers
give all their code to a company in exchange for a
salary - "the attachment mysteriously vanishes."
Moreover, attachment is not a necessary part of
creating intellectual works - many artists create
works anonymously.
B. The Economic Argument:
1. We should adopt those policies that lead to the
best long term benefits for everyone.
2. Not giving software creators rights to what they
produce will lead to bad consequences because
rights are necessary as incentive, —i.e. most
programmers will not program without incentives
(without ownership rights guaranteed)
3. It follows that we should grant programmers
ownership rights over what they produce so that
we ensure that they will keep producing.

Reply: Stallman promises to show how Premise 2
is a bluff (it is false).
II. The Argument Against Having Owners
1. We should adopt those policies that lead
to the best long term benefits for everyone.
2. Allowing programmers and software
producers ownership rights over software
leads to bad consequences.
3. So it follows that we ought to greatly limit
or eliminate software ownership.
A. Support for Premise 2: The Harm Done by
Obstructing Software -- Assuming that a
program has been developed and the costs
of development have been covered,
Stallman asks if there is any harm done by
allowing ownership.
The Harm Done by Obstructing Software
1. Fewer People Use the Program
Copying a program, once created, and distributing it is
relatively cheap -- it would cost the price of a
computer disk or it could be downloaded from the net.
Allowing owners drives the prices of software up
because owners want to make a profit. (IP is nonrivalrous and it is not zero-sum)
a. Is it true that ownership causes fewer people to
use a program?
b. Does allowing owners drive up the prices of
software? (competition?)
The Harm Done by Obstructing Software
2. Damaging Social Cohesion
Signing a typical software license agreement means
betraying your neighbors: "I promise to be unfriendly, I
promise to tell my neighbors to get stuffed. To heck with
everyone else—just give me a copy!“
This also causes what Stallman calls "psychosocial harm."
Programmers know that their software will be restricted
and many users will not be able to use it at all. This
causes psychic harm to programmers.
a. Is this a good point -- does having software owners
damage social cohesion?
The Harm Done by Obstructing Software
3. Obstruction of Custom Adaptation
Since source code is kept secret and many
software agreements require that no alterations
be made to the program there is no legal way to
modify a program for optimal efficiency. This kind
of "no alteration" policy also prohibits fixing flaws
in programs. This, in turn, causes more
psychosocial harm and fosters a feeling of
helplessness among programmers and users.
a. What do you think of this problem -- does
ownership obstruct custom adaptation? Is
obstructing custom adaptation necessarily a
bad thing?
The Harm Done by Obstructing Software
4. Obstruction to Further Advances
Stallman also charges that owning software and restricting
what can be done with it obstructs advances in
programming technology and education. If there were no
restrictions, programmers could build upon the shoulders
of others and students could learn by experimenting with
the source code of complex programs. The ownership of
software eliminates theses goods and thus causes more
psychosocial harm.
a. Once again -- does obstruction to further
advances necessarily lead to bad consequences?
Maybe it merely creates lazy programmers.
The Harm Done by Obstructing Software
** Stallman concludes this section: “I have
shown how ownership of a program — the
power to restrict changing or copying it — is
obstructive. The negative effects are
widespread and important.” It follows that
society shouldn't have owners for programs,
—i.e. premise 1 in the Argument Against
Having Owners is correct and premise 2 has
been supported by points 1-4.
III. Why People Will Develop Software

In this section Stallman is trying to answer the incentives
problem — If programmers are not guaranteed rights to
their programs, then they will not develop or produce
these intellectual works. Under a policy of no ownership,
programmers will produce a lot less software and this will
damage the usefulness of computers, etc.

Note: Stallman has to make good on this claim because if
his policy would cause a massive decrease in software
production, then this bad consequence may overbalance
the goods that would result from no ownership, —i.e. even
though points 1-4 may be correct, they may be necessary
evils that are endured because of the overall gains in social
utility that result from massive software production
guaranteed by ownership.
Why People Will Develop Software
A. Programming is Fun: Here Stallman
claims that programming is fun and people
would produce software even if there were
no promises of wealth. (mathematical logic,
classical music, archaeology, philosophers,
iSchool professors)
Why People Will Develop Software
B. Funding Free Software: Once the "big
money" aspect of software production is
eliminated the question becomes one of
how to pay programmers for costs while
giving them money to live on.

government money, charity, university
research, tax the hardware.

nominal fees could be charged. What is owed
to programmers is support not massive profits.
IV. Problems For Stallman's Argument

What do you think about Stallman's view?
Has he adequately answered the incentives
problem -- with a policy of no-ownership, do
you think that programmers will continue to
"burn the midnight oil?"

Is programming that much fun? (incentives?)
Brain-drain worry
Tax avoidance
What’s wrong with being selfish? (invisible
hands and all that…)



Problems For Stallman's Argument

Do you think that Stallman's suggestions
would work for other kinds of intellectual
property like movies, novels, and songs?
What about physical property -- for
example, cars, computers, and VCR's?
Problems For Stallman's Argument

What about Microsoft's near monopoly on
operating systems -- should the government
step in and regulate Microsoft? Is it a good
thing when one company controls an entire
industry?

Would Stallman's "no ownership" policy
solve the Microsoft problem? ….is there a
Microsoft problem these days?
Problems For Stallman's Argument

Accountability: software ownership more
easily allows for accountability….if
something goes wrong, there is someone to
take to court….

Privacy, security

Is prohibiting restrictive downstream
contracts a form of ownership?