Richard Stallman Argument Analysis: Should Software Be Free?

2004 Words5 Pages

Meghan Stavig Term Paper Should Software Be Free? Part 1. The notion that software should be free is one that is highly critiqued within the technology industry. Free, as in the idea that users can obtain the source code for any given program, and modify and redistribute it as they like. Currently most all software produced is proprietary in nature. Corporations pay developers to create proprietary software that they then obstruct (so that no modifications can be made), and sell (to turn a profit). Richard Stallman has been fighting the idea of proprietary software, and specifically software ownership, for decades. Stallman holds the stance that software ownership is a detriment to society, and stifles innovation, education, and social cohesion. Stallman presents an argument for free software that is supported with an abstracted view of the harm the …show more content…

However, one argument that I can dispute is his first level of material harm, on software ownership damaging social cohesion. Stallman remarks on sharing software, otherwise you are betraying your community and being a bad neighbor, thus, damaging social cohesion. If this principle were true, it wouldn’t be limited to intellectual property, but would encompass material property as well. Of course, Stallman wraps it up to limit the problem to IP. This creates a sort of “Software Socialism” mentality. There are several reasons why the US is not a socialist government, one of the glaring criticisms is that it stifles economic growth. By taking from the successful and rewarding the less-successful, you are naturally going to have less successful people. Is this what Stallman imagined social cohesion to be like? The current state of the US economy, the free enterprise, (or more specifically, private enterprise) encourages creative competition by rewarding those who make (or own) the best

Open Document