makeshiftmind

One of the classes I’m taking in school right now is called “research methods”, and it is essentially a composition class that focuses on data gathering and analysis for research papers. It’s an interesting class, and the text is actually quite good. I will have to write a research paper on a topic of my choice, and I’ve decided to research the positive and negative results of using the Free Software Foundation’s GPL (General Public License), or a similar “open” software license, in an enterprise environment.

What is the GPL? Well, most of you have probably installed Microsoft Windows before — which means that you’ve been presented with the multi-paged, much-dreaded EULA (end user license agreement), in which you agree to sell your immortal soul and sacrifice your firstborn to Microsoft… er, I mean, you agree to install only one copy of the software on your computer, and use it according to the conditions specified in the EULA. Microsoft Windows, and, in fact, much commercial software, is proprietary, which means that if it doesn’t work right (has bugs), or doesn’t perform a specific function well or at all (Windows ME), then you have to wait for a (hopefully free) patch from the vendor, or purchase their next software upgrade. You, nor anyone else, has the legal right to modify the software for your own use, because you do not own the software, you are only licensed to use it.

Now, I am a devout believer in private property and laissez-faire capitalism. I believe that an individual has the right to the fruits of his or her own labor. I have no qualms with commercial software producers who want to make their software proprietary — they have the right to do so, and I have the right not to use their software. But what makes licensing instruments like the GPL unique is that they preserve the right to private property, and simultaneously give users the right to modify and redistribute copies of software licensed under the GPL. If I write a piece of software and place it under the terms of the GPL, anyone who wants to use my software can do so; anyone who wants to modify my software can do so; and anyone who wants to sell copies of my software, or modified versions of my software, can also do so. I still own the software, as the copyright holder, but under the terms of the GPL I open it up to other users. The catch is that anyone who modifies, redistributes, or sells my software must also license any derivative work under the GPL — which means that they cannot prevent anyone from using their software like they have used mine. So the GPL cascades, or acts recursively, on any piece of software that is built from other code licensed under the GPL.

A lot of people have wrongly associated the GPL, and other licenses like it, with a socialist mentality. It is true that many GPL proponents, including Richard Stallman, author of the GPL, emphasize community, sometimes I think at the expense of individuality. But the crucial difference between the communitarian thinking of Stallman, and the communitarian thinking of Socialists and Communists, is that Stallman’s philosophy was designed to eliminate authoritarianism, which often exist under the guise of “public good”. Stallman himself, as the leader of the free software movement, was honest about the temptation to turn his beliefs about freedom into a crusade that would ultimately undermine freedom. (For more on Stallman’s life, I would highly recommend Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman’s Crusade for Free Software, which, incidentally, is copyrighted and licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License — so you can download it for free).

I am interested in the GPL, or more specifically, the philosophy behind it, for a number of reasons. First, I enjoy using free software that is licensed under the GPL. Second, free software is gaining momentum in the business world because of its extreme flexibility. But most importantly, I am interested in the GPL’s philosophy in a way that is not tied specifically to software at all. The GPL has succeeded in doing something that world religions and political movements have not been very successful at doing, and that is to bring people together into a large community, of their own volition, to donate time, money, and effort into large projects over long periods of time, without any guarantee of monetary compensation. There is a large degree of wisdom behind any instrument that can perform such a feat. The GNU/Linux operating system contains millions of lines of code, written by millions of users all collaborating and exchanging ideas through the Internet. It is, in Eric Raymond’s analogy, like a great Bazaar in which things (information, effort) are exchanged at a fast rate among many different people, all with different motivations and incentives, but all collaborating in a perfectly free environment. At first glance, there may appear to be no organization — there is no centralized planning committee, no great authoritarian leader, and yet at the end of the day merchants make sales and consumers buy products, and the bazaar continues as it always has. Real goods are produced and consumed.

It has long been a conviction of mine that humans live best in perfect freedom. This is not to say that they live perfectly, or that there are never problems (Utopianism is a damnable idea) — but those problems are best dealt with between individuals, or between local, accountable authorities. The spirit behind the GPL is a similar philosophy — that software, or other creative works, can be improved and made more useful when people are perfectly free to alter them. No one can make a profit at another’s expense, because no one can modify another’s work, then bottle up the results and restrict other people from doing the same. The idea is fascinating and warrants significant study. The effects of the free software philosophy have already changed the business world, but will they shape our social and political development in the same way? We shall see.