Free software

Freedo the penguin, mascot of the Linux-libre operating system kernel, which is comprised of entirely FLOSS components.

Free software, alternatively known as libre or copyleft software, is software which is not proprietary. It may be used, shared and adapted freely under the condition that it retains its free status. Often such software is created according to a peer-to-peer development model.

Terminology

The ambiguity of the English word "free" has led to issues of nomenclature throughout the history of the free software movement. Programmers have used several terms to distinguish the economic sense of the word ("free as in beer" or gratis) from its philosophical meaning ("free as in freedom" or libre). The terms that are currently most used include FOSS (free and open source software) and FLOSS (free/libre open source software), combining the open-source and free software movements as well as replacing the confusing term free with a clear acronym. However, it is important to note that open source software is not the same as free software: open-source code is considered unfree by free software advocates because it allows the code to be repurposed for proprietary uses. Tech giants have spent decades resisting free software but have overwhelmingly adopted business models based on unfree open-source licenses, allowing them to exploit volunteer coders and bug-fixers on a massive scale. Richard Stallman, considered to be the founder and longtime leader of the free software movement, has also argued that free software is open-source by definition, rendering terms like FOSS and FLOSS redundant and even misleading.

Overview

Definitions

Free Software Foundation

The Free Software Foundation defines free software as having:

• The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
• The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
• The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Applications

Operating systems

Several operating systems (OSes) are composed, primarily or fully, of libre components. Most distributions of GNU/Linux are free and open source, as are many modern BSD-derived operating systems. The Free Software Foundation recommends operating systems based on the Linux-libre kernel instead of the standard Linux kernel due to the latter still containing proprietary blobs.

Political content

As a revolutionary project

Many Marxists have argued that the free software movement is a political struggle against the capitalist enclosure of the intellectual commons. To some degree, it is an organised effort to create a social alternative to the prevailing private order. However, this fact is rarely acknowledged by participants in the free software community, and therefore it cannot be regarded as conscious of the political nature of its struggle. Free software developers come from a variety of political and apolitical backgrounds, and thus the movement tends to be wary of discussing political implications along traditional ideological lines. Instead it maintains its own internal ideological discourse devoid of a broader understanding of the economy. Other Marxists have argued against the politically progressive nature of free software in general, highlighting the petite-bourgeois individualist and anti-communist leanings of its primary voices.

As a capitalist institution

Software is material

It is easy to idealize free software as free of centralized control and therefore socialist, but this ignores a number of important factors.

Although in principle anyone can copy it, free software may still have a canonical distributor that decides upon official editions. These are then the editions that everyone uses, and to go off and use another edition isolates a user from the added value this network of fellow users and developers offers. In this way, free software can still be considered proprietary software, and be used to extract a profit.

Likewise, consider the end users applying the software. While in principle anyone can use the software for whatever ends, only established institutions are able to apply them in a socioeconomically significant way. Changing this reality requires a rearrangement of productive relations outside of the scope of the free software movement.

Difficulty with consumer products

Since participants in the free software movement tend to be computer experts, the software they produce tends to be unfit for widespread use by consumers. Corporations, whose continued existence relies on being able to market their software, are much more effective at providing an accessible product. Likewise they will have more resources to push their product onto the market, and will therefore be able to amass a user base much more quickly.

See also

• Richard Stallman
• GNU/Linux

External links

• "Reclaiming the Computing Commons" by Rob Hunter in Jacobin Magazine
• "Copyleft vs. Copyright: A Marxist Critique" by Johan Söderberg in the First Monday journal
• "The problem with the computer industry under capitalism - Free Software the answer?" by Maarten Vanheuverswyn on Marxists.com
• "Badiou’s ethics and the Free Software Revolution" by Katarina Peovic Vukovic in the Badieu Studies journal
• "Communism and Computer Ethics: Public Goods and Intellectual Property Rights", CS project at Stanford University
• "Free Software and Market Relations" by Raoul Victor (translated debate)