The “free” in free software, isn’t talking about price

While compiling the business cases for the site this month a common thread became
apparent, the licensing costs were a minor factor in the decision to move to Linux. The
“free” part that attracted them was “freedom of choice” in other words, control.

When I first heard about Linux being free, I had thought they meant price. Unfortunately
for a capitalist like me, the actual meaning was far more ideological. The Free Software
Foundation, founded by Richard Stallman in October 1985, was based on the premise
that software should be free. Not necessarily free of cost but free of legal copyrights that
restricted its use. To achieve this, the “copyleft” or General public License (GPL) was
created. Basically stated (and we will go into the legal issues of Linux and open source at
a later stage), GPL requires that users release whatever modifications and enhancements
they have made to the open source products they have used as source code. This ensures
the ongoing enhancements and modifications of the products by their users.

One of the reasons for the rapid growth of Linux can be attributable to this “free”
approach. Basically, every marketer always knows that the best way to build a successful
product is to find out what the customers want. Well, what would happen if your
customers could continuously tell you what they thought was important and even show
you via their efforts? We would call that a feedback loop, create an acronym and head for
the nearest expensive restaurant to celebrate! The fact that phalanxes of techies have put
together a remarkable marketing approach is something that shrivels my power tie and
makes me hope that they don’t figure it out or I am out of a job!

So, Free speaks to Freedom more than it does to price. This makes sense as there is
definitely a price paid in time (as there would be for any type of system) or support or
customization. Freedom says, use what you need; this is logical if your application is
mission critical you want as few pieces of code running around in it as possible. Freedom
also says nobody can tell you when to upgrade, Freedom allows you to take the basic
structure and optimize it for what you need.

As a non-programming, capitalist pig-dog this doesn’t make me warm all over. I am not a
programmer gaining control, all I am doing as a businessperson is LOSING control.
When I contract a vendor and something doesn’t work, I could just not pay the lazy so
and so. I have some semblance of control by virtue of my checkbook. If the guy in the
Green Day T-shirt that works in IT cannot get it to work, what is my recourse? Fire him?
Even if that were possible with our labour law, whom would I get it to fix whatever mess
this person has made? Is it even documented?

I was lamenting this problem when a friend working at a large corporate pointed out to
me that by implementing Linux for the first time the CIO/CTO does not have a vendor
related excuse. He has full control over what he is selecting and should know its
shortcomings.
The reality is that with Freedom comes responsibility and discipline. Even though it is
tempting to save a bundle because you can “hack the code” and do it in-house, the reality
is that you need to know how to manage the software project. If your company does not
have the expertise in managing software development, you probably should be
outsourcing it. However, when you outsource your project make sure it is open source
based, because it does leave you free to change vendors in the future and make changes
as needed.

So even though Linux is free, we aren’t talking about the price tag. We are talking about
a wider range of “freedoms” that enable it to grow from within its own community in a
relevant way. We are also talking about the responsibility that comes with freedom to
realize that even though everybody has the freedom to change the code, maybe some
people just shouldn’t.