Why Software Should Not Have Owners by Richard StallmanDigital information technology contributes to the world by making iteasier to copy and modify information. Computers promise to make thiseasier for all of us.Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright givessoftware programs "owners", most of whom aim to withhold software'spotential benefit from the rest of the public. They would like to bethe only ones who can copy and modify the software that we use.The copyright system grew up with printing--a technology for massproduction copying. Copyright fit in well with this technologybecause it restricted only the mass producers of copies. It did nottake freedom away from readers of books. An ordinary reader, who didnot own a printing press, could copy books only with pen and ink, andfew readers were sued for that.Digital technology is more flexible than the printing press: wheninformation has digital form, you can easily copy it to share it withothers. This very flexibility makes a bad fit with a system likecopyright. That's the reason for the increasingly nasty and draconianmeasures now used to enforce software copyright. Consider these fourpractices of the Software Publishers Association (SPA):* Massive propaganda saying it is wrong to disobey the ownersto help your friend.* Solicitation for stool pigeons to inform on their coworkers andcolleagues.* Raids (with police help) on offices and schools, in which people aretold they must prove they are innocent of illegal copying.* Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA's request) of peoplesuch as MIT's David LaMacchia, not for copying software (he is notaccused of copying any), but merely for leaving copying facilitiesunguarded and failing to censor their use.All four practices resemble those used in the former Soviet Union,where every copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying,and where individuals had to copy information secretly and pass itfrom hand to hand as "samizdat". There is of course a difference: themotive for information control in the Soviet Union was political; inthe US the motive is profit. But it is the actions that affect us,not the motive. Any attempt to block the sharing of information, nomatter why, leads to the same methods and the same harshness.Owners make several kinds of arguments for giving them the powerto control how we use information:* Name calling.Owners use smear words such as "piracy" and "theft", as well as expertterminology such as "intellectual property" and "damage", to suggest acertain line of thinking to the public--a simplistic analogy betweenprograms and physical objects.Our ideas and intuitions about property for material objects are aboutwhether it is right to *take an object away* from someone else. Theydon't directly apply to *making a copy* of something. But the ownersask us to apply them anyway.* Exaggeration.Owners say that they suffer "harm" or "economic loss" when users copyprograms themselves. But the copying has no direct effect on theowner, and it harms no one. The owner can lose only if the person whomade the copy would otherwise have paid for one from the owner.A little thought shows that most such people would not have boughtcopies. Yet the owners compute their "losses" as if each and everyone would have bought a copy. That is exaggeration--to put it kindly.* The law.Owners often describe the current state of the law, and the harshpenalties they can threaten us with. Implicit in this approach is thesuggestion that today's law reflects an unquestionable view ofmorality--yet at the same time, we are urged to regard these penaltiesas facts of nature that can't be blamed on anyone.This line of persuasion isn't designed to stand up to criticalthinking; it's intended to reinforce a habitual mental pathway.It's elemental that laws don't decide right and wrong. Every Americanshould know that, forty years ago, it was against the law in manystates for a black person to sit in the front of a bus; but onlyracists would say sitting there was wrong.* Natural rights.Authors often claim a special connection with programs they havewritten, and go on to assert that, as a result, their desires andinterests concerning the program simply outweigh those of anyoneelse--or even those of the whole rest of the world. (Typicallycompanies, not authors, hold the copyrights on software, but we areexpected to ignore this discrepancy.)To those who propose this as an ethical axiom--the author is moreimportant than you--I can only say that I, a notable software authormyself, call it bunk.But people in general are only likely to feel any sympathy with thenatural rights claims for two reasons.One reason is an overstretched analogy with material objects. When Icook spaghetti, I do object if someone else takes it and stops me fromeating it. In this case, that person and I have the same materialinterests at stake, and it's a zero-sum game. The smallestdistinction between us is enough to tip the ethical balance.But whether you run or change a program I wrote affects you directlyand me only indirectly. Whether you give a copy to your friendaffects you and your friend much more than it affects me. I shouldn'thave the power to tell you not to do these things. No one should.The second reason is that people have been told that natural rightsfor authors is the accepted and unquestioned tradition of our society.As a matter of history, the opposite is true. The idea of naturalrights of authors was proposed and decisively rejected when the USConstitution was drawn up. That's why the Constitution only *permits*a system of copyright and does not *require* one; that's why it saysthat copyright must be temporary. It also states that the purpose ofcopyright is to promote progress--not to reward authors. Copyrightdoes reward authors somewhat, and publishers more, but that isintended as a means of modifying their behavior.The real established tradition of our society is that copyright cutsinto the natural rights of the public--and that this can only bejustified for the public's sake.* Economics.The final argument made for having owners of software is that thisleads to production of more software.Unlike the others, this argument at least takes a legitimate approachto the subject. It is based on a valid goal--satisfying the users ofsoftware. And it is empirically clear that people will produce more ofsomething if they are well paid for doing so.But the economic argument has a flaw: it is based on the assumptionthat the difference is only a matter of how much money we have to pay.It assumes that "production of software" is what we want, whether thesoftware has owners or not.People readily accept this assumption because it accords with ourexperiences with material objects. Consider a sandwich, for instance.You might well be able to get an equivalent sandwich either free orfor a price. If so, the amount you pay is the only difference.Whether or not you have to buy it, the sandwich has the same taste,the same nutritional value, and in either case you can only eat itonce. Whether you get the sandwich from an owner or not cannotdirectly affect anything but the amount of money you have afterwards.This is true for any kind of material object--whether or not it has anowner does not directly affect what it *is*, or what you can do withit if you acquire it.But if a program has an owner, this very much affects what it is, andwhat you can do with a copy if you buy one. The difference is notjust a matter of money. The system of owners of software encouragessoftware owners to produce something--but not what society reallyneeds. And it causes intangible ethical pollution that affects usall.What does society need? It needs information that is truly availableto its citizens--for example, programs that people can read, fix,adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software ownerstypically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change.Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the userslose freedom to control part of their own lives.And above all society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntarycooperation in its citizens. When software owners tell us thathelping our neighbors in a natural way is "piracy", they pollute oursociety's civic spirit.This is why we say that free software is a matter of freedom, notprice.The economic argument for owners is erroneous, but the economic issueis real. Some people write useful software for the pleasure ofwriting it or for admiration and love; but if we want more softwarethan those people write, we need to raise funds.For ten years now, free software developers have tried various methodsof finding funds, with some success. There's no need to make anyonerich; the median US family income, around $35k, proves to be enoughincentive for many jobs that are less satisfying than programming.For years, until a fellowship made it unnecessary, I made a livingfrom custom enhancements of the free software I had written. Eachenhancement was added to the standard released version and thuseventually became available to the general public. Clients paid me sothat I would work on the enhancements they wanted, rather than on thefeatures I would otherwise have considered highest priority.The Free Software Foundation, a tax-exempt charity for free softwaredevelopment, raises funds by selling CD-ROMs, tapes and manuals (allof which users are free to copy and change), as well as fromdonations. It now has a staff of five programmers, plus threeemployees who handle mail orders.Some free software developers make money by selling support services.Cygnus Support, with around 50 employees, estimates that about 15 percent of its staff activity is free software development--a respectablepercentage for a software company.Companies including Intel, Motorola, Texas Instruments and AnalogDevices have combined to fund the continued development of the freeGNU compiler for the language C. Meanwhile, the GNU compiler for theAda language is being funded by the US Air Force, which believes thisis the most cost-effective way to get a high quality compiler.All these examples are small; the free software movement is stillsmall, and still young. But the example of listener-supported radioin this country shows it's possible to support a large activitywithout forcing each user to pay.As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a proprietaryprogram. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong torefuse. Cooperation is more important than copyright. Butunderground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society. Aperson should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, andthis means saying "No" to proprietary software.You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with otherpeople who use software. You deserve to be able to learn how thesoftware works, and to teach your students with it. You deserve to beable to hire your favorite programmer to fix it when it breaks.You deserve free software.Copyright 1994 Richard StallmanVerbatim copying and redistribution is permittedwithout royalty as long as this notice is preserved;alteration is not permitted.