Stallman: Free software Is Not About Saving Money

Companies that turn to free or open source software during the downturn to save money may miss the whole point of non-proprietary code, according to free software advocate Richard Stallman.

While the economic downturn might be driving more people to use open source software – via hardware such as netbooks for example – free software is distinct from open source and about more than simply cutting costs, said Stallman at an event in Budapest, Hungary, organised by local organisation Open Source Farm.

“I won’t say no to more users, but of course if they only bought the thing to save them money then they have missed the main point, so what we need to do is show them that there are more important things,” the Free Software Foundation (FSF) president told EWeek Europe UK.

Stallman, who developed the GNU project in 1984, is keen to establish a clear distinction between term “open source” and “free software”. He eschews the term open source claiming it originated from a split in the community-developed software movement. The community developed model and operating system established by Stallman with GNU is seen as providing the basis for the Linux operating system and kernel developed by Linus Torvalds.

“As GNU plus Linux caught on we saw a disagreement within the community of users and developers. Some of us wanted freedom while others appreciated the same software but only for reasons of practical convenience – they didn’t think freedom was important – not even their own freedom,” he said.

While Stallman said that the recession driving interest in free software because of its often lower economic costs was “missing the point” he said he didn’t know if interest in the truly free community-developed applications and platforms he supports is also growing because of the global recession.

“I don’t know. All I can say is that people continue to join the Free Software Foundation at a high rate – we have more members now than we did a year ago,” he told Eweek Europe UK.

Stallman, who is a supporter and member of the US Green Party, was also questioned about the relationship between free software as he defines it and the environment. Asked if free software is more sustainable than proprietary equivalents, he said that there was no direct relationship between freedom and environmental impact but commented that have less power to act for themselves, if more power is put in vendors’ hands.

“Free software is under the control of its users. Proprietary software puts the users under the control of the developer. When the developer is a greedy corporation it is going to use that power to get what it wants from those users and in doing so it can push them into doing all sorts of harmful of unpleasant things. So in general I think you are going to have less environmental costs with free software but its an indirect result,” he said.

But Stallman did admit that the FSF has cooperated with environmental groups in the past to campaign against the impact of proprietary products. “It is a fact that Microsoft in particular, uses the power it has got to make people buy more hardware and junk their old hardware and this is why the US Green Party joined with the Free Software Foundation to condemn Windows Vista,” he said.

In an effort to win-over his Hungarian audience, Stallman kicked off his speech by establishing his definition of free software in the local language. “I would like to remind the translators that when I say “Free” it means “Szabad”. And when I mean “Ingyen” I will say “Gratis”,” he said.

Stallman, a folk dancing enthusiast, also went onto sing his Free Software Song which is based on the tune from a Bulgarian folk tune.

Although Stallman appears not be motivated by money and is vehemently opposed to what he sees as the profiteering from community developed software perpetrated by some open source organisations he held an auction at the end of his talk for a copy of his autobiography which eventually sold for 40,000 Forints (£115).

Stallman held another sale of other merchandise such as FSF badges at the end of the event which was sponsored by local companies such as open source consultancy ULX.

Read our full question and answer session with Richard Stallman

Andrew Donoghue

View Comments

  • Saving money (i.e. with free software) is the one and only point for the companies who are making that switch

  • @DoppelFrog, you seem to have missed the point. Try reading the article once again. And avoid ad hominem attacks.

  • Compare Openoffice with Microsoft Office. Last time I checked MS Office distribution requires a DVD as its in excess of 700MB, OpenOffice is about 130MB. If you find a bug in MS Office how long does it take to be fixed - a new version of MS Office for which you again pay out ££££'s. A bug in OpenOffice, fixed in a matter of months, you can then download the fixed software for nothing!

  • "Free software is under the control of its users. Proprietary software puts the users under the control of the developer."

    I must not be understanding this point as it seems to me that in practical terms free software *users* are just as dependent on free software developers. Only when users are both users and developers are they somewhat liberated. However, who has time to modify and maintain their own 25M lines of free software?

    I'd like to understand why the above statement might be true. Help me please.

  • Andrew - a take on this could be that a user is empowered to make changes to the software via the user community.

    Frequently a bug is experienced by many people - when many people discuss the bug (on fora for example) it is more likely to be fixed in a timely fashion than if it is submitted to a company who are most likely working on the next version of the software and have little interest (they have the cash already) in a bug in code that may be rewritten in the next version.

  • Another way to look at it is that you, as the user (single user, or small/big company), can hire a developer to fix or modify the software for you.

    This is usually not possible with proprietary software, where instead you have to appeal to the original developer to have them fix or modify it for you.

Recent Posts

UK CMA Seeks Feedback On Microsoft, Amazon AI Partnerships

British regulator invites feedback on major partnerships Microsoft and Amazon have struck with smaller AI…

2 hours ago

Google Fires More Staff Over Israel Protest

Another 20 staff have been fired by Google over Israel protest and their “completely unacceptable…

3 hours ago

Australian PM Hits Out At Elon Musk Over Knife Attack Video

Censorship row brewing down under, after the Australian Prime Minister calls Elon Musk an 'arrogant…

4 hours ago

US SEC Seeks $5.3 Billion Fine From Terra’s Do Kwon

Financial regulator asks New York judge to impose $5.3 billion in fines against Terraform Labs…

5 hours ago

Microsoft Launches Smallest AI Model, Phi-3-mini

Lightweight artificial intelligence model launched this week by Microsoft, offering more cost-effective option for Azure…

8 hours ago

US Senate Passes TikTok Ban Or Divestment Bill

ByteDance protest falls on deaf ears, as Senate passes TikTok ban or divest bill, with…

10 hours ago