Skilled programmers with access to the source code can make modifications and additions to any program. Obviously, this is not something that the average computer user will be able to do.
But it provides a great deal of power to the expert. I'm writing this editorial using Word Perfect and Windows, so when I encounter a bug I have no choice but to grin and bear it. It would be impossible for me to rewrite both programs from scratch, so I have little recourse but to call the company, whine, and pray that it will be fixed in the next release.
Control over WordPerfect and Windows is delegated to small groups of programmers in Orem, Utah, and Redmond, Washington, respectively. They may or may not fix my problem, depending on everything from whim to budget constraints.
But if the source code is available, computer users can either fix bugs themselves, or hire other programmers. Corrections could then be incorporated into the program's next release. EMACS has already had eighteen major releases; Stallman has played an increasingly minor role in each. Software users often become software writers as they adapt free programs to their needs.
Instead of putting a copyright on his software, Stallman and his Free Software Foundation put a "copyleft" on it, poking fun at the laws they hate. Software with a copyleft can be modified by users, and can be distributed to anyone. Any new program that uses free source code is automatically free as well.
One of the major problems with free software is the "free" part. Things like eating become difficult when you are devoting your life to writing software and giving your work away. Stallman asserts that any good programmer can work one year for greedy capitalists and earn enough money to live the next two writing free software. Of course, the programmer might have to live like Stallman, who resided in his office for several years.
An author of good free software can make money by training users, and by adding features for specific users. Stallman made so much money in this fashion that he arbitrarily capped his income at that of the average American family. Thanks to a "genius grant" from the MacArthur Foundation, he no longer accepts any money at all for his programming.
His results, excellent software at an excellent price, speak for themselves. Looking at commercial software, it seems foolish for Lotus, Microsoft, and WordPerfect to continually reinvent the same wheel. And couldn't the fortunes spent on marketing, advertising, and pretty boxes go elsewhere?
For all the talk about the advent of the information age, it is remarkable how anchored we are to the past. If we were to start again from scratch, we might be able to implement a much better system. The National Science Foundation funds basic research in the sciences; a National Software Foundation could fund basic programming.
A few hundred programmers working in the interest of society--instead of the interest of big business--could provide a foundation of source code, available to all, that would eliminate much of the wasted effort inherent in software development today.
Vice President Al Gore '69 is a strong proponent of information highways. No one but Richard Stallman seems to worry about the vehicles that will travel them. It would be impossible for me to build my own car from scratch, but I can certainly pick out options in the showroom. In the same way, GNU and EMACS can be customized and extended to my individual needs in a way that Windows or System 7 can never be.
But only because it is "free."
Why shouldn't we be able to share our programs with our neighbors when it does no harm to us?