The concept of free software has been around for decades. I'm not talking about the illegal pirating of copyrighted software. Instead, free software advocates want software to simply be available for free, along with the source code for that software. This allows other programmers to make contributions to the code and pass it on, again for free.

    While free distribution is a great marketing tool (think about all those samples you get in the mail), what does it say about the product itself? Frankly, it says that the product (or the effort that went into making the product) has no value. Is that what you software engineers out there want?

    The software industry is unusual because it incurs high development costs, but has almost no production costs. It has survived and thrives today—even if the business model does drive accountants crazy—by pricing the product to cover the development and maintenance cost in addition to some margin to provide a bit of profit for the company.

    If, however, you gave away all software, how would you pay the creators of that software? You destroy the subtle motives that only cash can bring—motives such as food on the table, a warm place to sleep, and so forth. What you're left with is a bunch of amateur coders who need to have real jobs to make ends meet. Are these the type of people you want developing the software products your business depends on?

    This isn't to say that some, if not a fair majority, of the current "free" software out there isn't good. In fact, some is downright great. But most of this software was created by students and folks in academia. The reason these folks are in college studying software engineering is to get lucrative jobs out in the software industry.

    Ironically, these folks are sowing the seeds of their own destruction. If they actually succeed in making software free, no one will be willing to employ them to create a product with no value. Soon, students will stop studying software development in college since there won't be a way to make a career out of it. All those young, eager students will have to turn to something less respectable, like studying law.

    Richard Stallman, creator of the Free Software Foundation (FSF), has promoted free software for years, and is the mind behind many of the GNU software tools. The FSF has even created a legal tool they call "copyleft" to protect the freedom of their software. A product that is copylefted is copyrighted, but can be modified by anyone as long as they don't charge for their contributions. The source code for the new changes must be made available for others to see and learn from.

    The FSF position is that software is more akin to speech than a physical product to be sold. That's a noble concept… for the nineteenth century. In fact, if you take Stallman's position to the logical conclusion, all intellectual property—from patents, to books, to music and art—should be free. If intellectual property isn't property, then just what is property? Why not just give away cars, houses, and everything else?

    With all the talk about freely shareable source and not charging for software, it's ironic that Stallman, the godfather of open-source, free software, and a recipient of a MacArthur "genius" grant for his work in this area, is starting to complain about Linux, the most visible free software available today. Stallman has reportedly said that since Linux uses many GNU tools, it should be called "GNU-Linux." I'm sure Richard is correct, but it brings up an interesting dilemma.

    If software is free, why does it matter who takes credit for it? After all, aren't we all just one big, happy family contributing to a great, shared codebase for all of humankind? Why should it matter that someone uses some code from someone else? The way I see it, "credit," better known as fame, is just another method of payment. If the big kahuna of the FSF wants free software, he shouldn't demand the payment of fame for its use.

    Or is it the money that's the problem? Some folks are just plain anticapitalist. I'm not saying that Stallman is anticapitalist, I'm saying the whole free software movement is. But understand my distinction. Giving away software is a great marketing tool. It's hard to compete if your competition is free. That's something that a number of companies have discovered. Now it's Microsoft's turn with Windows NT versus Linux. Still, if all software was free, none of us would have a job.

    In short, I'm not against software being given away. I just want the folks who write that software to be paid—and paid handsomely—for writing it. That is the proper model for the industry. So the next time you think about using some free software, consider its cost to the software industry.

The opinions expressed herein are those of Douglas Boling and should not be construed as the opinions of Microsoft Corporation.