If software is freely shared, then we can easily use and learn from it. This is something that has been proven true in the last decade with the Free Software movement. However, what is the incentive for creating new software, if there is no capital gain? Moglen believes that “it's an emergent property of ... human minds that they do create.” In other words, the incentive for development and advancement of software is the human desire to create. In the software industry Open Source Software (OSS) is a testament to this claim. OSS codes are easily accessible and distributable. There are no owners, instead, codes belong to the common for everyone to use. In the Linux community, users collaborate by putting time and effort in developing better software. From developing one of the most robust kernels to the innovative desktop management systems, the Linux community has accomplished all of this without the incentive of money . It would seem that the incentive here, just a Moglen claimed, is for creating.
Proprietary software assumes that software is intellectual property, entitling developers to control and profit from it. By giving authors the ability to control and manage what is done with their software, they are guaranteed some form of compensation for their work. This, in turn, appeals to other authors who wish to make a profit, promoting the constant development of new software. A good example of this incentive is Oracle's databases (RDBMS). Oracle has dominated the database software industry for over twenty years and has made significant advancements in database technology . Because Oracle RDBMS is proprietary or “close source” software (CSS), they maintain a dominant position in the market. In order to gain a piece of that market, Microsoft produced SQL Server, a cheaper alternative. In this example we saw that Oracle's CSS nature allowed for great profit and compelled Microsoft to produce, which exemplifies the proprietary software incentive.
Both free and proprietary software incentives hold true, meaning that both might be right. You might ask yourself, if both are right how can they coexist? They have completely different views. I believe the answer is slowly being developed out in the software industry today.
In the last decade traditionally proprietary software companies, such as Oracle and Microsoft , have started to invest and even adopt some of the free software ideology. This is because most have come to realize the potential behind OSS. OSS has become a medium for software and computer hardware to advance into the future. By having an open environment where users can test and collaborate, software companies can easily find flaws, fix, and perfect new software. The result is more robust, secure, and compatible software that can be sold as premium versions. Proprietary software companies manage to sell the products, despite the OSS alternative, by offering stable and supported software with features not included in their OSS version. Other companies are combining OSS with CSS to create new software. Some examples of these approaches can be found in Oracle technologies , Sun Microsystems Solaris , Novell SUSE Enterprise , and Mac OS X .
In regards to free and proprietary software, there are some of us that fall exclusively on one of the ends, but for others is the middle. This is something that happens quite frequently with software, and, in a sense, advances software technology. For example, someone creates this great software that initially is free (also known as freeware). By distributing it for free it gets real world exposure, thus making it more marketable (intentionally or unintentionally). If it is successful some company eventually decides to buy it. The author then chooses to sell the software, waiving all rights to the company . The company then makes enhancements and redistributes it to consumers. I believe something similar is happening with OSS and CSS, except at a more collaborative level. For example, assume new OSS is developed. If it is a successful piece of software, then proprietary companies get interested. Unlike freeware, the OSS codes are widely available so there is no need to buy it. The company can then use or learn from it, make some enhancements, and redistribute it to consumers. If OSS developers wish to replicate or enhance the CSS version, they can easily do so, since the original base codes are open source. This process can keep repeating itself, constantly advancing the software. Here, software uses all the advantages of OSS and CSS, preserving the openness and free sharing aspect, while also providing means to profit if desired. This is truly revolutionary, something that we can refer to as Free Proprietary Software.
Humans are known for their creative nature, but at the same time we like to be compensated for our work. That is why I believe that it is only natural that we have both free and proprietary software. I believe that the future of software lies between both OSS and CSS. When both are combined, we can get the most productivity. This is something that is naturally beginning to happening in the software industry. Some extremist may not be able to see it, but Free Proprietary Software is doing what intellectual property was intended to do, promote the advancement of science. Except that it is doing it at a much larger and faster scale. However, because of the legality of the two, we need to develop new hybrid licenses that can provide some form of openness while still protecting intellectual property. In doing so, we leave the doors open for both worlds to develop, collaborate, and, most importantly, coexist.
-Jose Manuel Diaz
Bibliography
Shiffrin, S. “Intellectual Property”. http://cdn.law.ucla.edu/SiteCollectionDocuments/faculty/shiffrin-intellectual%20property.pdf
Moglen, E. (2003) Freeing the Mind: Free Software and Death of Proprietary Culture. http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/maine-speech.html
