To Whom Is Free Software Relevant?
r0ml writes,
Availability of the source code is probably only relevant to computer programmers. After all, if you aren’t a programmer, what would you do with source code? In which case, a freely copyable binary would be equivalent to freely copyable source code. The ability to do something with the source code (i.e. to create a derivative work), is something only a programmer could do. Strikes me as the definition of a programmer. Yes, I know that benefits might accrue to the non-programmer indirectly, but conceding that there are no direct benefits to most people doesn’t seem like a great debating point.
We know that only 2.4% of the population are employed in “computer and mathematical occupations”. Which would seem to put an upper bound on the number of people to whom Free and Open Source Software would be relevant. And any movement which can only possibly be relevant to such a small fraction of the population is going to have difficulty garnering widespread support, or even interest.
While I am interested in the topic he goes on to discuss later, whether or not universal programming literacy ought to be a goal of our society, I think these first paragraphs go too far.
Availability of source code is extremely relevant to the non-programmer. The most important example of why is vendor lock-in, a serious problem with proprietary software, and nearly impossible with free software.
If I have to use a piece of software, either to operate this blog or to run part of my business, and I have a choice between a proprietary program (or even a no-cost binary provided without source) where any problems I have can only be solved by the software’s author, who is the only person with source code access, versus a piece of free software where I have access to the source code, and even though not a programmer myself, where I can hire any competent programmer to solve my problems with the software for me, I would, other things being equal, always choose the latter.
Free software creates a competitive market in software services because the code is available for anyone to examine and modify. That means even if I myself can’t modify it to any useful effect, I can at least enter a competitive marketplace of those who can. With proprietary software if I want my problem solved, and if I’m not an important enough customer I may even be ignored. If they are willing to help me, then the proprietary software owner can charge monopoly prices for the fix I want.
This reason alone makes free software extremely relevant to the non-programmer. It removes the proposed upper-bound on to whom free software is relevant, and gives a good reason why free software is having no problem garnering widespread support and interest. I don’t expect that I have to explain this to r0ml, but as I said, those two paragraphs seemed to overstate the situation.
This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.