• the question of who owns software should be analyzed through the lens of the prosperity and freedom of the public in general
  • see who is helped and who is hurt byy recognizing owners of software, why, and how much

how owners justify their power

those who benefit from programs being property offer two arguments:

1. the emotional argument
   • feeling of attachment of the programmer to its work
   • counterargument: this si not inevitable, programmers overlook this all the time when working for corporations
2. the economic argument
   • software being property incentivizes programmers to work by establishing a system where they can get rich by selling their programs
   • counterargument:
     • there’s an implicit assumption at place: assuming there are only two possible scenarios, proprietary software vs. no software
     • the linkage between software development and the existence of an owner who controls the software’s use is not inherent

the argument against having owners

should development of software be linked with having owners to restrict the use of it?

→ in order to decide this, we have to judge the effect on society of each of those two activities independently: the effect of developing the software, and the effect of restricting its use

example: toll booths

the harm done by obstructing software

three levels of material harm come from this obstruction:

1. fewer people use the program
   • when assigning an owner to the program, each user may choose to pay or may forego the use of it
     • when they choose to pay this is a zero-sum transfer of wealth between two parties
     • each time they choose to forego the use of the program this harms the person without benefiting anyone
   • a copy of a program has nearly zero material cost → zero price in a free market → imposing a price on something that would be free otherwise is wild
   • central production of copies is inefficient
   • associated psychosocial harm to social cohesion
     • signing a typical software license agreement means betraying your neighbor: “i promise to deprive my neighbor of this program so that I can have a copy for myself”
     • public spirit suffers
2. none of the users can adapt or fix the program
   • source code is useful (at least potentially) to every user of a program
   • useless rework that comes from not being able to adapt programs to our needs
     • example: MIT AI Lab and Xerox graphics printer
   • associated psychosocial harm to the spirit of self-reliance
     • it is demoralizing to live in a house that you cannot rearrange to suit your needs
3. other developers cannot learn from the program, or base new work on it
   • the existence of owners of the programs
     • prevents the evolution of software development
     • obstructs education
   • associated psychosocial harm to the spirit of cooperation

now that we know that the ownership of a program has widespread negative effects, it follows that society shouldn’t have owners for programs