Earlier this summer, I wrote a blog post on taking a principled
position on software freedom where I argued that advocates of
free/libre and open source software (FLOSS) should take a principled
position because the pragmatic benefits associated with open source ---
"better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility [and] lower cost"
in OSI's words --- are simply not always present. More often than
not, FLOSS projects fail. When they survive, they are often not as good
as their proprietary competitors.
Over the last year, I've been back at MIT taking classes, reading
extensively, and otherwise learning how to act like a social scientist.
My research goals, which I'm now beginning to focus on, are to help
build a stronger understanding of the social dynamics in free software
and free culture communities.
With a slightly skeptical view toward my involvement with groups like
the FSF and my work in the FLOSS community, at least one academic
tried to suggest that taking a principled position in favor of software
freedom might compromise the positivist social science research program
in which I am engaged. "An advocate is too biased," they said. After
many months of thinking seriously about this warning, I believe that
this criticism can be addressed.
After all, a principled position in favor of software freedom is a
statement of how things should be, not a description of how they are.
OSI will argue that open source leads to inherently better software.
This statement, of course, is one that can be empirically tested and, in
fact, there seems to be plenty of evidence that it is often wrong. On
the other hand, the FSF's position that software should be free is
ethical in nature. One can disagree with it, just like one can disagree
with any other ethical position, but it can not be proved either right
or wrong --- only convincing or unconvincing, logical or illogical in
the context a certain set of other values that others might or might not
share.
Research has shown that the vast majority of FLOSS projects fizzle. A
advocate who argues that FLOSS is inherently better is left trying to
explain this fact and make excuses. As a result, OSI-style beliefs can
certainly be a source of problematic bias in a social scientist.
However, a person who believes that software should be free is welcome
to recognize that it both fails and succeeds and to ask why. A principled
idealist can argue in favor of behaviors that may be disruptive,
difficult, or inefficient. Indeed, Stallman has never suggested that
free software will be easier or better. Indeed, he routinely asks people
to sacrifice their convenience for freedom.
My goal, as a social scientist, is to understand why some FLOSS and free
culture projects succeed and why many fail. I never take FLOSS's success
for granted and, in fact, believe that proprietary software may often
leads to better software in OSI's terms. Unlike an advocate who tows the
OSI line, embracing evidence of the effectiveness of proprietary
software is no way in conflict with my belief that software should be
free. In fact, my desire to see software freedom grow becomes the driving
force between trying to understand FLOSS's shortcomings!
I am no more biased --- which is not to say completely unbiased --- than
the person who both thinks that crime is wrong and who wants to study
criminal behavior. In an analogous sense, starting out with the belief
that all people are naturally law-abiding may be a problem in a way
that beginning with the belief that people should be law-abiding is
not. Starting from the fomer assumption, one has to explain away
evidence to the contrary. Starting from the latter assumption, one can
build an understanding of what drives people to obey or violate laws
which, in turn, can help build a stronger society.
To me, the question is not why FLOSS will succeed. Indeed, I believe its
success is an empirical matter that remains very much up in the air. For
me, the question is how it might. Embracing a principled position lets
us face the facts and puts advocates and practitioners in a position to
devise laws, social structures, and technologies to insure that it does.
