A critical analysis of how Richard Stallman's idealistic vision created the perfect conditions for free labor acquisition
The Great Misunderstanding
For 40 years, the software community has misunderstood Richard Stallman's vision. Most people think he wanted all software to be free (as in price). He didn't.
Stallman explicitly stated in 2008: "It is blocking the user's freedom that I believe is a crime, not the issue of charging for software." The GNU website literally has a page titled "Selling Free Software is OK!"
What Stallman actually wanted was simple: when you buy software, you should get the source code. Think of it like buying a radio and getting the electrical schematic. You paid for it, you should be able to understand and modify your property.
The Four Freedoms: Two Reasonable, Two Delusional
Stallman's famous four freedoms were:
- Freedom to run the program
- Freedom to study and change the program
- Freedom to redistribute exact copies
- Freedom to distribute modified versions
Freedoms 0-1 make perfect sense. They're about user autonomy - "I bought this software, let me understand and modify MY copy."
Freedoms 2-3 are economically delusional. Here's why.
The Fatal Flaw: Source Code ≠ Schematic
Stallman treated software like physical goods, but there's a crucial difference:
Physical goods:
- Schematic = blueprint/recipe
- You still need: materials, manufacturing, assembly, testing
- Sharing the schematic ≠ free products for everyone
Software:
- Source code = recipe + ingredients + finished product + manufacturing facility
- Having source code = infinite perfect copies instantly
- Sharing source code = everyone gets the product for free
The radio analogy breaks down because unlike physical goods where blueprints ≠ products, in software the "schematic" IS the complete manufacturing facility.
The Economic Paradox
Here's the fundamental problem with freedoms 2-3:
If you're skilled enough to WANT the NextJS source code for modification, you're skilled enough to NOT NEED Vercel's services.
If Google Drive was fully open source, the people demanding source code would self-host it, not pay Google.
The target audience for source code (advanced developers) and the target audience for paid services (people who don't want to deal with source code) are mutually exclusive groups.
Stallman wanted companies to give source code to the exact people who would become their competitors, not their customers.
How Corporations Turned Idealism Into Exploitation
When freedoms 2-3 made traditional software sales impossible, corporations didn't fight the philosophy - they embraced it and weaponized it:
Old model: Build software → Sell software → Profit
New model: Get community to build software → Monetize services/hosting/enterprise features → Profit
The reframe was genius:
- Before: "We sell you completed software"
- After: "We all build software together as a community!"
- Reality: "You build software, we monetize it"
The "Open Core" Admission
Every successful "open source" company proves our point by keeping valuable features proprietary:
- Docker: Open runtime, proprietary enterprise features
- GitLab: Open git hosting, proprietary CI/CD/security
- Elastic: Open search (until AWS competition), proprietary monitoring
The pattern is clear: Open source the commodity parts (get free labor), monetize the valuable parts (maintain profit).
This isn't validation of open source economics - it's admission that pure open source doesn't work.
Where Open Source Actually Makes Sense
The solution isn't to abandon open source entirely, but to recognize where it works vs where it doesn't:
SHOULD be open source:
- File systems (ext4, NTFS)
- File formats (JSON, PNG, PDF)
- Network protocols (HTTP, TCP/IP)
- Basic libraries (compression, cryptography)
- Foundation-level building blocks
SHOULDN'T be open source (if you want to monetize):
- Complete applications (Elasticsearch, Slack)
- End-user platforms (Google Drive, Office)
- Finished products that compete with services
The Real Target Markets
The common defense is: "We target enterprises who want transparency but don't want operational headaches."
But this ignores reality:
- Netflix, Google, Amazon: Have thousands of engineers, CAN self-host, DO build custom solutions
- Small startups: Can't afford enterprise features anyway
- Medium companies: Maybe pay for convenience, but limited market
The enterprises with real money are the ones with teams capable of evaluating and self-hosting alternatives.
The Modern Contradiction
Today's "open source" movement has become exactly what Stallman opposed:
Stallman wanted: User control over purchased software
Modern reality: Developers working for free while corporations extract value
Stallman wanted: Freedom from vendor lock-in
Modern reality: Complex dependency chains creating new forms of lock-in
Stallman wanted: Individual autonomy
Modern reality: "Community-driven development" (aka free labor)
The Question No One Asks
Here's the challenge we should pose to Stallman:
"If someone gave you the complete source code to Microsoft Office tomorrow, would you still pay Microsoft for an Office 365 subscription?"
The honest answer reveals the economic impossibility of his vision for complete applications.
Conclusion: The Uncomfortable Truth
Stallman's philosophy works beautifully for foundations and libraries - the building blocks that everyone needs. But for complete applications, freedoms 2-3 create an impossible economic situation where the people who want your source code are the least likely to pay for your service.
The modern "open source" industry's reliance on proprietary enterprise features isn't a bug - it's the only way to make the economics work.
Perhaps it's time to admit that Stallman was right about user freedom, wrong about redistribution economics, and that 40 years of trying to make complete application open source profitable has mostly just created elaborate free labor acquisition schemes.
The emperor has no clothes, and the clothes are being sewn for free by developers who think they're changing the world.
What do you think? Are we ready to have an honest conversation about open source economics, or will the cognitive dissonance continue?
Tags: #opensource #economics #stallman #freesoftware #business #controversial
Top comments (0)