What is freeware?
Many people have different definitions of freeware, but the one from the FreewareArena site is "Simply put, freely available software that demands no fees, is not a trial, it also does not have all of it's functions 'crippled', is not a demo, nor does it contain any adware, spyware or any intrusive malware of any type." I personally love this definition and agree that this is what freeware should be, but isn't a crippled program better than no program at all? Perhaps, but if an programmer is so worried about helping people by giving them software for free, why would he specifically remove functionality that he decided should be in his program to begin with? What about adware? I once had a free dial-up internet service provider that was able to provide its service through the use of ads (at least until the point it went bankrupt). I would much rather have a few advertisements displayed on my screen rather than pay $20 a month. But it wasn't completely free, it cost me bandwidth, space on my screen, and would disconnect me if I had been online for too long. This is the reason that sites like FreewareArena try to create a definition of freeware, so that everyone will agree that freeware is truly and totally free in both monetary and non-monetary terms.
What about Open Source?
Open source freeware has some specific advantages over closed source freeware. If the program author loses interest or even dies, the program can live on through the work of others. If the author decides to migrate to a different operating system, for example the new Windows Vista, the project could branch and development could continue on the older operating systems as well. The program could also be ported over to a different operating system such as Linux. So why aren't more Windows programs released as open source freeware? I suspect that some Windows programmers do not believe that they are good programmers and do not want other people to look at their code. I say who cares what someone else thinks about your code? Any insults you receive will be outweighed by any thanks from users who benefit from your program. Another reason could be that the author does not wish to lose control over the direction of their project. This is also completely unfounded as you can retain complete control of your program. Others will be free to branch off of your work to go in a different direction if they disagree with the work that you are doing, but this just means that users will be more likely to have a program that will be able to fulfill their needs. I would personally like to see more freeware programs released as open source, and I ask all programmers to please consider it.
The Hidden Costs of Freeware
Does freeware hurt programmers? Surely IZArc and similar freeware compression programs have eaten into the profits of WinZip, but does this mean that freeware will put programmers out of a job? I don't believe so. In fact, I believe that freeware is a natural process that occurs when people devalue a task. A compression program has no real benefit to the user, it just saves disk space and bandwidth. The reason that most computer users ever realize that they need a compression program is when they try to open something that has been compressed and it doesn't open. Windows XP acknowledged this by building in support for zip files, and so WinZip is already being pushed out by the biggest software corporation of all, Microsoft. While some may argue that this incorporation of programs into operating systems is bad, I don't believe that anyone can argue that it is a powerful force. If you want an example, just look at Windows 95. While it still has almost all of the features of a modern operating system (multitasking, GUI, APIs, etc), it isn't used very much any more. Most people don't know or want to about compression, firewalls, disk fragmenters, or graphical file managers, and yet all of these programs used to cost money before their incorporation into the desktop. While I am glad we do not have to pay for these utilities any more, is freeware helping to fuel the Microsoft's monopoly? Which brings me to...
Linux and Free Software
Linux is a kernel (the main core of an operating system) that started as the hobby of Linus Torvalds in 1991. He released the source code on the internet and was amazed at how many people were looking for a program like the one he was working on. Combined with the GNU tools, it provides a total operating system that is in most ways better or equal to Microsoft Windows. While Linux is usually free, some companies such as RedHat sell it. Other distributions include Sun's Java, Macromedia's Flash Player, Skype, and other programs that are monetarily free but not free as in open source. Many in the Linux community think this is a bad idea, but why? What if Sun suddenly changed the way that Java worked so that old Java programs no longer worked? What if Macromedia suddenly started charging for its Flash Player? If you base a free system on non free ideas and programs, does it have the ability to stay free? No matter how many freeware programs you install on Windows, you still have to pay for Windows itself. Microsoft has expressed interest in the Trusted Computing Platform Alliance, which will stop all software without a license from running on your computer. This could end freeware as we know it by forcing programmers to pay large fees in order to have their programs licensed. This could never happen to an operating system such as Debian, which is committed to remaining 100% free, runs on many different processors, and has three other kernels besides the Linux kernel. Debian will survive if its creator dies, if Intel, AMD, and every other x86 processor maker goes out of business, or if Linux gets sued into oblivion by Microsoft (not that Microsoft could really do that). Now that is what I call a back up plan!
Conclusion
So again I ask, how free is free? Is a program free if it contains ads? Is it free if you cannot use it at work? Is it free if you cannot modify it or redistribute it? Is it free if it relies on non-free software? What if there is no guarantee that it will remain free? I find that free is a very hard term to define because free is more of a path than a specific term or point. Once you begin using freeware, you may find yourself addicted to it. You may go in search of freeware to replace every piece of commercial software on your computer, and you may even go so far as to replace Windows with Linux. But why stop there? I believe that most information should be available to everyone for free. I believe that people should help those in need freely, without the desire to be rewarded. I believe that I should be free to choose an alternative and not be locked into any one system, program, or company. Join me in my fight for freedom. Welcome to the Freeware Revolution.
Additional Reading: