Is Open Source Un-American?
Pages: 1, 2, 3
Breaking through the marketing firewall
There was some good discussion of whether or not it was a good idea to engage with Microsoft at all. Kevin McCormick wrote:
|
This is one of the most infuriating articles you have ever written. Your books are successful because they set a higher standard than the normal "throw it together" crap that was the norm for the computer book publishers. (I have 6 or more of them) However, your "diplomacy" appears as nothing more than a pandering to MS for some kind of publishers inside track. As a consumer victim of the Microsoft Money and Manipulation Machine, I really object to these unholy alliances of the moguls. You have no understanding of corporate feudalism and MS' mastery of the concept and you will be used as a complete fool. You should keep your nose out of politics. Thank you, and better luck next time. |
I replied:
I'm sorry you feel that way. I certainly have some worry about being used to provide "cover" for Microsoft. But at the same time, I think that it's worth the risk. This is certainly NOT "pandering to Microsoft for some kind of publisher's inside track." We already have all of the inside track we need with any technology provider -- and it's because of that inside track that I am able to see both sides of a complex issue. I believe deeply that people ought to talk to one another and get their real disagreements out on the table. If all we do on both sides is set up straw men that we then conveniently demolish for the edification of our supporters, we'll never get anywhere.
I think it's possible to move the debate away from one of mutual flaming that goes nowhere ("Allchin says open source is un-American" ... "Politics is the last refuge of the scoundrel") to a substantial conversation that illuminates the real points of difference and allows us to make better decisions. There are important issues to be raised about the choice of license for publicly-funded software. I'm not coming down on one side or the other. (Well, I guess I am -- I like publicly funded software to be as free as possible.) And I'd really prefer that that be the debate, rather than one that simply reinforces each side's prejudices about the other. (Microsoft people can be as dismissive of the motives and thoughtfulness of open source people as open source people are of Microsoft. I know people on both sides of the fence, and wish they'd start talking instead of just sniping.)
You said I should keep my nose out of politics. Maybe you're right. But it's said that "politics is the art of the possible." I try to find the right balance between the stick and the carrot in getting people to go where I think they need to go. If all you have is a stick, it had better be a very big one.
This issue of "appeasement" was raised on a private email list of a number of well-known free software leaders who were discussing possible responses to Allchin's comments. I had let folks know that I intended to try to set up a meeting with Jim Allchin. Bruce Perens had responded by saying "Well, try not to make a Neville Chamberlain of yourself." Someone else then said that was a rather insulting statement, and suggested that Bruce apologize. Here's the response I wrote then, and that I stand by now even more after having met Jim:
No offense was taken. It's something I worry about myself. I do tend to believe that everyone is honest and means well in his heart of hearts even if experience teaches otherwise, and there is a possibility as a result of being taken advantage of by someone who is cynical.
Still, I think it's worth the risk not just to try to make Microsoft look bad, but to give them some avenues to back down. Below the posturing and rhetoric, I believe that there is a lot more commonality between developers on the Microsoft and open source sides of the fence than would often be believed. As my friend Rael Dornfest notes, we need to "punch a hole in the marketing firewalls" that keep developers from understanding each other.
An aside: I'm actually going to be on a panel with Cass Sunstein at Stanford on March 20. It's in Room 190 at the Stanford Law School, at 5 pm. See their site for details. Larry Lessig asked me to be on this panel, and sent me Sunstein's book so I could be prepared for it, and by perfect coincidence, it arrived just as I was leaving on my trip up to Microsoft.
But this approach only works if both sides are in fact operating in good faith, and it's certainly true that MS doesn't have a good track record there. But I also know a number of people who know Allchin and think highly of him. I also see lots of signs that there is a lot of ferment inside MS on the open source issue, rather than a united front in which everyone is unalterably opposed. There is an opportunity for movement on their part.
BTW, I'm just reading a very interesting book, Republic.com, by University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein. He makes the point that when people self-select and talk only to people who agree with them, their beliefs tend to become increasingly polarized. He argues convincingly (at least to my mind) for the need for people who disagree to engage with each other.
So I asked for this meeting hoping for the best, but fearing for the worst. I'll do my best not to be taken advantage of by way of giving cover to these guys. But if I can spark some real dialogue about the deeply held beliefs on each side, I hope that some good might result.
Kevin replied:
|
I appreciate your response. I agree that licensing of government sponsored software is an important issue, which should be thought out carefully. There is potentially a great untapped benefit to be had, as the internet amply demonstrates. There is also a potential for severe limitation of future options, as shown in the monopoly ridden broadcasting and telecommunications industries. The age old practice of turning the public good to selective private advantage no doubt applies to software projects as well. Thus, in my opinion, the GPL offers a very viable framework for licensing of government sponsored software, and Mr. Allchin's argument (as restated) represents the fallacy of a timid defense of the public good. Lastly, I also appreciate your quote: ". . . when people self-select and talk only to people who agree with them, their beliefs tend to become increasingly polarized." Different points of view are both annoying and refreshing, but we (most of us :) have more in common than we realize. |
Kevin's comment "the age old practice of turning the public good to selective private advantage no doubt applies to software projects as well" rang some bells. There's a fascinating interview with Noam Chomsky on this very subject at Corporate Watch. I got this pointer from Toby Watson (toby@ridgmount.demon.co.uk)in the UK, who wrote:
|
Hi, Ever seen this? http://www.corpwatch.org/trac/feature/microsoft/chomsky.html You know I stumbled across a piece of software developed at London's National Gallery called vips/ip . Publically funded it is now public under the GPL. As an 'un-American' I'm perfectly happy with the idea that GPL's existance actually causes *pressure* against Microsoft's inclination to "embrace and extend" public artifacts, cf Kerberos. I thought it was interesting with reference Jim Allchin's comments to Tim on paying taxes. When MS pays its taxes is that the same as when you pay yours? |
Chip Thomas (thoca@directlink.net) wrote:
|
I appreciate you taking the time to get to the bottom of this conflict. The views you voiced allowed the general public (and me) to understand what Allchin was really trying to say. (Something that the reporters were unable to explain.) I think I fall closer to the RMS side of the spectrum on this issue. However, the understanding you have provided should allow everyone to discuss this topic productively without reducing their comments to a flame war. Thanks, Chip Thomas |
Thanks for the support. I agree that RMS might well be right. I'd just like to have the debate be about the issues, not about the misrepresentations on either side.
Josh Allen wrote:
|
Tim, that was really cool -- you make it clear that you disagree, but you do so without misrepresenting what was said. Very impressive given the current mood of the industry, thanks. |
(Josh had previously written a very interesting response to Allchin's comments from the point of view of a Microsoft developer. His passionate defense of Allchin's statements and feeling of being misunderstood by the open source community was part of what sparked my attempt to play peacemaker.)
A wolf in sheep's clothing
There were also a lot of people who weren't having any, and don't trust Microsoft no matter what they say. For example:
Jurgen Defurne from Philips wrote:
|
I think that what the FSF/Open Source movement should do, is make an end to doubletalk and fuzzy speak. M$ has declared war, and we should be prepared to do guerilla on them. People of the FSF/Open Source movement want to be polite, and that is a good thing, because we should not spread FUD and half truth's, but it is also not our task (and I do not think that of you either) to find excuses for what M$ employees possibly could have meant. We have to take their words literally and act accordingly, so that next time they want to say something, they will think twice about what they say. |
Tony Grant wrote:
Excuse me but since when has GNU software been 100% US government funded? GNU software is also developed by american people who are not students or working for US governement funded companies. This one comment just goes to show how high handed Microsoft is with non americans. By reproducing this thought it shows how upper handed you are with non americans despite your pretended internationalist bent. Microsoft has been very much more efficient in strangling to death all or most of the European software industry. The only way to stop that from happening in the US is to go head to head with these people. This is War not intellectual debate. The battle on the European front is lost - don't side with the enemy or you will lose too. |
I replied: I don't think you read what I wrote carefully enough! No one is suggesting that existing GNU software is government funded. However, there are some specific government-funded projects and RFPs that are specifying the GPL as the preferred license. I referred to one of them in my original posting.
Nor is anyone suggesting that free software is developed only by Americans. I've frequently pointed out in my writing and speaking that the high level of international participation in free software and open source projects shows how open source is an outgrowth of the Internet's power to let people associate freely around common goals. For some of my thoughts on open source as an outgrowth of collaborative networking, see my keynote at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conference in April 2000 or my 1999 Linux World Tokyo keynote.
Tony's answer was a good one, and does say something about the environment in which we're all communicating:
|
I read carefully enough but I am on a short fuse at the moment. I really wanted to read this is total warfare - they will crush us if we don't react strongly enough to this. My reading was _supposed_ to reflect the transversal quick reading we all use on the Web. And the hot headed uncalculated kind of post that gave us the "GNU= un american" reading of the first comments. I agree with most of what you said. But you need to use your talent with words, and your high profile, to beat the FUD down more efficiently for those who don't take as much time as they should to read what you have been writing on these issues over the years. |
A poster who wished to remain anonymous wrote:
|
A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing First, the GPL in no way hinders Microsoft from using GPL'd software. They just can't turn it into proprietary software _and_ distribute/sell it. Second, they don't want the NSA to release a version of Linux. They do not want GPL'd software to be used or developed within the government. They want GPL'd software to be prohibited by law from use in the public space. Any other interpretation of their comments is naive IMHO. |
Tim O'Reilly is the founder and CEO of O'Reilly Media, Inc., thought by many to be the best computer book publisher in the world. In addition to Foo Camps ("Friends of O'Reilly" Camps, which gave rise to the "un-conference" movement), O'Reilly Media also hosts conferences on technology topics, including the Web 2.0 Summit, the Web 2.0 Expo, the O'Reilly Open Source Convention, the Gov 2.0 Summit, and the Gov 2.0 Expo. Tim's blog, the O'Reilly Radar, "watches the alpha geeks" to determine emerging technology trends, and serves as a platform for advocacy about issues of importance to the technical community. Tim's long-term vision for his company is to change the world by spreading the knowledge of innovators. In addition to O'Reilly Media, Tim is a founder of Safari Books Online, a pioneering subscription service for accessing books online, and O'Reilly AlphaTech Ventures, an early-stage venture firm.
Where do you come down on this issue? Is Microsoft justified in its
extensions to Kerberos, given its license terms? Or is Microsoft
defeating the spirit of the license? Try our new talkback feature and
join the debate.
Showing messages 1 through 8 of 8.
-
GPL and publically-funded research
2001-06-28 05:36:51 ctrl [Reply | View]
Jim Allchin says he does not think publically-funded research should be GPLed because that prohibits private corporations from using it.
GPL does not prevent Microsoft from using GPLed software. I.e. Microsoft can compile Windows with GCC if they wanted to, or they can use GCC to compile IE on Solaris, or they can add whatever extensions to GCC in order to compile IE for Solaris. What GPL does is prevent Microsoft from distributing and/or selling their proprietary version of GCC without giving the source code.
Please note that even if they give the source code they do not lose the Intellectual Property associated with that source code. No one can steal that code from them because it's still copyright-protected. What Microsoft would lose if they would use distribute/sell such modified software - including source code - is not Intellectual Property but profits.
But the public and the government are not in the business of making sure Microsoft's profits stay high. The public government are interested in public well-being. The real question is whether the GPL contributes more to the public well-being than some BSD-like license.
This depends on what you understand by "public". Microsoft argues that, as a taxpayer, a corporation is also a member of the "public". This is really the issue. Are corporations part of the "public" ? If they are, they are an extremely powerful part of the public. Taxation on corporate profits only accounts for 50% or less of the total public spending, but it probably accounts for 90% or more of political decisions. The problem is that bellwhether corporations like Microsoft can exercise a lot of pressure, whereas 100.000 random Americans - which probably contribute to public budgets more than Microsoft - can only exercise a fraction of that power. And Microsoft only represents the will of its few shareholders.
Maybe the power that corporations exercise on policy makers is anti-democratic. Because corporations make use of their profits - gained from public funding or consumers' spending money on their products - to impose the will of their shareholders on the public as a whole.
I myself am a European. Many Linux kernel developers, many contributors to GPL software (KDE started in Europe after all, Qt was developed in Europe etc) are European. Some come from other parts of the world. I believe this kind of worldwide effort is only possible because of the GPL. While many developers like to make "gifts", few like the idea that these "gifts" would be used for Microsoft's or any other company's profits. They like the GPL because the GPL ensures that nobody takes over their work and turns it into a cash cow without giving anything back - not to the developers themselves, but to the public as a whole.
-
Doublethink!
2001-03-14 20:40:56 synaesmedia [Reply | View]
Tim,
a lot of what you say is sensible and
worth thinking about
BUT
I've never read such specious doublethink as
your reply to Jeff Root. Let me paraphrase :
1) Yes, I agree the commercialization of
academic research is bad. We're on a
slippery slope.
2) [Apropos of nothing ...] and FSF
criticisms of BSD-style licenses doesn't
help!
[Doesn't help what? Stupid patent laws?
Obviously not, the two are unrelated.
Doesn't help because arguing that university
written software should be free,
encourages universities to patent?
Once again, it ain't likely.
Doesn't help because RMS spends all his
time wittering on about copyright and
has never written or spoken out
against patents? That sounds plausible,
doesn't it?]
3) That's why I'm obliged to stand up
against the FSF. They could win *that*
war and find the world got even worse!
[Doh? Since when has the FSF war been
"that" Linux vs. Microsoft battle for
the desktop or the server or any other
market segment? This is gross
misrepresentation of what Stallman,
GNU or FSF stand for. Which has never
been just anti-microsoft.]
Oh, and by the same non-sequiter
scaremongering I used in step 2 ...
it could get EVEN worse on the
patent front.
4) That's why, we have to suck up to
Microsoft, by using a license so
liberal it doesn't our protect
software from being hijacked by
them. Becuase then, if they can see
free software as something that
they can take advantage of, rather
than as a threat to them, they might
allow us taxpayers and our universities
to keep our other intellectual property.
5) And after all, partisanship is the
last refuge of the scoundral.
[Yeah right, "partisan argument" == "patriotic demagogery"!]
The most charitable reading of this is
cowardice at the thought of Big Commerce
and offering to stump up with the old
Danegeld :
"Please, take our software, you can have
it all, just don't come back and patent
our algorithms too. At least leave us
with those!"
I know I'm being harsh here, but the logic
of that response to Jeff really is bad
enough to deserve this.
What I find strange about your position
re : RMS and the free software movement
is that you obviously KNOW that it is a
moral stance, rather than a pragmatic one.
They think that software should be free
the way speech should be free, or people
should be free (as opposed to enslaved
property) but you insist on criticising
them patronisingly on pragmatic grounds.
You can disagree, but you can't blame them
for not co-operating with this happy
world of everyone working together
for the greater glory of good software.
-
Thanks
2001-03-12 00:52:18 blankenhorn [Reply | View]
Tim,
I have been reading your thoughtful, balanced, and well written articles for over a year now, and I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for them.
<Mr.Hyde mode>
On the other hand, I especially appreciate your way of insinuating that bugfixes are an "unexpected innovation" for Microsoft products. I know my interpretation doesn't hold up to a careful reading of your response, but I still like the idea ;-)
</Mr.Hyde mode>
Again, thanks a lot, and keep up the good work!
Thomas
-
Innovation and Open Source
2001-03-11 18:41:03 daytrip00 [Reply | View]
Hello,
I think that both sides have been a bit disingenuous. To say that Microsoft never innovates (as Ricahrd Stallman does) borders on hypocritical. Originally (as I understand things), it was the goal of Free Software Foundation was to make freely available versions of software. This often included making free versions of already avialable comercial software. For example, Linux is a UNIX _clone_, bison (which Mr. Stallman wrote the manual for) is a yacc _clone_, gcc is a C compiler, just as cc is a C compiler.
I would assert that to blanketly label Microsoft as a copy-cat is just as foolish to label the FSF as a copy-cat because they have spit out free versions that behave almost exactly like the proprietary ones.
Moreover, Microsoft has continually made life easier for developers. I would argue that one reason they have been so successful is their developer support. If you go to Microsoft's site, you'll see almost too much material to wade through. They give you the MFC and ATL code and have countless free, informative articles every month. I often rigorously defend Microsoft simply because they have made my life so much better as a developer.
My last point is one that the latest appeals judges kind of harped on. It is quite possible that the software market just tends to one dominant player. Wether this be Sun who (with it's Java supporters) would see Java be the only platform in town, or Microsoft, who already _is_ the clear dominant player in the desktop market, the market over time, has repeately demonstrated that it does not want fragmented systems. It is clearly the minority of users who want some Linux system on their desktops.
I too often read in postings, "Microsoft sucks, screw Microsoft, go Linux!" clearly ignoring that right now, Windows is, in very many capacities, vastly superior to any of the Free operating systems (many, not all). On the other hand, would I ever want to go into business against Microsoft? Hell No! Not in a million years.
Thanks,
martin
-
Questioning an assumption of all sides
2001-03-09 12:47:45 dpolson [Reply | View]
It is tending to be assumed that, since we are talking about government funded software, that it will be
entirely government *produced* software and that therefore, only the government's (and therefore
taxpayers') interests need be taken into account.
But, if government software is on an open license, whether GPL or BSD styled, it seems likely that
other developers will participate in any software of sufficient outside interest that the question of a
corporation making money from it would arise. This could even include corporations sponsoring
development efforts, in the same way that IBM is investing in Linux development.
The problem, then: Suppose that corporations A, B, and C have invested a fair number of man-hours in
improving a government-initiated software project using the BSD license. Then another corporation
[We'll call it 'M' ;-) ] embraces and extends the project, Kerberos style, and uses its market power to
effectively close the code. Or perhaps it doesn't close the code in general, but merely takes code
created by corporation B (which conformed to the original license not chosen by corporation B) and
puts it in their proprietary project. Where are the rights of corporations A, B, and C, not to mention
many private citizen, and even foreign private citizen, developers?
I would suggest that the GPL best defends the rights of those outside contributors.
Rufus Polson -
The European Battlefront
2001-03-10 03:36:43 simon2676 [Reply | View]
Having read the articles thus far with keen interest I certainly believe there is more to this than being un-American. If I may begin with a short question, what is 'American' software development? To force proprietary solutions on businesses so that the movement from one system to another costs them so much in lost revenue that they stay with you out of fear? Certainly it seems that way ;)
The ideaoligy of the open source movement is a mature and well thought out set of principles that is currently having growing pains (re licensing). This development benefits all who use and work with this software and to pronounce it un-American is both shortsighted and presents an insular attitude to the valuable work done overseas.
In my (admittedly short) experience, companies are beginning to come around to the open source movement and moving to open source platforms (ie Gnu/Linux) as a means of staying compettitive and keeping costs down. This has certainly been pushed by the likes of IBM.
However, this latest episode from Microsoft is naturally distressing (just like J++ or C#?) but there are really some core issues here. Well . . . certainly from my point of view:
1) Microsoft can do what they like under the license.
Microsoft had a free hand to do with the code what they liked. Surely people cannot be so naive to think they can rely on a corporate giants goodwill? If the intention is for an open standard then the correct license must be chosen. However, has anyone actually agreed to a license we can choose?
I have read some of the licenses available and frankly wouldn't have the first idea of which to choose. I realise that its very much dependent on the work involved but without the correct legal advice - how can I as a developer make the correct choice. I may have an intent or purpose when I release my software but I certainly don't have access to the same legal team as Microsoft do. Maybe this viewpoint is a little immature (in the development sense) but the choices I make today will surely come to bite me tomorrow as my programming experience grows and my corporate value increases.
2) The introduction of proprietary extensions
Of course, should these proprietary extensions be introduced, my experience with MS software indicates that they will most likely get it wrong. A glib remark I know but any major software giant who attempts to make an open standard proprietary will always run the risk of being left behind.
Given the amount of effort and time put into software by the talented individuals of this world. It stands to reason that ultimately, they cannot keep pace with the advancements in a multi platform business without devoting critical time to internal developments and release.
My current employer has had no choice but to embrace Gnu/Linux et al as the (current) Microsoft security model cannot be trusted. If these proprietary extensions come into play - it is most likely they will not be used unless development comes from the open source arena.
3) Tax Payers and Universities
Not knowing the state of play on the other side of the Atlantic, I can only comment on the development undertaken here in the UK. While I certainly agree that anything that a tax payer pays for they should have free access to but the economy of Universities may not always support this. Whilst wages are paid by the tax payer, research grants are won and lost by the courting of the business world. It is to them, then, that the onus on licensing becomes an issue.
Naturally, any research totally paid for by the tax payer must be free in some way but my question would be - can a University survive on that alone? If not - then there is always going to be this duality of purpose.
apology for its comments regarding
open source software and those who
use and create it.
The use of the term "Un-American"
during times such as these is nothing
short of blatantly manipulative and
perhaps even slanderous and/or
libelous. For this reason, I believe
that Microsoft owes the open source
community a public apology.