The Penguin Ping.
Want on or off? Just holla!
Posted on 08/27/2002 12:08:43 PM PDT by ShadowAce
COMMENTARY--No other market is quite like software. General Motors isn't forced to contend with a "free car" movement, which has a goal of undermining sales-based automakers. Dell isn't faced with a grass roots PC hardware movement, which says PCs should be free--and then hands out samples at no cost.
Of course, software is unique as its production relies purely on the mind. Even if a renegade group wanted to offer free cars, it would not be feasible as long as raw materials carry a cost. In software, all it takes to challenge established proprietary software vendors is to convince enough developers to donate their time, or more specifically, their brainpower.
Free software, however, is only a problem if you hope to sell software. Free certainly doesn't cause complaints among consumers, although it might lead to fewer choices due to fewer competitors entering the market (profits attract competition). Retailers such as Wal-Mart can benefit if consumers flock to products made cheaper through the use of open source software.
Even developers can benefit, as there is ample room for custom software, which fills the gap between general-purpose open source product and tailored software designed for a particular business (often of the proprietary sort which generates revenue as long as it doesn't grow big enough to attract the attention of free software developers).
These good things, however, in no way justify forcing people to use open source products. I have no problem with companies that choose to use open-source software. I also have no problem with governments that choose it. I have a very big problem with groups that try to force governments to favor open source software exclusively.
Mandating that governments only procure open source software would be a form of government protection, allowing open source to avoid competition from proprietary alternatives. The irony is rich indeed when proponents of open source decry on one hand a "monopoly" whose dominance is built entirely on consumer choice, and on the other promote a government-protected one of the sort Adam Smith explicitly warned against.
I think Tim O'Reilly put it best when he said, in a recent weblog: "...any victory for open source achieved through deprivation of the user's right to choose would indeed be a betrayal of the principles that free software and open source have stood for."
Some say that the "Digital Software Security Act," as the California proposal is disingenuously called, isn't true protection. Proprietary companies just have to open their source code in order to compete for government contracts. Well, America just has to stop growing GM (Genetically Modified) food to gain access to European markets, even though all scientific evidence indicates that GM food is not harmful.
E-Commerce sites in the US just have to adhere to European VAT rules to be allowed to sell to Europeans. Europeans just have to buy struggling American steel companies to avoid getting hit by George W's recent steel tariffs.
In other words, the fact that companies can alter their business structure in order to get around a "non-trade" barrier doesn't make it any less of a trade barrier. There are a number of important reasons why proprietary software companies might not want to open their source code, chief among them that revenue models based around the sale of an open source product aren't exactly known for their profits. The trade barrier, in this case, operates through the fact that most companies currently making proprietary software would sooner replace their executive team with orangutans than discard a revenue model with a proven track record.
Of course, who says anyone should care about the plight of proprietary software companies? Open source code is free, and that's a good thing as stated at the beginning of this article. Why shouldn't government get the most bang for its buck from our tax dollars?
If you accept that argument, however, you are trapped in a logical conundrum. If you truly believe that government should get the most bang for its buck, then you must reject a policy that would prevent the government from doing a proper cost-benefit analysis to determine what, truly, provides the most bang for the buck.
As I mentioned in a past article, good ideas aren't the exclusive domain of open source programmers. What if a particular government agency would benefit the most from standardizing on Oracle databases? Perhaps its personnel are trained on Oracle, or Oracle developers are easier to find than MySQL developers. Perhaps Oracle works better with existing systems, or other products in the marketplace. Perhaps there are more development tools available, or more add-on software that the agency finds useful. Perhaps, horror of horrors, Oracle is just BETTER than the open source alternative, at least with respect to the features that matter to the agency in question.
All that MIGHT just add up to making Oracle worth the money some government agency spends on it. A policy that mandates that government not be allowed to make that calculation is a policy that will result in less efficient usage of tax dollars, as government is forced to favor an open source option even if, in the aggregate, a proprietary solution was more cost effective.
Over time, things can only get worse. Protectionism impoverishes a country, which is why nations around the world are busy opening their markets to foreign competition. What applies at the macroeconomic level applies at the microeconomic level. Protectionism won't help the progress of open source any more than it boosts the efficiency of protected industries in Chile (or steel companies in the United States).
Open source is supposed to be about freedom. Unfortunately, certain advocates have lost sight of that goal. People should be free to use software which best fits their needs, whether or not it adheres to a particular programming philosophy. I suggest that open source proponents spend their time crafting interoperability guidelines rather than creating a protected environment, which artificially boosts open-source adoption while hiding it from the full rigors of competition.
John Carroll is a software engineer who lives in Switzerland. He specializes in the design and development of distributed systems using Java and .Net.
Want on or off? Just holla!
What about software companies that force PC manufacturers to install their operating systems exclusively on new PCs?
What about software companies that force PC manufacturers to install their operating systems exclusively on new PCs?
NO ONE FORCES ANYONE! BOTH SIDES AGREE TO THE TERMS OF A CONTRACT!
With that said...
Bills which seek to force governments to use nothing but free software are shortsighted. They ignore the primary benefit of free software, which is the access to source code for those who rely on systems. A better alternative would be to require that government agencies receive source code for any products they use, free or commercial. A commercial institution shouldn't have any qualms about releasing their source to the feds under a license which clearly restricts the use to debugging problems and making in-house enhancements. A license which restricts redistribution of such commercial source would be perfectly fine.
Access to source is what free software gives you, and what users in demanding environments need. This is one place that FSF fans should drop our ideology.
MS to intro product key check in WinXP SP1 WPA
Just FYI.
Yes, that is going overboard.
However, it should be a requirement that the data format used for government documents be openly and fully documented. This would allow the data files to be accessed by other software.
Suppose that a government agency purchased a software package and used it to save a large amount of important data - then the software publisher went out of business. If the data format of the files is documented, it should be possible to convert the data to another format to work with other programs. Otherwise, that data may be irretrievably lost.
You are a real hothead, aren't you. Do you still beat your wife?
Microsoft forced Dell to stop installing Linux or they would not be allowed to install Windows anymore.
I don't agree with laws that mandate the use of open source, either, but what is the difference between forcing a company to install your software exclusively and forcing a government to use open source software exclusively?
What? What the hell is this supposed to mean? Why am I even responding to someone who could only hide behind anonymity to make such a statement?
That answers my question.
BioForce1 signed up 2002-08-23.
How IS the weather in Redmond today? How many times have you brown-nosed your boss?
Nothing's stopping you. Except that the facts are not on your side.
I believe in freedom. I believe people should be free to buy proprietary spyware if they choose to do so, but they should also be free to buy a new PC with Linux on it if that is what they choose. I can think of no reason that would upset you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.