Slashdot Mirror
Does 'Open Source' Have To Mean 'Free'?
Unhappy Windows User asks: "An article on AltaVista states that Microsoft will "fight to the death anything that threatens its intellectual property". The article states that, by keeping APIs closed, Microsoft has an advantage over other software vendors such as Corel. But how exactly would disclosing the source code be a threat to IP? After all, it's still protected by copyright, isn't it? Not publishing the source code simply gives Microsoft a chance to leverage their monopoly on the market. What's to stop companies distributing software with source code whilst maintaining the copyright to it? This would only allow other companies to write software that integrates with it, and the security-conscious would be able to check the code for bugs and potential security flaws. After all, when I buy a car, I cannot make an identical copy and sell it, as the design is protected by copyright. But I am entitled to look inside, and fix it if something's wrong. " Interesting thought. Would the revealing of source code damage IP rights simply because it is in the open for all to see? Your ideas still remain your ideas and your implementation of said ideas are still yours as well, right?
Bill Gates will say just about anything to protect the Windows monopoly and is playing to the court of (non technical) public opinion mostly these days. He'd also tell you that Windows is 'open' if you asked - reminds me of that joke "How many Microsoft people does it take to change a lightbulb? None - they redefine dark as light".
"fight to the death anything that threatens its intellectual property".
[WARNING: Rant follows. That I'm ending up writing this right after I wrote this very pro-Microsoft technical defense on Kuro5hin just makes me angrier.]
Death, eh? Exactly what kind of death are they referring to?
Perhaps they're talking about the infamous "Écran bleu de la mort", better known as the Blue Screen Of Death? Quite a few companies have been dying slow, ignomious deaths due to their inability to avoid these failures. Take Novell. It's the year 2000, and they still don't have a version of their Novell Client software that won't eventually and near-irrevocably cause to die(ooh!) some poor Windows 9x machine that just wants to connect to a Novell server.
Lets see now. We've got a Microsoft developer's impending death here...we've got the individual users' Win9x machines quite dead...Microsoft themselves? Hm, they're doing just fine. Not Dead Yet. Doing Just Fine. They sure seem to know how to add a core networking layer to Win9x; why should anybody else be able to?
Actually, why should anyone else be able to do anything without delivering unto Microsoft that which the stockholders demand? Using Windows 2000 to host your secure website means you've got to pay $3,000.00 to them for the right to do so. Sounds like any small business trying to sell a few t-shirts just got priced out of the market--oops, death of a little guy who suspiciously ain't Microsoft. Oh, I should be fair though. Microsoft doesn't require you to spend $3000.00 for a license; they'd be happy to just limit you to a small number of simultaneous purchases. That way, if your small business gets Slashdotted one day, and an unexpected number of people come in to buy some product, Windows 2000 will send your customers away, as you just didn't pay enough of a (protection) fee to Microsoft.
When your expensive server hardware running an expensive server operating system dies on customers because you didn't buy an expensive enough access license, lemme tell you, it ain't Microsoft who's hurting there. It ain't Microsoft who lost any sales--sure, that server may get wiped out and be replaced by Linux. But that's after that first sale. You might say Microsoft could at least experience some pain by loss of future sales, because either a) Some business(like yours) would crumble because it couldn't recoup their losses, or b) Some business(like yours) would never again buy a Microsoft server. The former posits yet another death--this time, again, of somebody Other Than Microsoft--but lets examine the latter. How easy is it to migrate away from Microsoft?
Not at all, and getting harder. Frontpage Extensions are an explicit play at tying the desktop OS to the server OS--make a business dependent on the integration, and reap the rewards when they go down in flames trying to live without it. Yes, Linux is getting support for Frontpage Extensions. But we have to wonder how long such cross platform compatibilities will be allowed--Microsoft's already banned interoperability with one file format on patent grounds(don't try to parse ASF if you're anyone else but MS; I suppose DOC is next).
The bottom line in my mind is that, when Microsoft starts talking about fighting to the death, they mean it--they've had no problem using their financial might to crush anyone who isn't convenient to them, and that appears to include their own customers, developers, and end users.
If there's one thing tragic here, it's that good, honestly respectible technical work gets disgraced because of its association to truly ugly business practices.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Just because a company might have to disclose its source doesn't mean that it has to do so in an Open-Source manner. Look at books. The "source" for books is right out there for anyone to see; that's just how books are. But no one's intellectual property is damaged, because just because you can see it doesn't mean you can copy it.
Computer source code is no different. If released in a non-Open-Source manner, it allows people to inspect code, but not copy it. New "features" in other programs are safe; they cannot be copied from the source (and even if they were, if all companies had to disclose their source it would be very easy to check for copied code).
Now, does Open-Source work in this way? The jury's still out on that one. My guess is that IP as we know it would likely cease to exist (it would still be there, but in a form very much unlike what we see IP as today). Other companies could copy Open-Source code, though by its nature they would have to be Open-Source as well in order to do this, so the company from which the code was copied could retaliate by copying some of the copier's code also. This very quickly becomes pointless.
Would it mean that software could not be sold? Absolutely not! This is what most suits, media, etc. don't get. It does mean shifting to a business model which is radically different from the proprietary models we see today. But that alone does not mean it is not possible. Consider this: the proprietary system works on a premise not too much unlike extortion; the user pays for permission to use the program, rather than the program itself. This is obviously not possible with Open-Source, since permission to use the program is implicit; if the software exists you have permission to use it.
However, there are other business models in the world today which could be adapted to be used for software. The one which will probably first be tried, even if it's the most annoying to end-users, is corporate sponsorship. This is what's used for television, radio, and most Websites. You do not pay for permission to watch TV or listen to radio. However, corporations pay for these shows' production, usually in return for advertising space.
Corporate sponsorship not your thing? Try consulting. A firm is paid to either develop completely new software (usually for a company which needs something) or to add new features to an existing piece of software. This is not as unprofitable as it may sound; many consultants make even more money than the highest-paid programmers as most "traditional" software companies (executives are another matter, of course, but executives don't code). Why would this work? Consider the postal service. It's cheap, and it gets the job done. But do you send really important packages through it? Not likely; you'll pay FedEx or UPS or some other delivery service to do it. Why? Because these services are faster and more reliable. The same is true for a consulting firm. Open-SOurce software is always evolving, but it does so in a more or less random way. You can simply not pay and wait for the features you need to evolve, but this will take a long time (and there's no guarantee the features you want will evolve anyway). You pay a consultant because you know the feature will make it into the software, and it will get there much faster than if it were simply coded by unpaid coders in their spare time.
There are other models. One popular idea is to have companies charge only for support. I'm not so sure this one is really all that viable, because not everyone needs or wants support. In the end you'd certainly make enough to fund the support efforts, but would you make enough to fund new programming? I'm not so sure. But this is just one model out of many; no model is appropriate in all cases.
But no matter how you slice it, there are plenty of business models which can be adapted to work with Open-Source software. And simply making companies disclose their source changes nothing at all, if you allow them to continue to keep their programs proprietary (as long as you keep the playing field level, that is, meaning all companies would have to disclose their source).
I suspect that MS is scared for three reasons:
"Does 'Open Source' Have To Mean 'Free'?"
No. That's exactly the problem.
Open Source is all about "better code" or "better security" or "faster development". Free Software is about the human (especially programmer) rights.
I don't understand why people keep trying to come up with ways that companies can release their source code "safely". What we (should) want isn't safe for companies. We want to take some power back from the Sun's, Microsoft's and Corel's of the world. Have access to the source code is just a feature. But the GPL enables a whole new "paradigm" (I don't usually like that word, but it's true here) where IP doesn't apply.
--
Wanna hook MAPI clients to your Tru64/AIX/Linux server?
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
First, the program is distributed in a typical "shareware" fashion. You can download a free evaluation copy and try it out for 30 days. When the program is installed, you agree to a license that says you agree to purchase the program if you continue to use it after 30 days.
We released the source code in an effort to let people learn from it, and if willing, to contribute their code or fixes. During development, we (somewhat surprisingly) had a few requests from people for the source code, as they were curious about how an IRC client would work. We feel that releasing the source does not harm our business, but does help the development community, and potentially the dIRC community as a whole.
The license under which dIRC's source code is distributed states that you may compile the program for personal use. However, modified versions cannot be distributed unless we give written approval. The biggest reason for this is that we do not want multiple, incompatible versions of dIRC floating around on the Internet. You can check out the the license here.
In our case, having the source availible does not mean that our product is free. Dragonmount still whole-heartedly ownes dIRC, but as with the car analogy, you can open it up, poke around, see how it works, make sure it is safe (security), put in a bigger engine (like a 289 in my 1966 mustang, rar!). But however you change your individual car, Ford motor company still owns the design.
I realize that this is going to piss off a lot of /., but think about this. A few weeks ago there was a huge stink on /. about MS releasing the source of their version of Kerberos. Now, I know a lot of ppl were upset that MS modified it from the original, but that doesn't come into the point I'm trying to make (I don't think). What happened? /. readers began posting ways to 'get around' the license agreement, linked to sites which had published the source, and in fact on person posted it in its entirety. Some ppl posted it out of anger of the modifications, but most did it with a 'screw MS' mentality. There were arguments over whether or not MS still had any sort of IP rights over it since they had released it to the public, no matter what licensing agreement they had.
My point is this: /. clamors for MS to release the source of 'Project X' because it's only fair/right/their moral obligation. MS does so (believe me, it's not because of /. either), but tries to keep it as their own IP, proprietary, etc. They say 'You can't use any of this in your software, it belongs to us!' which is perfectly legal by copyright/IP law (AFAIK). /. users immediately jump MS case for trying something 'shady' or backhanded, when they are trying to protect what they consider their IP. Some /. readers (who are of course NAL) then say, by publishing it, its not even their IP anymore. It just seems to me that /. readers are very hypocritical when it comes to MS. MS does what is good for MS, and that's it. They don't release source if it is going to hurt them. Don't pretend for a moment that they are going to change. So quit railing against MS. I would love it if /. never posted another story about MS and just let them do what they are going to do.
as someone else's sig says: are you moderating because you agree or disagree, or because of quality?
And that exposes yet more ways MS keeps the advantage. Like you said they can take internal shortcuts and use bad design, but also they can release enhanced DLL's or even NEW DLL's for the underlying system with an application release. Their exclusive knowledge and control of Windows internals gives them an advantage to do this.
If Corel wanted feature X in Windows to use in WordPerfect, say a rainbow scrolling title bar, they don't have the option to add that to the GDI in Windows, but if Microsoft wanted this for Office they could walk over to the GDI department and get it added, then release a new version of GDI on the Office CD; still preventing WordPerfect from having it because you've got to buy Office first. Big advantage. And they don't have to document the new API until later or not at all: it's not part of a Windows release.
These techniques I'm sure have been used many times in the past.
Competing with your app on top of somebody else's closed software platform is a losing proposition, API documentation or not. You're OK until the platform vendor decides he wants to make his own version of your app. The best you can hope for then is to be bought out or allowed to survive, otherwise you'll be fighting for your life as he uses the platform, which he owns and you don't, to his advantage.
Thank God for free software.
The press keeps making this mistake. Opening up the specifications for the programming hooks the operating system offers (opening the API's, in other words), is not the same thing as opening up the source code. The former clearly describes the ways in which applications are expected to interact with the operating system on which they run. The latter is how the API's are created.
This is key. The Microsoft argument that opening their API's would kill them depends on the confusion between API and source code. All they're being asked to do in reality is provide the world with the information it should have had. After all, providing API's is the reason operating systems exist! They should always be made public, or there's no reason to have an operating system, since the application programmers will end up having to write their own interfaces.
Microsoft is just being asked to play fair and do their job correctly. It's not an onerous request!
-Joe
[RANT - this is my opinion; moderate appropriately]
I'm getting pretty sick and tired of hearing about license this, license that, GPL license, BSD license, etc. I can't believe that so many people here on slashdot can sometimes be so optimistic and unreasonable. Who here really believes that simply by attaching a license to software, everyone will politely follow the terms of that license to the letter?
Welcome to the real world - people don't give a damn about licenses. If metallica put a so-called "license" on their next MP3 that said you had to buy their CD to listen to it, no one here would change their piracy practices one bit. If someone sees something they can profit off of and get away with, they'll take the opportunity in a flash.
In fact, I'd be surprised in Windows didn't have any code either from GPLed programs or heavily inspired by them. We've already seen all their other illegal and immoral business practices, and such a transgression would be nothing to them. And how would they ever be caught? If anyone here honestly puts that below them, they probably don't belong on a site like this.
I just filled out a job application yesterday that asked many questions about my opinion of people, among other topics. Questions such as, "Do you think that if an employee thought that they could steal an item and get away with it, would they do so?" and "You see a customer who repeatedly buys items with gift certificates. You think nothing of it until you see that the customer is friends with an employee who authorizes gift certificates. What do you do?" and many, many more about how trusting I am, and whether I think people would steal things if they had such and such an opportunity.
I answered every one of those questions honestly, which basically summized to my saying that I think people are evil and lie, cheat, and steal every chance they get if it benefits themselves. And while doing it, I couldn't help but think of people probably doing exactly that on the same application, on questions like "How trustworthy do you consider yourself?" and "How well do you get along well with both colleages? Strangers?"
So, to get back on topic, you can't release the source code and expect people to pay simple because the software has a license. If it's really useful, you may get a couple bucks, but the more people want it and would be willing to pay, the more likely they are to pirate it. Either provide additional services to those who pay - either more features, or tech support like the linux vendors, etc - or go ahead and give it out free.
[/RANT]
-- Imagine how much more advanced our technology would be if we had eight fingers per hand.
Like it or not, in the consumer arena, program (and OS) upgrades because they provide unique features to the consumer. If Adobe puts a new feature in Photoshop, it takes a while for the six-zillion Photoshop clones to copy it, for example. But if they opened their source, the clones could have the new feature out a LOT quicker.
Personally, I think this would be a good thing, as it would tend to check "featuritis" that is so rampant. Programs would cease competing on features and start competing on UI, stability, security, etc. Unfortuantely, the software business (I'm talking non-games) exists now on featuritis to sell upgrades and I don't see the software companies moving away from that.
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
An example of "Open but not free" would be the Thomas and Finney calculus text that happens to be on my desk.
In this case, none of the *ideas* in the book are protected. I can use any equation in the book for any purpose. However, I can't just take T and F's text, munge it electronicly and republish it.
There's nothing to stop me from writing my own calculus text (excepting of course my incomplete knowledge of the subject) but I would have to prove that the organization and presentation in the text is original and not just a rearrangement of T and F.
So, I reason you can protect source in the same manner as books are protected. Protecting ideas is another matter. The only way I can think of to simultaneously publish and protect an idea is (shudder) to patent it.
BTW, if you have a copy of T and F, look in the index for "Whales". It's good for a laugh.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?