The main problem we have with Microsoft is that their business model relies so heavily on dominating/monopolizing markets, and they are so good at pulling it off.

>> The only distinction between OSS and proprietary code is the ability to view OSS source code.

That’s incorrect.

Open source licenses allow the user to do with the software as s/he wishes, including modifying it and giving it away to anyone or selling it in competition with others.

Additionally, “copyleft” licenses forbid the taking of open source software and closing it into proprietary software. This is valuable to the competitive environment (and to developers and users, individually, as well), in particular, when it prevents open source from being used to help bolster closed source based monopolies. Closed source software monopolies rely on lock-in and being “good enough” with respect to the competition, which can’t readily interoperate with the closed monopoly products.

Further, the GPL (especially version 3) have clauses that further try to defend against patents (to the extent a patent might be legally enforceable in the first place).

>> If I write code and place it in the public domain, or post it to “cprogrammers.com” it’s not under any licence and I dont put a copyright on it, that is truly Open Source, no strings attached.

Such public domain code can be taken by those that own monopolies in order to improve their closed products, against which others can’t properly compete; thus, those that took the time to write the code get the short end of the stick as their closed source rivals leverage it all, lock them out, and do so potentially without even making a single contribution.

>> Just because I dont license my code under an approved license or that someone like RMS does not like me, that is not his call, he is not the total end authority on who gets to play in the sandpit.

No it isn’t, but the licenses RMS has created (with help from others) are extremely popular among many open source developers and users because these are licenses designed to give developers and end users significant ability to neutralize abuse by larger vendors.

>> As for patents, patents are (like it or not) the existing law, businesses need to working within the existing laws to the best of their abilities.

That is questionable. The SCOTUS has ruled before that software is not patentable and there is currently much doubt over just what aspect of a product with source code inside can be patented. I also think software patents do not have a clear path in the EU and in various other areas of the world.

>> there is nothing wrong with patents, it is simply a legal method of protecting an idea that does something different or better than what is allready available.

Software patents have many problems. See for example this comment written recently: http://boycottnovell.com/2010/01/04/rader-trolls-apologist/comment-page-1/#comment-77557 . For example, they are too broad (unlike copyrights); they are biased in favor of wealthy entities (unlike copyrights); they trump independent inventions by others (unlike copyrights); and they protect too strongly from too many for too long (hampering competition from many for too many years)… They treat independent thought as if it were a scarce resource to be owned by a single agent exclusively, owned by the first person to open up their large wallet and write the idea down in broad terms on a patent application. Patent authors also tend to spread the myth that they invent in a vacuum and bring fire to mankind with every broad patent claim they write. Particularly troubling patents are software patents because software is so inexpensive to manufacture and distribute and is best done in collaborative fashion (thanks to the Internet and to cheap PCs). Software patents are a “good thing” for very large companies that fear losing market share to very small competitors collaborating. Software patents are important if the aim is to help stem the growth of open source software and of consumer-friendly open source business models, as these erode margins and market share. Software patents are also good for patent trolls (which can also serve as proxies for others) and to the parts of the legal profession.

>> There is no distinction between Open Source software and proprietary software, it all ends up the same, and as a user you would never be able to tell the difference… Users dont care, and the computer doesnt care.

You can tell the difference between GPL software and proprietary software because only the GPL one allows you to avoid lock-in and high prices.

Users like saving money and being in the driver’s seat: They like $0 software where possible. They like having a second source as necessary. They like upgrading as they see the need. They like shopping around for competitive bargains or ultimately being able to DIY.

>> even finding “devs” that have the skills to read, and time to understand code written by others.

It’s easier to figure out how to tweak software than it is to understand all of it. And many developers can understand other’s code when they take the time to do so. Open source is developed from the ground up under a distributed environment. If it weren’t understandable, it would not have contributors.

I personally learned a significant amount about various software only when I had a need to resolve some issues. It’s amazing how much people can figure out when they have an itch of some sort. [You do generally have to have the itch or need.]

>> FOSS does need all the help it can get, so shunning potential sources of quality code seems regressive to me.

It should be clear that licenses that are not like the GPL allow for a one-way street, for example, where a monopolist can take and take and close off to create interop problems while others give and give, working to break interop barriers.

It should be clear that it would be a bad idea to open source to risk the spread of significant patent liabilities throughout FOSS and payable to a company which business model and profits depends heavily on having monopolies and monopoly pricing power and which has documented their plans and also begun to use patents against FOSS.

>> I think if half the effort that went into fighting MS was redirected into product quality, documentation and unification FOSS would be far better for it in the long run…

Perhaps people write comments and discuss licenses because it is important to them and to the well-being of the community.

Do you work for whomever without worrying about how your result will be used and if you will get something back in return? I doubt it.

It’s important to fight efforts working to limit the success (and legality) of open source.

>> and even better released that code under an approved Open Source license, then that is all you have to do.

That is not all. There needs to be balance and equity. Some people that write open source want to be able to make money. The market needs to be fair. Having open source be leveraged by monopolists to prop up monopolies and to help create yet more monopolies is quite unfair to the majority of open source contributors and users that avoid those monopoly products or depend on the open source to make money. It’s also unfair to people who would like to have open source software be competitive or superior (as this gives most individuals greater access and leverage).

Anyway, you should present your viewpoints to Steve Ballmer, as he could be doing a lot more for open source. Why isn’t he opening up more code under good FOSS licenses? If more of his company’s efforts went into writing open source instead of trying to neutralize it (eg, with patents) or simply leeching off it, think of how much more we would all have?

>> yes, that is true, and is it not also true for Google, Red Hat, SUN, Oracle, conicial, IBM and so on, all have proprietary code, and closed applications that they sell.

It’s a matter of degree. Putting Red Hat on the same boat with Microsoft is hilarious.

Microsoft, more than any of those other companies (and by quite a lot in most cases) makes the vast majority of their money, not from hardware, not from customizations, not from services, but from very high margin licenses generally sold in high volumes to users that frequently buy new licenses as frequently as they do because of lock-in issues.

>> All businesses play friendly with open source and proprietary source where it best suits their business. Why would you do otherwise?

Not every business depends on the same antisocial model.

Not every business is for-profit or is run by the people with the same level of ambition or ethics or past habit of making very large profits and controlling their markets as is the case for Microsoft.

Seems to an outsider, that is not enough, you have to appease the likes of RMS, and he does not like you, then you can do no right.

“Furthermore, whilst Microsoft may be making concessions to open source and are happy to play with open source when it suits their needs they are also willing to use other methods where it best suits their business.”

yes, that is true, and is it not also true for Google, Red Hat, SUN, Oracle, conicial, IBM and so on, all have proprietary code, and closed applications that they sell.

All businesses play friendly with open source and proprietary source where it best suits their business. Why would you do otherwise?

But I think discussions as to why one company over another is allowed to be open source friendly is sort of perpetuating the problem.

The only distinction between OSS and proprietary code is the ability to view OSS source code.

If I write code and place it in the public domain, or post it to “cprogrammers.com” it’s not under any licence and I dont put a copyright on it, that is truly Open Source, no strings attached.

Just because I dont license my code under an approved license or that someone like RMS does not like me, that is not his call, he is not the total end authority on who gets to play in the sandpit.

As for patents, patents are (like it or not) the existing law, businesses need to working within the existing laws to the best of their abilities.

Patents, like bookkeeping and taxes are a part of the existing law, like the laws or not they are what they are, and there is nothing wrong with individuals or companies working within the existing laws to do business.

there is nothing wrong with patents, it is simply a legal method of protecting an idea that does something different or better than what is allready available.

If you feel you’re hindered by a patent then you have incentive to develop you’re own invention to do that job better.

The only patent issue with OSS that most see, is the desire to “work around” patent laws, to enable anyone to profit off the hard work and invention for their own personal gains.

Outsiders, and even old timers like myself look at all the noise generated by the FOSS groups and the constant FUD war agaist anything they dont agree with as shallow, and unproductive.

There is no distinction between Open Source software and proprietary software, it all ends up the same, and as a user you would never be able to tell the difference.

If there is really no difference, then all it comes down to is quality and functionality.
People choose what they use based on those 2 factors, not the factors that take so much of FOSS’s time, that being “proprietary” and “open”. Users dont care, and the computer doesnt care.

What you see in FOSS is vast groups stating how great and inportant it is to be able to view the code, but what you do not see is large groups of people discussing that code, even finding “devs” that have the skills to read, and time to understand code written by others.

FOSS does need all the help it can get, so shunning potential sources of quality code seems regressive to me.

I think if half the effort that went into fighting MS was redirected into product quality, documentation and unification FOSS would be far better for it in the long run…

If you were updating this in the future we would be happy to share some of our insight and provide an unbiased perspective on your findings.

Matt