http://funredes.org/mistica

MISTICA: Microsoft versus Linux

From: Daniel Pimienta ([email protected])
Date: Fri Jun 08 2001 - 10:18:34 AST

"The Craig Mundie speech is old news by now, so hopefully this is the last
word. A number of the free software evangelists, in informal discussion, felt
that the proper response to Microsoft would be to stand together. Mundie's
speech shows that Microsoft's strategy is to keep us divided and attack us
one at a time, until all are gone. Thus, their emphasis on the GPL this time.
While we didn't try to represent every group and project, many major voices
of Open Source and Free Software have signed this message. We took a while,
because we're not used to this, but we'll be better next time. So, please
note the signatures at the bottom of this message - we will stand together,
and defend each other.

Bruce Perens

We note a new triumph for Open Source and Free Software: we have become so
serious a competitor to Microsoft that their executives publicly announce
their fear. However, the only threat that we present to Microsoft is the end
of monopoly practices. Microsoft is welcome to participate as an equal
partner, a role held today by entities ranging from individuals to
transnational corporations like IBM and HP. Equality, however, isn't what
Microsoft is looking for. Thus, they have announced Shared Source, a system
that could be summarized as Look but don't touch - and we control everything.

Microsoft deceptively compares Open Source to failed dot-com business models.
Perhaps they misunderstand the term Free Software. Remember that Free refers
to liberty, not price. The dot-coms gave away goods and services as
loss-leaders, in unsuccessful efforts to build their market share. In
contrast, the business model of Open Source is to reduce the cost of software
development and maintenance by distributing it among many collaborators.

The success of the Open Source model arises from copyright holders relaxing
their control in exchange for more and better collaboration. Developers allow
their software to be freely redistributed and modified, asking only for the
same privileges in return.

There is much software that is essential to a business, but which does not
differentiate that business from its competitors. Even companies that have
not fully embraced the Open Source model can justify collaboration on Free
Software projects for this non-differentiating software, because of the money
they will save. And such collaborations are often overwhelmingly successful:
for example, the project that produces the market-leading Apache web server
was started by a group of users who agreed to share the work of maintaining a
piece of software that each of their businesses depended on.

The efficiency of this cooperation is in the best interests of the user. But
Free Software is also directly in the user's interest, because it means that
the users control the software they use. When they do business with Open
Source vendors, the vendors do not dominate them.

With very little funding, the GNU/Linux system has become a significant
player in many major markets, from Internet servers to embedded devices. Our
GUI desktop projects have astounded the software industry by going from zero
to being comparable with or superior to others in only 4 years. Workstation
manufacturers like Sun and HP have selected our desktops to replace their own
consortium projects, because our work was better. An entire industry has been
built around Free Software, and is growing rapidly despite an unfavorable
market. The success of software companies like Red Hat, and the benefits to
vendors such as Dell and IBM, demonstrate that Free Software is not at all
incompatible with business.

The Free Software license singled out for abuse by Microsoft is the GNU
General Public License, or GNU GPL. This license is the computer equivalent
of share and share alike. But this does not mean, as Microsoft claims, that a
company using these programs is legally obliged to make all its software and
data free. We make all GPL software available in source form for
incorporation as a building block in new programs. This is the secret of how
we have been able to create so much good software, so quickly.

If you do choose to incorporate GPL code into a program, you will be required
to make the entire program Free Software. This is a fair exchange of our code
for yours, and one that will continue as you reap the benefit of improvements
contributed by the community. However, the legal requirements of the GPL
apply only to programs which incorporate some of the GPL-covered code - not
to other programs on the same system, and not to the data files that the
programs operate upon.

Although Microsoft raises the issue of GPL violations, that is a classic red
herring. Many more people find themselves in violation of Microsoft licenses,
because Microsoft doesn't allow copying, modification, and redistribution as
the GPL does. Microsoft license violations have resulted in civil suits and
imprisonment. Accidental GPL violations are easily remedied, and rarely get
to court.

It's the share and share alike feature of the GPL that intimidates Microsoft,
because it defeats their Embrace and Extend strategy. Microsoft tries to
retain control of the market by taking the result of open projects and
standards, and adding incompatible Microsoft-only features in closed-source.
Adding an incompatible feature to a server, for example, then requires a
similarly-incompatible client, which forces users to "upgrade". Microsoft
uses this deliberate-incompatibility strategy to force its way through the
marketplace. But if Microsoft were to attempt to "embrace and extend" GPL
software, they would be required to make each incompatible "enhancement"
public and available to its competitors. Thus, the GPL threatens the strategy
that Microsoft uses to maintain its monopoly.

Microsoft claims that Free Software fosters incompatible "code forking", but
Microsoft is the real motor of incompatibility: they deliberately make new
versions incompatible with old ones, to force users to purchase each upgrade.
How many times have users had to upgrade Office because the Word file format
changed? Microsoft claims that our software is insecure, but security experts
say you shouldn't trust anything but Free Software for critical security
functions. It is Microsoft's programs that are known for snooping on users,
vulnerability to viruses, and the possibility of hidden "back doors".

Microsoft's Shared Source program recognizes that there are many benefits to
the openness, community involvement, and innovation of the Open Source model.
But the most important component of that model, the one that makes all of the
others work, is freedom. By attacking the one license that is specifically
designed to fend off their customer and developer lock-in strategy, they hope
to get the benefits of Free Software without sharing those benefits with
those who participate in creating them.

We urge Microsoft to go the rest of the way in embracing the Open Source
software development paradigm. Stop asking for one-way sharing, and accept
the responsibility to share and share alike that comes with the benefits of
Open Source. Acknowledge that it is compatible with business.

Free Software is a great way to build a common foundation of software that
encourages innovation and fair competition. Microsoft, it's time for you to
join us.

Bruce Perens, Primary Author: The Open Source Definition

co-signers:

Richard Stallman (RMS), Free Software Foundation.
Eric Raymond (ESR), Open Source Initiative.
Linus Torvalds, Creator of the Linux Kernel.
Miguel de Icaza, GNOME GUI Desktop Project.
Larry Wall, Creator of the Perl Language.
Guido van Rossum, Creator of the Python Language.
Tim O'Reilly, Publisher.
Bob Young, Co-Founder, Red Hat
Larry Augustin, CEO, VA Linux Systems"

Este archivo fue generado por hypermail 2.1.3 : Mon Mar 08 2004 - 12:18:14 AST