If only OSS/FS programs exist in a software category, will that completely

eliminate competition? No. Oddly enough, OSS/FS programs sometimes compete

with each other in a given functional area. The text editors emacs (primarily GNU emacs) and vi (primarily vim) have dueled for decades. Sendmail is still a popular program for delivering email, but it has competition from other OSS/FS programs such as Postfix and Exim. The desktop environments GNOME and KDE compete with each other, as do the OS kernels of Linux and the BSDs. Generally, competing OSS/FS projects must distinguish themselves from each other to succeed (e.g., through user interface philosophies, design approaches, characteristics like security, licensing strategies, and so on), but of course that’s true for competing proprietary programs too. Also, competing OSS/FS programs generally try to stay compatible with each other (because their customers demand it) and sometimes even help each other with technical problems. For example, freedesktop.org provides a forum to encourage cooperation among open source desktops for the X Window System (such as KDE and GNOME), and is part of the Free Standards Group which tries to accelerate the use and acceptance of open source technologies through the

development, application and promotion of standards. In addition, even if there is one product, multiple organizations can compete for maintenance and support (e.g., GNU/Linux distributors do this). Thus, even if OSS/FS eliminates all proprietary programs in a given category, that would still not eliminate competition.

11. Is OSS/FS a “destroyer of intellectual property”? No. It’s true that Microsoft’s Jim Allchin has claimed that OSS is an intellectual-property destroyer and that it’s

somehow “un-American”. But you can use OSS/FS products (e.g., a word processor) to develop private and proprietary information, and you can keep the information as confidential and proprietary as you want. What you can’t do is use someone else’s material in a way forbidden by law... and this is true for all software, not just OSS/FS. One interesting case is the “General Public License” (GPL), the most common

OSS/FS license. Software covered by the GPL can be modified, and the modified code can be used in house without obligations. If you release that modified software, you must include an offer for the source code under the same GPL license. Basically, the GPL creates a consortium; anyone can use and modify the program, but anyone who releases the program (modified or not) must satisfy the restrictions in the GPL that prevent the program and its derivatives from becoming proprietary. Since the GPL is a legal document, it can be hard for some to understand. Here is one less legal summary (posted on Slashdot):

This software contains the intellectual property of several people. Intellectual property is a valuable resource, and you cannot expect to be able to use someone else’s intellectual property in your own work for free. Many businesses and

individuals are willing to trade their intellectual property in exchange for something of value; usually money. For example, in return for a sum of money, you might be

granted the right to incorporate code from someone’s software program into your own.

The developers of this software are willing to trade you the right to use their

intellectual property in exchange for something of value. However, instead of money, the developers are willing to trade you the right to freely incorporate their code into your software in exchange for the right to freely incorporate your code [which incorporates their code] into theirs. This exchange is to be done by way of and under the terms of the GPL. If you do not think that this is a fair bargain, you are free to decline and to develop your own code or purchase it from someone else. You will still be allowed to use the software, which is awfully nice of the developers, since you probably didn’t pay them a penny for it in the first place.

Microsoft complains that the GPL does not allow them to take such code and make changes that it can keep proprietary, but this is hypocritical. Microsoft doesn’t normally allow others to make and distribute changes to Microsoft software at all, so the GPL grants far more rights to customers than Microsoft does.

In some cases Microsoft will release source code under its “shared source” license, but that license (which is not OSS/FS) is far more restrictive. For example, it prohibits distributing software in source or object form for commercial purposes under any circumstances. Examining Microsoft’s shared source license also shows that it has even more stringent restrictions on intellectual property rights. For

example, it states that “if you sue anyone over patents that you think may apply to the Software for a person’s use of the Software, your license to the Software ends

automatically,” and “the patent rights Microsoft is licensing only apply to the Software, not to any derivatives you make.” A longer analysis of this license and the problems it causes developers is provided by Bernhard Rosenkraenzer (bero). The FSF has also posted a press release on why they believe the GPL protects software freedoms.

It’s true that organizations that modify and release GPL’ed software must yield any patent and copyright rights for those additions they release, but such organizations do so voluntarily (no one can force anyone to modify GPL code) and with full

knowledge (all GPL’ed software comes with a license clearly stating this). And such grants only apply to those modifications; organizations can hold other unrelated rights if they wish to do so, or develop their own software instead. Since organizations can’t make such changes at all to proprietary software in most circumstances, and generally can’t redistribute changes in the few cases where they can make changes, this is a fair exchange, and organizations get far more rights with the GPL than with proprietary licenses (including the “shared source” license). If organizations don’t like the GPL license, they can always create their own code, which was the only option even before GPL’ed code became available.

Although the GPL is sometimes called a “virus” by proprietary vendors (particularly by Microsoft) due to the way it encourages others to also use the GPL license, it’s only fair to note that many proprietary products and licenses also have virus-like effects. Many proprietary products with proprietary data formats or protocols have “network effects,” that is, once many users begin to use that product, that group puts others who don’t use the same product at a disadvantage. For example, once some users pick a particular product such as a proprietary OS or word processor, it becomes increasingly difficult for other users to use a different product. Over time this

Certainly many technologists and companies don’t think that the GPL will destroy their businesses. Many seem too busy mocking Microsoft’s claims instead (for an example, see John Lettice’s June 2001 article “ Gates: GPL will eat your economy, but BSD’s cool”). After all, Microsoft sells a product with GPL’ed components, and still manages to hold intellectual property (see below).

Perhaps Microsoft means the GPL “destroys” intellectual property because the owners of competing software may be driven out of business. If so, this is

hypocritical; Microsoft has driven many companies out of business, or bought them up at fractions of their original price. Indeed, sometimes the techniques that Microsoft used have later been proven in court to be illegal. In contrast, there is excellent evidence that the GPL is on very solid legal ground. “Destruction” of one organization by another through legal competition is quite normal in capitalistic economies.

The GPL does not “destroy” intellectual property; instead, it creates a level playing field where people can contribute improvements voluntarily to a common project without having them “stolen” by others. You could think of the GPL as creating a consortium; no one is required to aid the consortium, but those who do must play by its rules. The various motivations for joining the consortium vary considerably (see the article License to FUD), but that’s true for any other consortium too. It’s understandable that Microsoft would want to take this consortium’s results and take sole ownership of derivative works, but there’s no reason to believe that a world where the GPL cannot be used is really in consumers’ best interests.

The argument is even more specious for non-GPL’ed code. Microsoft at one time protested about open source software, but indeed, they are a key user of open source software; key portions of Microsoft Windows (including much of their Internet interfacing software) and Microsoft Office (such as compression routines) include open source software. In 2004, Microsoft released an installation tool, WiX, as open source software on SourceForge.

12. Is there really a lot of OSS/FS software? Yes. Freshmeat.net counts over 21,000