Jason Matusow, Director of Microsoft’s Shared Source Initiative, is a smart guy. I’ve heard him speak in person. He’s managed to keep his job for a few years while weathering unfriendly crowds and debates with the likes of Larry Lessig. So, clearly, when he says the following, I can only imagine it’s planned FUD:

But if a customer modifies the source code, [Red Hat] can’t help you [without charging you extra]. They have to lock things down to provide value. As open source becomes commercialized, it becomes less open.

Come on, Jason, you can do better than that. This is a classic point-of-view confusion argument.

Open-source and free software give the customer the option of modifying the source code at any time. Does that mean that it’s a good idea to change source code on a mission-critical application that you’re paying RedHat to support? Of course not. Of course RedHat is going to support only the official RedHat version of Linux.

But if RedHat starts to do stupid things, open-source lets another vendor fork the code and provide support. Or if said other vendor figures out how to add a fantastic feature to RedHat Linux which they will then happily support, then open-source lets them do just that.

Open-source is not about modifying mission-critical code willy-nilly. It’s about freeing the software vendor market. It’s about allowing the customer to disentangle his choice of software and his choice of vendor. It’s about letting a thousand flowers bloom, creating a market that lets software evolve until it truly fits a need. And when it does, companies like RedHat will support that software version, while other versions of the software continue to evolve for other purposes.

Jason was focusing the crowd on the micro level: the relationship between one support vendor and one customer. Yet the forces of Open-source and Free Software operate at the macro level, influencing the general trend of software development. Macrosoft, if you will.

So Marc Fleury is a successful figure in the open-source business world. It’s very clear that he’s succeeded in business, but it’s not so clear that he understands open-source very well, and that may come back to bite him. And since he’s a Frenchman, too, hopefully he’ll take my criticism well, if he ever reads it

In his Business Week interview, he basically criticizes the “Hari Krisha’s” (his words, not mine) of the open-source world, pitting those who work for free against those who are trying to make a living. He claims that he found a way to make money off open-source: give the software away for free and sell the services. (So, he didn’t exactly invent this idea, but let’s put that aside for now.) What he fails to see is that open-source development and open-source support are distinct.

The beauty of open-source, from a business standpoint, is that the software writer and the software support provider may not be the same. Open-source enables competition. I wrote about this back in 2000: open-source is the ultimate capitalist tool in that it enables a customer to pick a product and then select a support provider for that product independently of who wrote the software. That’s ultimate market competition, and it ultimately benefits the customer.

So insulting the people who might contribute to JBoss for free is neither here nor there. Much open-source software is written by people who don’t get paid (including the early versions of JBoss). The question is: who’s providing the service? Well, JBoss.com is. But so is HP. And so is Novell. In other words, Marc, if you’re insulting the open-source volunteers, you’re missing the point. The volunteers will always be part of the equation when it comes to writing open-source software. When it comes to supporting open-source software, of course people expect to be paid.

And the way you make money in the open-source world is by harnessing the open-source community for development, where new features and bug fixes benefit everyone, to build the most awesome platform you can build. Then, you have to build a brand, a solid brand, and some quality services, to ensure that customers come to you for support instead of switching to your competitor the moment you stop performing. The two steps, building the sotware and supporting it, are very different.

JBoss has certainly understood the concept of building a solid brand. Kudos to the company for succeeding where many (including myself) have failed. However, insulting a segment of your platform builders because you found a way to make money on services when they did their work for free, that’s just stupid. It’s a bit as if RedHat insulted Linus because he started Linux as a volunteer. It’s bad strategy.

As nearly everyone has pointed out, Bill Gates is telling the world that Intellectual Property moderates are, in fact, communists.

This type of craziness isn’t new, not even for Microsoft. Way back in 2000, I wrote about how free software is, in fact, pro-capitalism. Then, after an MS executive first employed the “Communist” name-calling in 2001, I wrote an April Fool’s press release for my company at the time, OpenForce. It’s fun to look back at these and realize that BillG hasn’t moved past the arguments many made fun of more than 3 years ago.

It’s only a matter of time before BillG joins the MPAA in using the term “IP terrorist.”

By now, it’s pretty clear to anyone with a clue (including the National Retail Federation) that SCO is up to no good with their bogus lawsuits claiming Linux violates their intellectual property.

What’s becoming clearer now is the bogus nature of their own understanding of what’s good for the customer. In their 5 reasons to choose Unix over Linux, reason #2 is:

SCO Unix® is backed by a single, experienced vendor

The emphasis on “single” is mine, not SCO’s, but it should be shocking to anyone with a basic understanding of what’s good for the customer.

Is it a good thing if there’s only one long distance phone company? Is it a good thing if there’s only one mechanic to call when your car breaks down? Is it a good thing if there’s only one movie theater in town and you’re subjected to the owner’s wacky movie taste?

Obviously not.

Choice is a good thing. And not just choice of products: products that need maintenance and upgrade (like software and cars) are incredibly inconvenient if said maintenance can only be performed by a single vendor. I wrote an article about this almost 4 years ago, and I guess I’m not surprised that some people are still stuck in the past: when it comes to software, people seem to forget that competition brings better, cheaper service.

Once again, here is proof that free software = free markets. A paradox? Not if you can think outside the software box and price tag.

I attended Monday’s presentation by Darl McBride of SCO. You can even see me asking Darl a question about SCO going after end-users (I’m the guy with the EFF t-shirt at the bottom-center of the picture). For a few months, I’ve been asking myself whether SCO truly believes their own story, or whether they’re simply using all legal and illegal means to “increase shareholder value.” It’s an interesting question to ask yourself in general when arguing with someone: is this person standing up for a certain principle they believe in, or just trying to win the fight and get the prize? Is this Beliefs, or is this Tactics?

I spent the couple of hours of the talk and Q&A session thinking about SCO’s arguments, observing Darl’s reactions to various comments, all to basically answer that one question. My conclusion: SCO doesn’t believe its own story. SCO is using vague arguments about copyright law, “cyber-terrorism,” and software buzzwords like “enterprise-ready” to extort the Linux community.

SCO has many different stories. They claim the GPL is unconstitutional, yet when pressed about their use and distribution of Samba, they say “we have nothing against free software, we even participate sometimes.” They frame the debate as FOR or AGAINST intellectual property, because that’s fashionable, yet the GPL is based on strong copyright law (and I’m pretty sure their lawyers understand this). They claim Linux was a hobbyist tool until their “enterprise-ready features” were “stolen” and incorporated, when any tech CEO with some experience knows that “enterprise-ready” is a marketing term used mostly in checkmark-comparison charts. They cherry-pick singular actions from some members of the Linux community and brand them “cyber-terrorists,” yet they have no issue with first vaguely threatening, then suing end-users of Linux before their IP claims are at all solidified. Scare tactics are okay, it seems, only if they increase shareholder value.

So what do you do if your opponent frames the debate in their own twisted way, slivers away from all the tough questions, and values winning over all other principles including accuracy? The only way to win is to refuse to fight on their terms.

I look forward to Groklaw continuing its fantastic work of carefully debunking all of SCO’s ridiculous claims. I look forward to watching the swarm of IBM lawyers slowly pick apart SCO’s arguments in court. I’m optimistic that the courts will do the right thing and see through the smokescreens and handwaving.

As for me, I’m done asking SCO questions. SCO is not seeking the truth, and thus they cannot be convinced of it. The only worhwhile efforts are those aimed at explaining the situation to the press and to the courts.

Twenty years ago, Richard Stallman started the GNU project to provide a liberated alternative to highly-constrained closed software. The idea was and remains simple: users should be in full control of their software, including running it, modifying it, and restributing their modifications. Throughout the years, Stallman has often been characterized as a freak, a man who cannot compromise on his “ridiculous” principles. In the face of this criticism, even from people in the same camp, Stallman has steadfastly maintained his principles of uncompromising freedom, true to his words of 1983.

Many believe the “open-source movement” is a fad started around 1998, but its roots go back to the dawn of computers. Companies sold hardware and shipped it with accompanying limitation-free software. Then some realized they could make money off software. To do so, they constrained software usage rights. The Free Software Foundation and GNU project were, in fact, reactions to industry changes. Neither new nor untested, the principles of free software are the very ideas that made the Internet and software revolutions possible.

Stallman is a genius. In Lessig’s words, he is the “philosopher king” of our generation. Stallman’s other writings include a short essay entitled the Right to Read. When it was written (1996), it seemed ridiculous. Today, it seems prophetic and incredibly scary.

Imagine, for a second, Ford accusing Toyota of stealing their clever headlight technology. Toyota responds “bull, that is ridiculous,” then Ford turns around and declares “okay, then, before the courts make any decision on the validity of our claims, we’re going to discredit you in the press, take cheap shots like calling you ‘thieves’, and scare all Toyota owners individually into paying Ford $700 for the right to continue operating their headlights on their Toyota automobile.” Does this sound ridiculous? A hint of extortion, maybe? It’s exactly what’s happening in the software world with SCO, and for some reason the press hasn’t quite caught on to how frivolous this is.

SCO claims it owns parts of the Linux operating system. The Free Software Foundation has clearly analyzed how this is most likely untrue, and, most importantly, how, even if the claims are true, SCO has no right to pursue individual Linux users.

Yet that is exactly what they’re doing: they want $700 from every Linux user and are threatening to sue these individuals otherwise. (This includes me).

Software is confusing. In today’s business models, it straddles two worlds: that of physical, shrink-wrapped objects, and that of abstract ideas. In the midst of this confusion, software users look to their vendors for guidance.

Of course, one can make use of the confusion, spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD), and work to make as much money as possible. In fact, that’s the game far too many software vendors have been playing for the past 20 years: the customer doesn’t understand software, so the vendor tells some really juicy stories about how such-and-such thing is so difficult to build, and that’s why it’s so expensive, and oh don’t forget customization costs, and oh don’t forget the 20% a year for support. SCO is simply taking this attitude to the next level.

The thing is, there’s a bunch of us who have decided not to use the people’s confusion to our advantage. We’re the free software guys and gals, and we focus entirely on our users’ rights. We want software to make sense to people, to provide opportunity, to create competitive markets that enable innovation. We want software to realize its immense potential. We do this by adopting an architecture for software distribution that forces everyone to play fair, so that if one of us screws up, a user can easily turn to someone else to finish the job. (Try doing that with non-free software.)

Free software is ethical software.

SCO is not just preying on users’ confusion about software to make a quick buck. SCO is working to completely discredit the one software movement that’s trying to do away with the very kind of abusive, unethical behavior that they’re engaging in.

That’s unacceptable. I strongly support all actions of the Free Software Foundation, Open Source Initiative, IBM, RedHat, Suse, the EFF and others against SCO. This is not just a fight for Linux, it’s a fight for ethical software development.

Join the fight with the EFF.

Tim O’Reilly says:

• paradigm shift: software as a commodity. Small, reusable pieces
• new killer apps: Google, Amazon, eBay, Paypal
• open-source licenses don’t work because no redistribution occurs for these killer apps
• the value in software is moving up the stack, specifically to lock-in via user data.

This is a very interesting and useful analysis. Noticing lock-in via user data is particularly insightful.

But I have to disagree on one point: software licenses do work and are becoming more important. As the killer apps become more and more dependent on collecting, processing, and redistributing user data, the underlying architecture of these applications comes into play: what data is my software sharing with Amazon without my knowledge? How secure is my exchange with PayPal? What are the underlying rules? What is the code of this online world, and can I change it if I need to?

We will never have (nor will we need) the Amazon source code. It makes financial sense for Google to build its search engine using Linux, but if Microsoft can do better using Windows, the user will switch and there’s nothing wrong with that. Yet when it comes to the user’s end of the transaction, we do want the source code and the freedom to change it.

So maybe software licenses will be relevant to a smaller domain of software: infrastructure software (browers, etc..) . In a world where the user’s control over her own machine and data is continually eroded, infrastructure software is what counts! Free software lets users stay in control.

And that matters.