Fight the Good Fight
For those of you who are non-techie, or just plain unaware of it, there is a fight going on that you probably ought to be aware of. Of course, techie-types will be telling me this is old news but hey, better late than never. And it’s a worthwhile issue to draw attention to.
“On March 7, 2003 The SCO Group filed suit against IBM, claiming it improperly inserted proprietary Unix code in the Linux kernel. The suit has evolved into a full-blown controversy. SCO’s lawyers are threatening to make the case a test of the validity of the Free Software Foundation’s General Public License (GPL), under which the Linux kernel and the GNU programs that make up the Linux operating system are distributed. Were SCO to prevail, it might hinder development of Linux and make the general public’s ability to obtain it difficult. It could also have an adverse effect on other Open Source projects which are developed and distributed in ways that are similar to the Linux model. Since SCO is threatening to charge exorbitant licensing fees for Linux, this would be a serious blow to developing nations particularly. Their fledgling IT industries rely on Linux to a great extent in their efforts to overcome a technological lag which contributes to the cycle of poverty. Though most experts in the Linux, Open Source and Free Software communities believe SCO’s claims dubious, their evidence flimsy and their chances for success slim, the case has managed to divert the attention of the entire IT industry. It has many in these communities understandably worried.”
So for non-techie types, the short of it is that where once there was a community full of innovation and goodwill, someone else’s greed is threatening it. The counter-argument is that profits earned are put into R&D which in turn provides a better quality of service and product. This doesn’t necessarily hold true as it will help to exclude many competent companies and personnel from providing a significant contribution to a growing area of the IT field.
The open source revolution is perhaps one of the quiet revolutions of the Internet. It’s sort of like tech transparency - where anyone can look under the bonnet (or hood) of the car and tweak the engine. While most of us won’t be able to, it’s nice to know that you can if you had the skills. The same goes with open source software. The relationship with those who profit from open-source was always a balanced one - we’ll provide you with software distributed like thus, and generally, if you break it your on your own. Okay, maybe not as extreme as that, but the point is that you were allowed to go and break it if you wanted to. Sort of like the warranty on that car. Tweak the engine and the car manufacturers will point to their warranty like the burning bush.
The other issue with this case is the free license (or as close to free as you can get) that a lot of open source code is distributed under. We are all familiar with the various software license agreements for the software that we use on our computers. (Well, you should be). If you’ve bought this software, the license will explain to you what you can and cannot do with the software, sliding more to the side of don’t do something. Essentially, it meant don’t develop anything until we develop something, release it and sell it to you. Obviously, companies would be worried that they would lose out on profits if people started developing on top of their own products and the brand value of their products will be diminished or damaged. Back to our car analogy, it would be like someone taking a Ford and reconfiguring it and selling it off again. Ford might not be comfortable with that since their name still stands on the car and they can be liable for that motor vehicle (they aren’t, given the number of warranty terms).
Most free licenses allow a great deal flexibility to the end-user to develop on top of the software they license. This has stemmed from reasons of good-will to a pragmatic realisation that anything you provide for free will be developed on regardless of whether you permit it or not. Afterall, you aren’t depriving anyone of the earnings if it’s free. Of course, there is the ideological reasoning of “power to the people” behind free license distributions. In most cases, free licenses are there to preserve the liberty of the software and to ensure that credit is given to the right parties.
Insert a paid-for license into the mix and in many jurisdictions, you have a contract of sorts. Inevitably, corporate interests will take precedence over “good-will”. You will most likely see a return to the don’t do this, do do this, and definitely don’t do this attitude over the license and the software.
As you can no doubt see, free license and open source software encourages development from a much wider community than any one company can provide. Along with the source code being freely open for inspection, Darwin’s theory of natural selection is often at play in the open source community with the chaff being separated from the wheat. The chances of being screwed over by one company looking to make a quick buck should be relatively minimal.
So what’s so chilling about the actions of the The SCO Group? If the SCO Group were to win, the current method by which Linux was distributed and worked on would be under threat. Costs would likely increase, and the community working on it would most likely decrease. Once the corporation had quite likely killed off the free incarnation, the offering would most likely be doomed to go through life as corporate zombie…resurrected for more selfish interests. Fantastical? Can anyone say Napster?
Of course, it should be noted that Apple makes quite a happy buck from a consumer base that is not only loyal but also a contributing one. So not all cases of corporate involvement are tales of woe.
But the SCO Group isn’t Apple. By sticking its corporate fingers into the pot, it threatens to unravel the upward growth of systems like Linux to threaten Microsoft’s near monopoly of the PC market. For a company that has posted a third quarter loss of US$7.4m, it is unlikely that the SCO is in good financial shape to push Linux further into the ring with Microsoft.
Why should you care? Well, you are all most likely to have been in contact with Linux at some form or another. If you are reading this right now, it is being served to you by Linux. Cost wise, I’m not sure you would be reading this without the availabilty of open-source software. And, as the article says, open source, Linux and freely distributed (and consequently developed) software brings IT to those who don’t have a lot of money whether they be government institutions, educational establishments or developing nations. Any move to exclude them based on economic considerations would certainly mean a less vibrant, less colourful offering on the Internet.
So despite the case enjoying a ceasefire of sorts, we should all be vigilant and concerned about this fight. Most courts would throw out a case where Ford planned to sue all the garages and mechanics that modified their cars. This isn’t the realm of state or legal control. Any involvement that the state has in it, says that cars so modified need to meet these standards to be road-worthy to satisfy concerns of safety. So too it should be with open source software and free licenses.
Read more about the SCO Controversy over at Linux.org.
