content/editorial/ec11May.html - openoffice-org - Git at Google

 <html><head>
 <meta HTTP-EQUIV="content-type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
 </head>
 <body>
 <h2> Community
   Articles: Opinions, Interviews, Analyses</h2>
 <p><a href="//lspintro.html" target="_blank">-Louis Su&aacute;rez-Potts</a></p>
 <p>11 May 2001</p>

 <p><b>Fear of the Open Source Community</b>

 <p>What is Microsoft afraid of? That is, what motivates FUD speeches such as Senior
   Vice President of Strategy Craig Mundie's now infamous <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/craig/05-03sharedsource.asp" target="_blank">speech</a>
   May 3 at <a href="http://www.stern.nyu.edu/" target="_blank">The New York University
   Stern School of Business</a>? In case anyone has not heard, the thrust of Mundie's
   speech was that Open Source is harmful to business and the American future because
   it eliminates the protections and motivations offered by copyright. To quote
   Mundie's prepared speech (available on the Microsoft site):
 <blockquote>
 "We emphatically remain committed to a model that protects the intellectual property rights in software and ensures the continued vitality of an independent software sector that generates revenue and will sustain ongoing research and development."
 </blockquote>

 <p>This is a nothing new; we've heard it before. Protecting intellectual property
   is good because it has enabled our current good world, and Open Source threatens
   all of that. How? By providing a mechanism--the <a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html" target="_blank">GPL</a>--by
   which intellectual property is left unprotected and by which an unsustainable
   business model is seemingly enjoined. We might then conclude that what Microsoft
   is most afraid of is precisely the supposed weakening of intellectual property
   posed by the GPL.
 <p>Mundie's rhetoric has been already critiqued, and his errors pointed out, not
   least by<a href="http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-05-02-019-20-NW-CY-MS" target="_blank">
   Eric Raymond,</a> <a href="http://web.siliconvalley.com/content/sv/2001/05/03/opinion/dgillmor/weblog/torvalds.htm" target="_blank">Linus
   Torvalds</a>, Amy Wohl, and others. Of course, in this speech, Microsoft--weirdly,
   given its monopolistic tendencies and proven strategies of intimidation--comes
   across as the champion of intellectual property and innovation.
 <p>But Microsoft has another purposes in slamming <a href="http://www.stern.nyu.edu/" target="_blank">Open
   Source</a> (whatever that is) besides simply sowing fear, doubt, and uncertainty
   in the corporate mind. It wants to promote its own conception of what it calls
   "the Shared Source Philosophy," which can be summarized as: "promoting a sharing
   of knowledge, through source code and broader interaction, while respecting
   the importance of intellectual property rights." Microsoft is perfectly entitled
   to arrange any system of work it wishes (as long as it is legal). But there
   is something strange about this conception. Specifically, the concept of "community"
   as a necessary condition for efficient collaboration more or less drops out
   of the equation.
 <p>To be sure, Mundie does mention community. He mentions it in the phrase "community
   of software developers" (who will work on the "Shared Source") and, more coherently,
   in his discussion of Open Source, which Mundie refers to as open source software
   development, or OSS (which has a faintly sinister ring to it):
 <blockquote>"We recognize that OSS has some benefits, such as the fostering of community, improved feedback and augmented debugging. We are always looking for ways to improve our products and make our customers more successful, and to that end we have incorporated these positive OSS elements in Shared Source."</blockquote>

 <p>Community here is, at best, a "feel good" add-on that does not seem really to be essential to the process of producing software. In fact, though, it soon becomes clear that community is a bad thing. In the next paragraph, Mundie goes on to suggest that all the advantages of Open Source are undone by the very community that makes up any Open Source project. For the danger is one of "unhealthy 'forking' of a code base, resulting in the development of multiple incompatible versions of programs, weakened interoperability, product instability, and hindering businesses' ability to strategically plan for the future. Microsoft's conception of a community without a leader-a confused, anarchic group-will only reduce to chaos any enterprise.

 <p>This conception is laughable. But I think it highlights a persistent failure
   in Microsoft, one that has dogged it since the beginning. Unlike Linux, unlike
   Apple, Microsoft has real problems forming true communities around its products
   and its vision. Part of the problem is its intrinsic heavy-handedness. Remember
   the ineffable charm of <a href="http://www.strategymag.com/articles/ST10078.asp" target="_blank">Microsoft
   Bob</a>? But more to the point, the issue has to do with its very conception
   of what a community is and is supposed to do.
 <p>From Microsoft's perspective, a community is a more or less passive thing,
   not unlike a Hollywood audience, eager to buy more, however stupidly. At best,
   the community might trade tips and support and provided feedback to the makers
   of the software. And at worst, the community will actually take it upon itself
   to improve the product.
 <p>This conception is of course absolutely contrary to Open Source, which conceives
   of the community as actively engaged in constructing the software. From this
   perspective, then, the threat posed by Open Source to Microsoft becomes clearer.
   Simply put, Open Source threatens to disrupt the structure of power that has
   characterized Microsoft's career. This has nothing to do with any threat to
   the so-called "American Way." But Microsoft's campaign against Open Source does
   stir a disturbing echo: <a href="http://www.tlio.demon.co.uk/socal.htm" target="_blank">What
   is good for Microsoft is good for America</a>.
 <p>And I don't buy it. The times are changing.

 </body>
 </html>
	<html><head>
	<meta HTTP-EQUIV="content-type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
	</head>
	<body>
	<h2> Community
	Articles: Opinions, Interviews, Analyses</h2>
	<p><a href="//lspintro.html" target="_blank">-Louis Suárez-Potts</a></p>
	<p>11 May 2001</p>

	<p><b>Fear of the Open Source Community</b>

	<p>What is Microsoft afraid of? That is, what motivates FUD speeches such as Senior
	Vice President of Strategy Craig Mundie's now infamous <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/craig/05-03sharedsource.asp" target="_blank">speech</a>
	May 3 at <a href="http://www.stern.nyu.edu/" target="_blank">The New York University
	Stern School of Business</a>? In case anyone has not heard, the thrust of Mundie's
	speech was that Open Source is harmful to business and the American future because
	it eliminates the protections and motivations offered by copyright. To quote
	Mundie's prepared speech (available on the Microsoft site):
	<blockquote>
	"We emphatically remain committed to a model that protects the intellectual property rights in software and ensures the continued vitality of an independent software sector that generates revenue and will sustain ongoing research and development."
	</blockquote>

	<p>This is a nothing new; we've heard it before. Protecting intellectual property
	is good because it has enabled our current good world, and Open Source threatens
	all of that. How? By providing a mechanism--the <a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html" target="_blank">GPL</a>--by
	which intellectual property is left unprotected and by which an unsustainable
	business model is seemingly enjoined. We might then conclude that what Microsoft
	is most afraid of is precisely the supposed weakening of intellectual property
	posed by the GPL.
	<p>Mundie's rhetoric has been already critiqued, and his errors pointed out, not
	least by<a href="http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-05-02-019-20-NW-CY-MS" target="_blank">
	Eric Raymond,</a> <a href="http://web.siliconvalley.com/content/sv/2001/05/03/opinion/dgillmor/weblog/torvalds.htm" target="_blank">Linus
	Torvalds</a>, Amy Wohl, and others. Of course, in this speech, Microsoft--weirdly,
	given its monopolistic tendencies and proven strategies of intimidation--comes
	across as the champion of intellectual property and innovation.
	<p>But Microsoft has another purposes in slamming <a href="http://www.stern.nyu.edu/" target="_blank">Open
	Source</a> (whatever that is) besides simply sowing fear, doubt, and uncertainty
	in the corporate mind. It wants to promote its own conception of what it calls
	"the Shared Source Philosophy," which can be summarized as: "promoting a sharing
	of knowledge, through source code and broader interaction, while respecting
	the importance of intellectual property rights." Microsoft is perfectly entitled
	to arrange any system of work it wishes (as long as it is legal). But there
	is something strange about this conception. Specifically, the concept of "community"
	as a necessary condition for efficient collaboration more or less drops out
	of the equation.
	<p>To be sure, Mundie does mention community. He mentions it in the phrase "community
	of software developers" (who will work on the "Shared Source") and, more coherently,
	in his discussion of Open Source, which Mundie refers to as open source software
	development, or OSS (which has a faintly sinister ring to it):
	<blockquote>"We recognize that OSS has some benefits, such as the fostering of community, improved feedback and augmented debugging. We are always looking for ways to improve our products and make our customers more successful, and to that end we have incorporated these positive OSS elements in Shared Source."</blockquote>

	<p>Community here is, at best, a "feel good" add-on that does not seem really to be essential to the process of producing software. In fact, though, it soon becomes clear that community is a bad thing. In the next paragraph, Mundie goes on to suggest that all the advantages of Open Source are undone by the very community that makes up any Open Source project. For the danger is one of "unhealthy 'forking' of a code base, resulting in the development of multiple incompatible versions of programs, weakened interoperability, product instability, and hindering businesses' ability to strategically plan for the future. Microsoft's conception of a community without a leader-a confused, anarchic group-will only reduce to chaos any enterprise.

	<p>This conception is laughable. But I think it highlights a persistent failure
	in Microsoft, one that has dogged it since the beginning. Unlike Linux, unlike
	Apple, Microsoft has real problems forming true communities around its products
	and its vision. Part of the problem is its intrinsic heavy-handedness. Remember
	the ineffable charm of <a href="http://www.strategymag.com/articles/ST10078.asp" target="_blank">Microsoft
	Bob</a>? But more to the point, the issue has to do with its very conception
	of what a community is and is supposed to do.
	<p>From Microsoft's perspective, a community is a more or less passive thing,
	not unlike a Hollywood audience, eager to buy more, however stupidly. At best,
	the community might trade tips and support and provided feedback to the makers
	of the software. And at worst, the community will actually take it upon itself
	to improve the product.
	<p>This conception is of course absolutely contrary to Open Source, which conceives
	of the community as actively engaged in constructing the software. From this
	perspective, then, the threat posed by Open Source to Microsoft becomes clearer.
	Simply put, Open Source threatens to disrupt the structure of power that has
	characterized Microsoft's career. This has nothing to do with any threat to
	the so-called "American Way." But Microsoft's campaign against Open Source does
	stir a disturbing echo: <a href="http://www.tlio.demon.co.uk/socal.htm" target="_blank">What
	is good for Microsoft is good for America</a>.
	<p>And I don't buy it. The times are changing.

	</body>
	</html>