FC: Competitive Enterprise Institute blasts open-source software

[Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>]

[Many good folks work at CEI and they are right to argue Microsoft's propriety
software should remain its own. But it is possible to point out the flaws in
the government's attack on Microsoft without condemning open-source software,
which I think is a welcome trend. --Declan]

********

From: James Gattuso <jgattuso@cei.org> 
Subject: Latest C:\spin from the Competitive Enterprise Institute Date: Tue, 8
Dec 1998 12:36:25 -0500 
An occasional commentary on regulation of high technology -- from an
undiluted free market perspective

This issue: The Open-Source Code Commode

As a December 3 Washington Post article ("The Spreading Grass-Roots Threat
to Microsoft") demonstrated, many disgruntled software designers believe
that software developers like Microsoft should make the source code of their
popular products freely available.

Their reasoning is that "open-source code" would allow a universe of
collaborators, toiling over the Internet, to design and debug software
better than a closed shop like Microsoft.

Surely there's merit to the idea: There's much to learn from putting many
brains together. And if open source works as a model of cooperation and
excels at customer service, that's great.

But one problem with the open-source model is that programmers who have the
least to offer anyone else, gain the most. We can infer this from the
otherwise inexplicable level of venom directed at those who, like Microsoft,
happen not to share the open code attitude. If genuine, belief in the
wonders of open-source should make its proponents indifferent to closed shop
competitors like Microsoft. If the product of multiple, collaborating brains
is superior, coveting Microsoft's "inferior" operating system code is a
waste of time -- particularly since so many claim to hate it anyway. To
practice what they preach, open-source collaborators need to design
something better, then distribute it freely over the Internet to chipmakers
like Intel, computer makers and users. 

To be sure, not everyone is motivated by financial rewards, and the
open-source movement is a prime example. But for the most part, the prospect
of becoming fabulously wealthy, not the desire to give things away, drives
software innovation. Nearly all "freeware" programs - whether word
processors, image editors, games, or browsers - pale beside superior
commercial versions. Even Netscape's release of the source code for
Navigator - applauded by the open-source advocates -- wasn't a fundamental
embrace of their doctrine, but an effort to create a pipeline for offering
other, more profitable services. Conveniently ignored also was that the
Netscape giveaway occurred after the IPO that made multimillionaires out of
its founders. And we may yet see a pullback of the open-source culture at
Netscape now that it has been acquired by America Online. We'll have to wait
and see.

The most sacred example of open-source's success -- the popular Linux
operating system now regarded as at least a credible threat to Windows --
remains difficult for anyone but specialists to use. So far, few critical
major applications - word processors, spreadsheets, 3D games - run on Linux.
Boasts of Linux's crashing less often than alternative operating systems
matter little if few applications people can use run on it.

Use of Linux will probably expand dramatically - but the numberless open
versions tweaked and Web-posted by hackers and hobbyists aren't the ultimate
reason. Driving Linux's mass-market embrace today is the offering of a
proprietary version called Red Hat -- and investment in Red Hat Linux by
Intel and Netscape. 

A dilemma for the open-source model is that its programmers aren't
fundamentally answerable to anyone. Squishy product support won't cut it in
the marketplace. Someone must be available to chew out and to sue when
systems fail catastrophically, as happens occasionally. 

The point here isn't to declare the open-source model "wrong." In free
markets, we needn't embrace the open-source advocates' view
indiscriminately, nor must we regard Microsoft's particular proprietary
model as final. Free markets allow numerous experiments proceed in parallel.
Some mix between the two approaches -- just like we enjoy today -- probably
will remain ideal.

Like free love, open-source code is fun, but it's probably not a way to run
the world. Somebody's got to step forward and take care of the babies.
Microsoft, for its part, accepts that responsibility, and that's one reason
why granting free access Microsoft's code isn't a rational or honest
response to the company's alleged abuses. Like most pop-critiques of the
profit motive, the open source doctrine is blind to its hypocrisy: for every
non-profit hacker, somebody must collect a paycheck to feed him and pay for
the computer. 

By Wayne Crews, December 8, 1998

C:\SPIN is produced by CEI's Competition and Regulation Project. 

  1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. * Suite 1250 * Washington, D.C. 20036

Phone: (202) 331-1010 * Fax: (202) 331-0640 * E-mail:  <mailto:info@cei.org>
info@cei.org * Web site: http://www.cei.org <http://www.cei.org> 


********

Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 13:14:15 -0800 
From: James DeLong <jdelong@regpolicy.com> 
Reply-To: jdelong@regpolicy.com 
Organization: Regulatory Policy Center 

Jim/Wayne - 
Good piece. But I think you should make more of your last point, which 
you deliver almost as a throw-away. You say: 
> for every non-profit hacker, somebody must collect a paycheck to 
> feed him and pay for the computer. 
This strikes me as crucial. Who is subsidizing these hackers while they 
toil for a better world? Companies like Netscape (who must see it as 
way to make a buck somewhere, as you say)? Universities (at the expense 
of students or state subsidies)? Government (courtesy of taxpayers)? 
Followin the money illuminates the issues, as usual. 
Best, 
Jim 
=================================================== 
James V. DeLong 
Regulatory Policy Center 
(202) 338-0556 TEL. (202) 338-0674 FAX 
http://www.regpolicy.com jdelong@regpolicy.com 
Author: PROPERTY MATTERS: How Property Rights Are Under Assault-- 
And Why You Should Care (Free Press 1997)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology
To subscribe: send a message to majordomo@vorlon.mit.edu with this text:
subscribe politech
More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------