[FSF India] Open $ource is as dangerous as M$ (if not more)

[Vivekananda Prabhu]

Hi,

I have been following the "Free" vs. "Open Source" vs.
"Closed Source" debate which has been raging for
sometime now. 

The real issues here is *ethics*.

The so-called Open Source guys are here to make
*money* period. Though open source definition looks
deceptively similar to Free Software definition
including half-hearted endorsement of GPL, the real
issues are more deeper & subtle (for the casual
reader)

1) World Domination -- Most of the open source guys
are of the type "My view is world view" including
Linus Torvalds & the stupid moron ( pardon me for the
strong words used but I couldn't find any political
correct word to describe this guy) who has added words
of poisonous vicious attack on RMS on GLIBC README!!!.

They want Linux to succeed not "Freedom"

How does this make them different from Bill Gate's
vision of "Windows everywhere"? This is against the
"Freedom of choice & collaboration" which must be
available to the users & developers. Do we want to
have "Linux everywhere" tommorrow & pay $s to Red Hat
& VA Linux instead of to M$? I love Free software not
because it will dominate the world tommorrow but it
gives me the choice & power to do whatever I want to
do with it today

2) Software Incubation /Marketing -- These guys give
out open source not because they love freedom but as
they don't have any other choice. Software incubation
from alpha stage to beta & into production (as any
developer knows) is a long drawn & costly process.
Initial marketing when you don't have a customer
requires a fat bank balance. So they do open source.
Open Source automatically gives them developers for
free (as in free beer), it also gives them free
publicity. As more & more users download & use the
software this gives them market penetration (market
percentage) which they want.

Remember Linus Torvalds initially released Linux as a
non-free software & then used GPL. He used GPL not
because he loved Freedom or had any sacred feeling for
GPL (which he doesnot).But he wanted Linux to succeed.
If he hadn't used GPL Linux still would have the same
mindshare as FreeBSD or Minix.

3)Love for Mozilla/BSD style licences - These people
love these licences not because they want to give
developers more choice about licences, but these
licences give them the option to turn closed source &
steal other developers efforts if they have to.

E.g. As X Consortium tried to turn last X release into
closed source (unsuccessfully)

Some of them go to the length of saying developers
Read companies) should have the freedom to choose
whichever licences they wish to (Notably Tim O'Reilly
& seconded by Eric S. Raymond).Extending this argument
even M$ Closed source/Shared Source licences are also
OK for them. Isn't it?

4) B grade software - The real danger of Open Source
is that it will tie those users who love freedom to B
grade software, as all Professional & Enterprise
Editions will be closed source.

You use a open source software to do some basic thing.
As your business develops you want to do more advanced
things. You suddenly realise you *lose your freedom*,
get a closed source software & pay through your nose.
This strategy is the same as used by "Freeware"
people.

In this respect atleast M$ is OK. When you go with M$
you know you have pay for every feature you want to
use & you lose freedom. Atleast they don't cheat the
people in the name of "Open Source" (not yet).

As an e.g. Can you develop JSPs/EJBs using open source
Netbeans/Forte? The answer is *no*, leaving aside
*early access* releases which are baits to get free
developers, testers & *will* be expired once the
Closed Source version becomes ready to market.

That is why they love non-copyleft BSD/Mozilla
licences which prevent them from doing this.They don't
love (hate in their hearts) GPL as this prevents them
from doing this (if they include other peoples
contributions which they invariably have to). Agreed
they don't say GPL is "Cancerous" & "Unamerican" the
way M$ does though they would love to but scared that
they might lose the free (gratis) developers/testers. 

But they do no lesser harm by saying OK, you can use
GPL but you are equally safe using BSD, Mozilla
etc.(whill will allow me to steal your efforts).Just
look at the list of licences available at Open Source
web site (http://www.opensource.org).You'll be
surprised to find GPL at the very bottom (added
half-heartedly with a sarcastic explanation).

I am not surprised tommorrow if they welcome M$ with
it's Shared Source licence into thier club (if M$ is
ready to pump $s into thier companies).M$ may even
licence some part of it's OS kernel using Mozilla/BSD
style licence if it can reduce it's maintenance costs
while reserving the right to add proprietory
extensions

Given this background we are seeing more & more "Open
Source" guys turning "Closed Source" on the pretext of
"Sacrifice". Please read Eric Raymonds explanation for
VA going closed source ( It is alright to sacrifice
principles for money).

With friends like "Open Source" guys do we need
enemies? An enemy who acts like a friend is more
dangerous than a open foe (M$ & other closed source
companies).

The real definition of Open Source is "Free beer (for
me) not free speech (for you)" (with due apologies to
RMS)

Sorry for the long winded story. But I felt that it is
time somebody exposed these guys for what they are.
Everyone here was saying hey we are rivals not
enemies, Open Source & FSF are friends & go hand in
hand etc.

Before flaming me or this mailing list for my heresy
of calling GNU/Linux as Linux, please understand I am
talking about/exposing the thinking of Open Sourcers.
(They certainly donot call Gnu/Linux as Gnu/Linux). In
case anybody is still offended my apologies to them.

Regards,
Vivek





__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/