“Round Two is now online. Lawrence Lessig joins us as a
participant this round.”
“Though Microsoft’s trademark blue sky and puffy white clouds
may seem ubiquitous today, a devoted effort might turn the
company’s horizons to black. According to Nathan Newman writing for
the American Prospect [“Storming the Gates,” Vol. 11 Issue 10], it
is not the Justice Department’s anti-trust suit that could rain on
Microsoft, but a scrappy group of techno-geeks who make up the
open-source software movement. They could only do it, however, if
they were bolstered by the right government support.”
“In contrast to Microsoft’s “proprietary software” for which the
building blocks (source code) are a closely-guarded secret,
open-source software’s source code is openly available. This means
that programmers who want to wade into the code and improve it can
do so. But there’s one catch: They have to disclose all
improvements and — under most licenses — disburse them for free.
At the heart of the movement is an open-source operating system
called Linux, a version of the UNIX operating system that was
developed (primarily) by the Finnish programmer Linus
Torvalds.”
“The theory behind the open source movement is that with
programmers across the globe working to improve software, there
will be more innovation. Since software would be mostly free,
computer use would be much cheaper. And as open-source software
became easier to use, it would overtake Microsoft’s expensive and
(by then) less desirable proprietary software and operating system,
busting its monopoly. Many argue that because open-source software
has such beneficial and democratic qualities, government should
promote its use through funding or regulation.”
“Opponents argue that it would not be fair for government to
favor open-source software and that the market should decide which
type flourishes. Others — so-called “technolibertarians” — argue
that government involvement could only get in the way of the
open-source phenomenon.”