---

Yes, we do need the MS Windows source code!

By Norm Jacobowitz

With the possibility of Microsoft being forced to open the
source to all or part of their Windows Operating System(s), there
is (naturally) a lot of debate erupting throughout the GNU/Linux
and broader Open Source Communities. Nathan Myers has written an
astute essay
about why that is not a good idea.

Though Mr. Myers’s essay is well reasoned, I believe he is wrong
on several points. His first argument against opening the MS code
is that the truly interesting code would remain hidden. That, in
and of itself, is a true statement. But if the Windows code is
open, that will create a greater impetus for other developers to
follow suit and open their code, perhaps even the publishers of the
aforementioned hidden code. Plus, forcing MS to open their source
would be akin to the “shot heard round the world”, the sound of the
camel’s back breaking on the old paradigm of proprietary software
publishing.

Mr. Myers’s second argument takes liberties with what people
mean when they are suggesting opening of source code as a legal
remedy in the DOJ suit. In other words, forcing MS to open their
source code is just one of several possible remedies, more than one
of which is likely to be inflicted upon Microsoft. So, the second
argument collapses when you consider the fact that forcing MS to
open source some or some parts of their products is just one of
several remedies that would imposed at once. Releasing some or all
of the Windows code would in no way insulate them from further
action by DOJ or the States’ Attorneys General; as far as I can
tell from the popular media, no one from the DOJ is suggesting that
opening the MS source code would be the only remedy.

Mr. Myers goes on to point out that individuals would not be
free to build their own versions of Windows. Perhaps that would be
true the minute MS opened their source code, but eventually
hardware vendors would be forced to open the specs on their devices
and/or the source to their drivers if they wanted this burgeoning
market — users of Open Source MS Windows — to purchase their
products. Vendors will comply, perhaps slowly at first … but they
will comply, just as many have done for GNU/Linux.

“If the Windows code is
open, that will create a greater impetus for other developers to
follow suit and open their code.”

Finally, Mr. Myers says that opening MS Windows would benefit
Microsoft because developers would contribute code back to improve
the system. Well, I may be missing the boat entirely, but I thought
that’s what this whole GNU/Linux and Open Source phenomenon was all
about: allowing people to have some or total control over the
software they use. If releasing some or all of MS Windows to the
Open Source Community means a better way of getting things done,
isn’t that a good thing? Also, if a decree demanding an opening of
MS code is combined with other legal remedies, it is hard to see
how individuals tailoring Windows to their own needs will help
enforce an illegal Microsoft hegemony over the software world.

To help end Microsoft’s allegedly illegal monopolistic practices
(remember, they have not been convicted yet) Mr. Myers suggests a
major fine in lieu of a demand for an Open Source MS Windows. I
agree with that suggestion — but why not fine them AND demand the
source code?

Basically, I believe there are four major points that make an
Open Source MS Windows a good idea:

  1. Any code, no matter how poorly written and kludgey it may be,
    deserves to be revealed in the public arena, for review by the
    greater programming community. (The obvious exceptions include
    software designed for national security interests, etc.) Even if
    the code turns out to be horrible, we can use it in tutorials about
    how NOT to code.
  2. Open Source Software is good because it lets people be more
    productive and live happier, wealthier lives … lives over which
    people have more individual control. Right now closed source MS
    Windows prevents millions of people from having control over what
    they do when they use information technology. Even though those
    millions of people now have a choice about which O/S they use,
    wouldn’t it be better to give them one more Open Source
    alternative?
  3. Like it or not, there are some very brilliant people working
    for Microsoft Corporation. Putting the fruits of their labor into
    the Open Source Community would in the long run be good for
    everyone. Sure, MS code is known for bugginess and unreliability,
    but combining the talent now hidden in Redmond with the talent in
    our pool of great programmers could only improve the lives of
    everyone involved.
  4. Ending the giant struggle between Microsoft and the GNU/Linux
    (and broader Open Source Communities), and getting down to the
    brass tacks of making software work better for everyone, will be
    better than the current waste of resources and intellectual effort
    now being waged. Look at it this way: the GNU/Linux System is the
    WORST computing environment in the world … except for all the
    others. What is wrong with making all available computing options
    much, much better?

To this end, as part of my regular column, Linux Review,
Linux Resources has
posted a
petition
calling for the Opening of MS Windows 9x source code.
If you agree with my position, stated herein, please go to that
page and enter your electronic “signature.” If you still disagree
with the idea that MS Windows should be Open Source, please send me
a message at normj@ssc.com and
explain why; I want to hear your opinion. Whatever your position,
it is good that people like Nathan Myers take the time to write a
well-reasoned position essay, instead of haphazardly flaming or
remaining silent about their views. Thanks, Nathan Myers.

Norm Jacobowitz
is a freelance writer and marketing consultant based in Seattle,
WA, USA. His weekly column, Linux Review, is available at LinuxResources.Com.

Get the Free Newsletter!

Subscribe to Developer Insider for top news, trends, & analysis