The Craig Mundie speech is old news by now, so hopefully
this is the last word. A number of the free software evangelists,
in informal discussion, felt that the proper response to Microsoft
would be to stand together. Mundie’s speech shows that Microsoft’s
strategy is to keep us divided and attack us one at a time, until
all are gone. Thus, their emphasis on the GPL this time. While we
didn’t try to represent every group and project, many major voices
of Open Source and Free Software have signed this message. We took
a while, because we’re not used to this, but we’ll be better next
time. So, please note the signatures at the bottom of this message
– we will stand together, and defend each other.
Bruce Perens
We note a new triumph for Open Source and Free Software: we have
become so serious a competitor to Microsoft that their executives
publicly announce their fear. However, the only threat that we
present to Microsoft is the end of monopoly practices. Microsoft is
welcome to participate as an equal partner, a role held today by
entities ranging from individuals to transnational corporations
like IBM and HP. Equality, however, isn’t what Microsoft is looking
for. Thus, they have announced Shared Source, a system
that could be summarized as Look but don’t touch – and
we control everything. Microsoft deceptively
compares Open Source to failed dot-com business models. Perhaps
they misunderstand the term Free Software. Remember that
Free refers to liberty, not price. The dot-coms gave away
goods and services as loss-leaders, in unsuccessful efforts to
build their market share. In contrast, the business model of Open
Source is to reduce the cost of software development and
maintenance by distributing it among many collaborators. The
success of the Open Source model arises from copyright holders
relaxing their control in exchange for more and better
collaboration. Developers allow their software to be freely
redistributed and modified, asking only for the same privileges in
return. There is much software that is essential to a business, but
which does not differentiate that business from its competitors.
Even companies that have not fully embraced the Open Source model
can justify collaboration on Free Software projects for this
non-differentiating software, because of the money they will save.
And such collaborations are often overwhelmingly successful: for
example, the project that produces the market-leading
Apache web server was started by a group of users who
agreed to share the work of maintaining a piece of software that
each of their businesses depended on. The efficiency of this
cooperation is in the best interests of the user. But Free Software
is also directly in the user’s interest, because it means that the
users control the software they use. When they do business with
Open Source vendors, the vendors do not dominate them. With very
little funding, the GNU/Linux system has become a significant
player in many major markets, from internet servers to embedded
devices. Our GUI desktop projects have astounded the software
industry by going from zero to being comparable with or superior to
others in only 4 years. Workstation manufacturers like Sun and HP
have selected our desktops to replace their own consortium
projects, because our work was better. An entire industry has been
built around Free Software, and is growing rapidly despite an
unfavorable market. The success of software companies like Red Hat,
and the benefits to vendors such as Dell and IBM, demonstrate that
Free Software is not at all incompatible with business. The Free
Software license singled out for abuse by Microsoft is the GNU
General Public License, or GNU GPL. This license is the computer
equivalent of share and share alike. But this does not
mean, as Microsoft claims, that a company using these programs is
legally obliged to make all its software and data free. We make all
GPL software available in source form for incorporation as a
building block in new programs. This is the secret of how we have
been able to create so much good software, so quickly. If you do
choose to incorporate GPL code into a program, you will be required
to make the entire program Free Software. This is a fair exchange
of our code for yours, and one that will continue as you reap the
benefit of improvements contributed by the community. However, the
legal requirements of the GPL apply only to programs which
incorporate some of the GPL-covered code – not to other programs on
the same system, and not to the data files that the programs
operate upon. Although Microsoft raises the issue of GPL
violations, that is a classic red herring. Many more people find
themselves in violation of Microsoft licenses, because Microsoft
doesn’t allow copying, modification, and redistribution as the GPL
does. Microsoft license violations have resulted in civil suits and
imprisonment. Accidental GPL violations are easily remedied, and
rarely get to court. It’s the share and share alike
feature of the GPL that intimidates Microsoft, because it defeats
their Embrace and Extend strategy. Microsoft tries to
retain control of the market by taking the result of open projects
and standards, and adding incompatible Microsoft-only features in
closed-source. Adding an incompatible feature to a server, for
example, then requires a similarly-incompatible client, which
forces users to “upgrade”. Microsoft uses this
deliberate-incompatibility strategy to force its way through the
marketplace. But if Microsoft were to attempt to “embrace and
extend” GPL software, they would be required to make each
incompatible “enhancement” public and available to its competitors.
Thus, the GPL threatens the strategy that Microsoft uses to
maintain its monopoly. Microsoft claims that Free Software fosters
incompatible “code forking”, but Microsoft is the real motor of
incompatibility: they deliberately make new versions incompatible
with old ones, to force users to purchase each upgrade. How many
times have users had to upgrade Office because the Word file format
changed? Microsoft claims that our software is insecure, but
security experts say you shouldn’t trust anything but Free Software
for critical security functions. It is Microsoft’s programs that
are known for snooping on users, vulnerability to viruses, and the
possibility of hidden “back doors”. Microsoft’s Shared Source
program recognizes that there are many benefits to the openness,
community involvement, and innovation of the Open Source model. But
the most important component of that model, the one that makes all
of the others work, is freedom. By attacking the one license that
is specifically designed to fend off their customer and developer
lock-in strategy, they hope to get the benefits of Free Software
without sharing those benefits with those who participate in
creating them. We urge Microsoft to go the rest of the way in
embracing the Open Source software development paradigm. Stop
asking for one-way sharing, and accept the responsibility to share
and share alike that comes with the benefits of Open Source.
Acknowledge that it is compatible with business. Free Software is a
great way to build a common foundation of software that encourages
innovation and fair competition. Microsoft, it’s time for you to
join us.
Bruce Perens, Primary Author: The
Open Source Definitionco-signers: Richard Stallman, Free Software
Foundation.
Eric Raymond, Open Source Initiative.
Linus Torvalds, Creator of the Linux
Kernel.
Miguel de Icaza, GNOME GUI Desktop
Project.
Larry Wall, Creator of the Perl
Language.
Guido van Rossum, Creator of the Python
Language.
Tim O’Reilly, Publisher.
Bob Young, Co-Founder, Red Hat
Larry Augustin, CEO, VA Linux
Systems
A master copy of this document can be found at http://perens.com/Articles/StandTogether.html
You may copy and reproduce this document with the formatting
changes and translation necessary for your publication, but please
don’t change what we say. See perens.com for press contact
information.