“In this article, I will argue that Linux — and free
software generally — provides the best defense against an
odious but probably perfectly legal tactic, called technology
lock-in, which the software industry routinely uses to coerce their
customers into buying even more of the same firm’s products. As
you’ll see, the downstream costs of technology lock-in can be
devastating; but they are avoidable. By moving to Linux-based
server infrastructures and free software applications, firms can
guarantee they’ll never again be victimized by technology lock-in,
because (as I’ll demonstrate) the General Public License (GPL)
raises the costs of lock-in tactics to the point at which they’re
useless to even the most cynical vendors.”
“Business schools teach aspiring managers how to sniff out
lock-in potential and avoid it at all costs. But sometimes it’s
difficult to detect a product’s lock-in potential, and that’s
particularly true when you’re talking about cutting-edge
technology. Still, lock-in is something of a dangerous game to
play, especially when it’s as blatant as the strategy incorporated
into AT&T’s switches. That sort of behavior can get you sued
— and that’s just what happened to AT&T. In 1995, Bell
Atlantic took AT&T to court, alleging that AT&T is a
monopoly and its use of product lock-in amounted to an illegal
predatory practice. Subsequently, the suit was settled out of court
for an undisclosed sum.”
“Microsoft’s products are loaded with lock-in ploys, and what’s
more, the firm freely admits it. And why not? Microsoft’s attorneys
are probably telling Microsoft management that the lock-in Lite
strategy is almost certainly legal, even for a company with a
decisive market monopoly and antitrust troubles. And they may be
correct, in terms of the realities imposed by technologically
illiterate judges and juries. Virtually all of the firm’s products
contain features designed so that customers cannot enjoy the
product’s full feature set unless they purchase additional products
made by the same company; and preferably, they should also move
their server infrastructure to an all-NT/2000 solution. The firm
has made no secret about its next ambition: to colonize the
Internet so that the best benefits will accrue to those who are
exclusively committed to Microsoft clients and servers. And what’s
so terrible about this, Microsoft apologists argue? It seems like
mild arm-twisting at best; after all, you can still use Microsoft
clients in networks served by UNIX, and you can still use
non-Microsoft clients in networks served by Windows 2000. You just
won’t get the full benefits of Microsoft’s glorious products. No
harm done, right?”
“Why couldn’t somebody play the same lock-in games with
Linux? By definition, GPL-licensed software cannot incorporate
lock-in strategies, whether they’re bare-fisted or of the stealth
variety. The GNU Project’s General Public License (GPL) effectively
prevents any vendor, no matter how callous, from introducing
proprietary extensions to any existing protocol. Under the
terms of the GPL, you can use existing GPL-licensed code in
derivative products without paying royalties or licensing fees, but
you must release your derivative product under the terms of the GPL
— which means, for one thing, that everyone can see your
source code and incorporate your changes, if they wish.”