Opportunity Lost, Challenge Declined

		Print
		Email weblog link
		Discuss
		Blog this

Tim O'Reilly
May. 12, 2001 10:19 AM
Permalink

There's a very interesting thread with this title happening on the Free Software Business List right now, which started when one Adam Theo came to the list with some questions about what license to use for his project. He indicated that he was trying to get some of the benefits of free software without giving up too much control, and was sent packing by some members of the list. Things got more interesting (at least to me) when Dave Blankley wrote:

The thread begun by Adam Theo represented both an opportunity and a challenge to this group. One that so far has been squandered, yet may still be redeemed.

Specifically, a developer has come to us with a product and a question on semi-proprietary licensing. Rather than use this as an opportunity to brain-storm and develop a viable means for this person(and the community at large) to see a return on their investment(development time) we have squandered it shouting what amounts to opinions, rather than arguments, that closed source is bad.

I chimed in:

I have to say I agree very much with what you've said here. An "all or nothing" approach just hardens positions. I tend to see lots of signs of people coming towards the free software world, and many times they are sent packing with their tails between their legs.

There was some pushback from the list. Then things started to heat up again. In particular, there was an interesting exchange between Stephen J. Turnbull and Russ Nelson. Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

They're coming toward open source, which, though technically equivalent in the license definition, is _very_ different in terms of the dynamics. Note that many of the economic benefits that Eric pushes apply to published but proprietary source code, as well as to free software.

To which Russ Nelson replied:

I don't believe this to be true. The benefits derive from the freedom to fork. Remove that -- and all proprietary code removes the freedom to fork -- and you remove the benefits as well.

I then wrote a fairly long reply in which I outlined why I think the freedom to fork and other license terms are not at all the source of the benefits. It may protect those benefits, but does not cause them. I argued that things like system architecture and attitudes towards the user community matter more than licenses.

I also argued again for engagement:

Cass Sunstein's book republic.com talks about the dynamics of groups that talk only to people who already agree with them: they tend to become more extreme, reinforcing their existing beliefs, while groups that regularly engage in dialogue with people who have opposite views tend to moderate towards the middle.

Now, I have nothing against this group wanting to sit in a corner and be extremists, if that's what you want. But since this is the premier gathering and conversation place for people who really care about the intersection of free software or open source and the business world, I'd much rather see us put our collective weight into engaging with "the enemy". Yes, it might cause those of us in dialogue to become more moderate, but my firm belief is that it will help Microsoft to become more moderate as well.

In a followup on May 14, I added the following, perhaps controversial, assertion:

I see the hard line MS/proprietary position and the GPL as two ends of a spectrum. In between, there are a lot more commonalities of thinking between developers at many proprietary companies and at many fsbs using BSD-style licenses than is usually acknowledged on this list. Yes, there is a dividing line between proprietary and open source, and I think it's been drawn in a pretty good way by the OSI, but in practice, people close to each other on either side of that line have more in common than they do with their supposed compatriots at each end of the spectrum.

I am tempted to just excerpt the best bits from the various postings here, but really, for context, you should go to the list archives and read the whole thread. I've linked above to the individual messages that I think are most interesting.

Tim O'Reilly is the founder and CEO of O'Reilly Media, Inc., thought by many to be the best computer book publisher in the world, and an activist for open standards. O'Reilly Media also publishes online through the O'Reilly Network and hosts conferences on technology topics, including the O'Reilly Open Source Convention, the O'Reilly Emerging Technology Conference, and the Web 2.0 Conference. Tim's blog, the O'Reilly Radar "watches the alpha geeks" to determine emerging technology trends, and serves as a platform for advocacy about issues of importance to the technical community. For everything Tim, see tim.oreilly.com.

Return to weblogs.oreilly.com.