Blackmoor Vituperative

John Carroll over at ZDNet has an article about what it would take for Linux and open source software can compete with the Microsoft “ecosystem”. His first two points are pretty reasonable. In fact, I think they’re common wisdom by now:

1. More consistency: Ecosystems are essentially standards that extend across software markets. They simplify development by lowering costs, shortening development timeframes and leveraging knowledge across markets.

For Linux to build a proper ecosystem, more thought needs to be applied to what technology will be present on every instance of Linux. That’s going to be hard, as one of the things that appeals to so many users of Linux is its technology agnosticism. … For instance, choose whether every system must include KDE or Gnome (but not both). Decide that every instance of Linux must ship with Corba, and which Corba ORB it should use. Every version of Linux should ship with Java or .NET….

2. Greater spread: I noted in my original post that ecosystems are only as valuable as their spread. That means that Linux cannot confine itself to markets where it is currently popular. Linux needs to spread, and that means they need to get more popular in desktops, handhelds, cell phones, music players, media technology, etc.

No stunning news there.

From here, however, Carroll veers into the Twilight Zone:

3. Detente with the world of proprietary software: Now for the controversial stuff. The single biggest force holding back the growth of open source software are the Free Software vigilantes who view proprietary software as tantamount to slavery. That puts open source in the productive category of nations that prevent the female half of the population from working. Open source programmers do great things, but proprietary software can benefit from both the efforts of open source programmers AND the efforts of those who create for financial gain.

That’s a waste. Philosophically, open source should move closer to Eric Raymond (who understands that there is a role for proprietary software) and away from Richard Stallman (who is on record as saying programmer’s should make less money).

Yes, Stallman is a flake. You’ll get no argument from me there. And no, he obviously shouldn’t be setting policy for the open source movement. He had a great idea, and he’s due credit for that, but just because the gods reach down and touch a band and they have one of the best songs ever (e.g., How Soon Is Now by The Smiths) doesn’t mean that you should listen to that band for the rest of your life.

But Carroll is missing the central element of what makes open source software “open source” — the license requires it. You can’t combine GPL and patented software into one product. The GPL is sometimes compared to a virus. It’s not: patents are the virus, and the GPL is the cure. Compromising with the world of proprietary, patented software would destroy the world of open source software.

4. Encourage a paying market atop your products: … Of course, there is nothing which officially stops companies from selling Linux software. There is a barrier, however, that derives from a culture that expects low-cost, if not free, open source products.

This is partly derived from the difficulties of deriving revenue from software as such when the secret sauce is published for all the world to see. Lots of people gloss over that problem by noting that there are lots of other ways to make money from software besides sales. Even so, it’s worth noting that the web of companies that build software for Windows (and who form a large part of the appeal of Microsoft’s platforms) are attracted by the profits to be generated by a pool of buyers with a demonstrated willingness to pay.

A similar buying culture needs to be built for the open source world. That will require, of course, jettisoning the “free software” philosophy which drove the movement in its early days.

So in order for open source software to compete with the Microsoft hegemony, it needs to stop being open source. Thank you for that pearl of wisdom, Mr. Quisling.

Here is a man who physically embodies the concept of “not getting it”.