Part 2: The reaction of the commercial software industry

Part 2: The reaction of the commercial software industry

2.1 Computer giant Microsoft worried about Linux competition.

In late October 1998, open source advocate Eric Raymond received a Microsoft document concerning its strategy against Linux and Open source Software. This famous document known as the Halloween document plans to start a misinformation campaign of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) against the open source movement, which was considered as a potential threat⁴⁴. Microsoft even accused Linux of being "Anti-American"(...!)⁴⁵ This fear of Linux was confirmed a year later with the addition of the header 'Linux Myths' on Windows NT website, where Microsoft points out the weaknesses of Linux.⁴⁶ The open source community, who was flattered to be considered as a competitor, saw this as an encouragement more than as a problem. Further anti-competitive practices⁴⁷ were reported in March 2002: the computer manufacturer Gateway testified during the anti-trust trial of Microsoft that Microsoft offered certain discounts to computer manufacturers who installed Windows. More, certain internal Microsoft documents showed a concerted effort to actually pressurise computer manufacturers not to use Linux. The representative from the main Linux distributor Red Hat testified that a deal with Dell failed due to its fear of retaliation from Microsoft. ⁴⁸

Firstly, the lack of development control. This is not very accurate: there are free software programmers in charge of coordinating the development of the software. It could be either a single person, like Linus Torvald, the ‘father’ of Linux, who is supposed to agree to improvements to the code; or a group, like the Apache group. Nevertheless, it is true that common standards should be defined⁴⁹.

Secondly, the absence of business model. It should be remembered that those companies selling free software are also getting the IP for free from the community and can therefore give it away freely. If it could well be that selling services is the way forward for open-source based companies; there are still few companies making money out of it⁵⁰. The Dot.com crash two years ago appeared essentially due to the lack of sustainable ways of making profit. The bet of open source companies is that providing associated services, such as installation, support and implementation of applications is a sufficiently sustainable way to make profit.

The final argument for Microsoft is that no compulsory warranty is provided under the GNU license, i.e. it is left up to the author of the program. Therefore there is problem of reliability of such software, argues Microsoft. However, it has been proven that relying on a very large community of developers limits dramatically the number of bugs -as they do correct each other⁵¹- and ends up with the issuing of a very reliable product. Moreover, free software companies such as Red Hat do provide support; that is even their only way of making profit. And has anybody ever filed a lawsuit against Microsoft because he lost a very important document due to a bug in MS Word? Are such warranties really provided with all ‘closed source’ licenses?

2.2: The move of traditional software companies towards open source models: Dot-Net Initiative and the Commercial software Model.

Even the commercial software industry is now trying to surf on the Open source phenomenon: in 1998, the source code of Netscape Communicator browser was released in open source under the GNU General Public License.

Netscape was hoping that programmers world-wide would help it competing against Internet Explorer, the Web browser issued by its competitor Microsoft.⁵² Often, some companies like Sun Microsystems propose in parallel an open source version of a program and a “closed source” version more up-to-date. This is the case for the Star Office business pack, a competitor for Microsoft Office. While Star Office 6.0 from Sun Microsystems has up-to-date features, its open source counterpart Open Office consists in older versions of the pack.
Despite its repeated criticisms, Microsoft has developed its own approach of free software. The Dot-Net Initiative -a set of software tools that will form the core of MS's future software initiatives⁵³- is the first step of Microsoft to switch business model, from selling software to selling services constantly delivered and updated like cable television and telephone, the ultimate goal being to replace hard software by online operating systems and applications. In May 2001, Craig Mundie, Microsoft senior vice-president explained on MS Website⁵⁴: the Dot-Net initiative is part of a strategy towards the future business model of the Information Society. This model, called 'Commercial Software Model', is built "around the 5 following elements:

1. Community: a strong support community of developers;

2. Standards: promote collaboration and interoperability while supporting innovation and healthy competition;

3. Business Model: promotes the growth of a profitable business;

4. Investment: level of research and development investment drives resources for future innovation;

5. Licensing Model: provides product and source access without jeopardising the intellectual property rights of those who create or use the software."

Such a new licensing model follows Microsoft's 'Shared-Source Philosophy': it is said to be "a balanced approach that allows [Microsoft] to share source code with customers and partners while maintaining the intellectual property needed to support a strong software business."⁵⁵ In other words, developers would be allowed to correct the source code of certain software but their Intellectual Property will solely remain with Microsoft. Microsoft argues that this "is an intellectual model that encourages interaction between technology, IP rights and the public sector of knowledge and not drives them apart."⁵⁶ Shared Source typically allows Microsoft’s partners, and in some cases customers, to view programming code of Microsoft’s products. However, this solution is “less free” open source licenses: developers cannot adapt the code for personal use, and suggestions of changes must be passed on to Microsoft -'look but don't touch' philosophy.

This Shared Source license may well be a way forward for the software industry, but it is still doubtful whether or not the programmers (other than MS employees) who have felt upset by the ever-expanding behaviour and the poor quality of MS products⁵⁷ over the years will be willing to help such an initiative to further contribute to the development of this monopoly.