http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9c518ad6-3311-11d9-b6c3-00000e2511c8.html#axzq1G1Sv16VI

Free software makes social sense
By Karl Fogel
Published: November 10 2004 12:18

Sir, Richard Epstein ("Why open source is unsustainable" [1], October
21) writes as someone who has noticed the open source movement but not
yet really understood it.  He claims that "open source software relies
on the very private property regime" that its supporters disdain, and
that a popular open source licence supplies "an all-enveloping
ownership structure in which a central committee decides whether to
incorporate changes into the basic public program."

Leaving aside the loaded language (presumably meant to make readers
think of Communist central committees), his claim is simply false.  A
basic tenet of all open source licences is that there is no
centralised control over distribution: no central committee, no
ownership in any meaningful sense of the word, no restrictions on
sharing.  Anyone, including Professor Epstein, is free to take any
open source program and start distributing it with whatever
improvements he chooses.  He is free to become his own "central
committee", and others are free to choose his distribution over
someone else's.  This arrangement completely avoids the usual
monopolistic structure of intellectual property, an important point
that Prof Epstein seems not to notice.

Prof Epstein cautions governments against preferring open source
software, yet neglects to address one of the principal reasons why
they should prefer it.  Much has been made (by Microsoft especially)
of the concept of Total Cost of Ownership: the idea that, even if the
software is free, there are hidden costs in training, maintenance and
interoperability, and that these costs are lower with traditional
proprietary software than with free software.  But the question
governments and businesses are increasingly asking themselves is not
about Total Cost of Ownership, but about the Cost of Total Ownership:
how much is it costing them to be totally owned by their software
vendors? The problem is not just that they are asked to pay an upgrade
tax to Bill Gates every few years; it's also that they are locked into
vendor-controlled data formats, so that users are forced to purchase
particular pieces of software simply to communicate with each other.
For governments, who must treat all their citizens equally, free
software makes social sense: it allows everyone to use computer
networks without giving one company or another undue influence over
the very infrastructure of civic life.

Prof Epstein is right that open source "should succeed or fail on its
own merits", and it will.  But he must recognise those merits before
he can analyse the movement and its future.

Karl Fogel,
Author, "Open Source Development with CVS"
        (Coriolis Press, 1999; Paraglyph Press 2003);
        "Producing Free Software: How to Manage Open Source Projects"
        (O'Reilly Media, forthcoming in 2005)
        Chicago, IL 60637, USA

[1] http://news.ft.com/cms/s/78d9812a-2386-11d9-aee5-00000e2511c8.html