Revolution OS discusses the development of open source software, more particularly Linux, from the perspective of the open source community. They depict Microsoft as the big bad guy, when this wasn’t the case. Microsoft tried to protect their investments, their programs, and did so by locking down their code and copywriting it. The open sources thought all code should be shared so it can be improved. However they also lock down their code: they made a licensing agreement that could be used to charge people for what they use. This is the same that Microsoft was doing. The only difference was the availability of the source code. So rather than what Microsoft was doing being inherently evil, it went too far. They brought up the analogy in the movie of bringing snacks to school, yet use it in a distorted way. When kids go to school and take a snack the teacher would say I hope you brought enough for everyone and require the kid to share it. Now the kid isn’t giving out the recipe for the snack, nor is he taking more from the store without buying them; he is sharing the one version he had bought. This would be like bringing Windows in on a machine and letting everyone play on that machine and use Windows. Not giving out copies of Windows. So where do you draw the line. By letting people have the source code they may take it, copy it and redistribute it without paying, but they can then find errors and improve upon the program they have to fill the needs they have.
I'm glad you expanded that analogy. While I'm grateful for a lot of open-source software that's made my life easier, the idea that big software companies that wish to protect their products are the bad guys seems a little exaggerated. Is Coca-Cola an evil corporation for not making their recipe open? Would Abercrombie & Fitch get angry if you duplicated their clothes and handed them out for free? Again, I love open-source and free software, but pointing the finger at the big companies was a little too much.
ReplyDelete