The Rewriting of Open Source History

The open source blogosphere featured two articles the last week of December 2008 that inaccurately draw software-market history timelines from which the authors then inaccurately position the place of open source software in the information technology (IT) market. I doubt if the statements are intentionally misleading; they are most likely the result of ignorance or sloppiness.

One such article is the ComputerActive article, CA investigates: Open-source software. Among its many inaccuracies, there is a sentence that says:

"Long before Windows was created, the open source movement was founded by Richard Stallman with a project called GNU."

As Stallman himself will explain if he hasn't spazzed out after reading the ComputerActive article, Stallman founded the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and the GNU project, not the open source movement. Although Stallman had been writing what he later called free software prior to that, he announced GNU in 1984 and founded FSF in 1985. This was at the same time as the first version of Microsoft (MSFT) Windows was developed, not "long before it." However (as the article itself notes elsewhere relative to GNU), neither GNU nor Windows were originally operating systems, nor did they even compete with each other, so ComputerActive even making the comparison makes no sense.

The open source movement goes back to the beginning of the computer industry, although many date its founding to the creation of the Open Source Initiative (OSI) in 1998.

To understand the dynamics of open source vis a vis the software market, it is important to keep open source separate from FSF. It’s also important to keep the FSF’s concept of free separate from most people’s definition of the word 'free'. The best example of software that is free is the Adobe Reader; but it is neither open source nor free as in Richard Stallman’s view. Specifically,

• FSF is Stallman's philosophical movement.
• Open source is simply a set of licensing terms and conditions, embraced by all software suppliers including Microsoft

The Mouth of OpenNMS doesn’t seem to get the difference. Its December 27 blog post says:

“Starting about the time that Bill Gates wrote his infamous Letter to Hobbyists, the commercial software industry has sought to control and restrict access to source code. Before that time, code wasn’t explicitly free, but it was often freely exchanged. The rise of the commercial software industry put an end to that."

Actually the “rise of commercial software” predates Gates’ memo, if not his birth. The industry actually does not care much about restricting access to source code; it just wants to be paid for intellectual property it develops. The fact that Stallman does not want to be paid is his choice, just as Gates’ position that he wants to be paid is his choice. Even Stallman grants that. Why Gates' letter is infamous could only be understood by the blogger with an agenda who posted it.

The OpenNMSer proceeds to write:

“When the modern open source software movement was formalized by Bruce Perens and Eric S. Raymond, the commercial software establishment pretty much ignored it. There was no way that useful software could be created for free. Then along came the Linux kernel, the GNU operating system and applications like the Apache web server, and suddenly open source software was not only useful, its adoption started growing phenomenally."

But that formalization by Perens and Raymond is the same 1998 founding of the OSI mentioned above. “Long before” 1998, using ComputerActive’s concept of time, the “commercial software establishment” in the form of IBM, HP (HPQ) and other major software and IT systems suppliers had embraced Linux and funded Apache web server development.

The history-challenged OpenNMS blogger goes on to say, “In response came companies like Red Hat (RHT)…” but in fact Red Hat had been founded five years earlier, and the software publisher that acquired Red Hat in 1994 (but retained the brand name) goes back even further.

The blogger goes on to say:

“… there is a huge difference between companies that garner most of their income from the support of software and those that earn most of their revenue from the sale of proprietary software licenses.”

It’s completely unclear what this huge difference is since there is no such dichotomy in the market. Most software companies, such as Oracle (ORCL) and SAP, recognize about 33% of their revenue from licenses and 67% from maintenance and professional services. IBM receives relatively little of its revenue (as a percentage of its total revenue) from “the sale of proprietary software licenses"; even the revenue of IBM’s software group is highly oriented to mainframe software (and therefore comes from selling the system, even though the software is “unbundled”). Microsoft receives a high percentage of its revenue from product OEMs such as HP and Dell (DELL) and increasingly from advertising, consumer services and other forms of software monetization.

What is even more unclear is what the various revenue-flow mixes of various software companies have to do with open source. Apparently the blogger feels that his company, the company that supports OpenNMS, is different than IBM, Microsoft, Oracle and SAP because it only services software. Ever hear of King Gillette, Mr. Mouth?

Comments

[TA:]

Well written and setting the record straight

Having been in the IT industry for over 15 years, I can tell you the amount of open source nonsense I have been subjected to is monumental to the point where I think misinformation is their primary goal.

Jan 04 12:14 PM

[Tarus Balog:]

Speaking of misinformation, you seem to be spreading your fair share of it, Mr. Byron.

I've already responded to your post in the comments on my blog. It was intended as a post about how the term "open source" is being weakened by commercial software in order to blunt its impact on the market. It was not intended as a complete and accurate history of commercial software itself. However, you decide to pull out a few paragraphs pretty much unrelated to that argument in an attempt to discredit my opinions. I believe they call that a "straw man" fallacy.

You state "Open source is simply a set of licensing terms and conditions, embraced by all software suppliers including Microsoft". I disagree. I claim that open source software is software that meets the OSI definition of "open source". Period. Either you meet it or you don't, and if you don't, don't call your product open source.

Furthermore, I'm pretty cool with Microsoft, et. al. releasing software as "open source" (per the definition). What I'm not cool with is companies calling themselves "open source" when in fact all they do is release a small "core" set of code as open in order to drive people to their proprietary products or extensions. You can bet that any code Microsoft releases under an OSI approved license is done in order to ultimately sell more Windows and Office. To me that's fine, that's what software companies do, but then again Microsoft doesn't label itself as an open source company.

You also put words into my mouth as far as "free" versus "open" software. No where in my post do I mention Stallman or his four freedoms. I was speaking directly to the matter of "open source".

I also stand by my statement that Bill Gates did usher in modern era of commercial software, although of course I realize that the software industry existed before then. It was just that software was always tied to hardware, and thus wasn't truly considered an industry unto itself. It's similar to the fact that Henry Ford didn't invent the automobile, but he sure brought it to the masses. I asked in my comments for you to explain the fact that IBM let Gates hold on to the license for the software for the IBM PC if they truly understood the market. My reason is that commercial software was not seen as an industry unto itself before then.

Of course, this was all pretty much anecdotal and off the point of the post. I just put it there to illustrate that software code used to be exchanged much more openly (although not truly open source) prior to Gates. I could remove it and still make my point.

I also stand by my statement that Perens and Raymond formalized the definition of open source software. Sure, open source software existed before then, but to my knowledge this was the first time someone had tried to define the term. It seems now that people like yourself would like to redefine it, and that's what I am working to stop.

Jan 04 01:59 PM

[Marple009:]

Poppycock. Open Source does not follow your guidelines of OSI compliance nor is there any open standard that applies to all forms of it. ECMA, OMG, and a myriad of "certifying" standards groups cannot and have not applied standards for all vertical product "open srouce" software. Open Source follows its own standards...and thus its current problems and waning traction. Whether someone wishes to use the term "open source" or not is not at your discretion. Open Source has taken on a colloquial definition not a superficially applied one. As an HP fellow and architect I am all for Open Source software but not at the definition of a few squeaky wheels. Innovation isn't driven that way.


On Jan 04 01:59 PM Tarus Balog wrote:

> Speaking of misinformation, you seem to be spreading your fair share
> of it, Mr. Byron.
>
> I've already responded to your post in the comments on my blog. It
> was intended as a post about how the term "open source" is being
> weakened by commercial software in order to blunt its impact on the
> market. It was not intended as a complete and accurate history of
> commercial software itself. However, you decide to pull out a few
> paragraphs pretty much unrelated to that argument in an attempt to
> discredit my opinions. I believe they call that a "straw man" fallacy.
>
>
> You state "Open source is simply a set of licensing terms and conditions,
> embraced by all software suppliers including Microsoft". I disagree.
> I claim that open source software is software that meets the OSI
> definition of "open source". Period. Either you meet it or you don't,
> and if you don't, don't call your product open source.
>
> Furthermore, I'm pretty cool with Microsoft, et. al. releasing software
> as "open source" (per the definition). What I'm not cool with is
> companies calling themselves "open source" when in fact all they
> do is release a small "core" set of code as open in order to drive
> people to their proprietary products or extensions. You can bet that
> any code Microsoft releases under an OSI approved license is done
> in order to ultimately sell more Windows and Office. To me that's
> fine, that's what software companies do, but then again Microsoft
> doesn't label itself as an open source company.
>
> You also put words into my mouth as far as "free" versus "open" software.
> No where in my post do I mention Stallman or his four freedoms. I
> was speaking directly to the matter of "open source".
>
> I also stand by my statement that Bill Gates did usher in modern
> era of commercial software, although of course I realize that the
> software industry existed before then. It was just that software
> was always tied to hardware, and thus wasn't truly considered an
> industry unto itself. It's similar to the fact that Henry Ford didn't
> invent the automobile, but he sure brought it to the masses. I asked
> in my comments for you to explain the fact that IBM let Gates hold
> on to the license for the software for the IBM PC if they truly understood
> the market. My reason is that commercial software was not seen as
> an industry unto itself before then.
>
> Of course, this was all pretty much anecdotal and off the point of
> the post. I just put it there to illustrate that software code used
> to be exchanged much more openly (although not truly open source)
> prior to Gates. I could remove it and still make my point.
>
> I also stand by my statement that Perens and Raymond formalized the
> definition of open source software. Sure, open source software existed
> before then, but to my knowledge this was the first time someone
> had tried to define the term. It seems now that people like yourself
> would like to redefine it, and that's what I am working to stop.

Jan 04 03:28 PM

[bigmoney:]

>> most likely the result of ignorance or sloppiness.

agree. Also, any discussion of open source, FSF, Stallman, etc, is very likely colored by politics. Corporate types cut their teeth on software licenses, WGA, DRM, etc. Open Source / Stallman supporters can be a number of things, including academics, hobbyists who want source code, people who distrust closed source monopolies, small scale freelancers with low cash flow, freeloaders, or even other corporations that simply cannot scale operations purchasing software licenses, such as Google.

Jan 04 10:05 PM

[zman58:]

bigmoney,
Freeloaders? Are you suggesting that a Stallman supporter is a freeloader? Can you explain your reasoning on this?

You don't have to know or support Stallman to read and understand the GPL. How about just someone or some business realizing that it is just not necessary to spend big bucks on software licensing to get serious IT done. Open source is really no different than proprietary because it can be just about anything out there. Even proprietary software vendors share source code in some circumstances. Everybody wants in on the open source game, but free (libre) is another concept indeed.

The true difference is in the licensing and what freedoms are offered to the user from that perspective. The value is in the benefits provided from this perspective as well as the benefits provided by the features available in the software. License models such as the Apache and the FSF's GPL seem to clearly demonstrate to the world that incredible IT power can be organized and had for no license fees. ..That you really don't have to agree to some hideous one-sided license agreement just to edit a document or communicate with others on the Internet. ..That you don't have to have a corporation monitoring and forcing you to pay time after time for--what do they call it? "innovation'?

Google is but one shining example of leveraging this incredible opportunity and power of the GPL. I am another. :)

I don't care about open source. I don't even want to see work that is tainted or encumbered by patents, use restrictions, and hideous license terms. I want opportunity, not another ball and chain. Read the license details and don't pay attention to the buzz words.

On Jan 04 10:05 PM bigmoney wrote:

> >> most likely the result of ignorance or sloppiness.
>
> agree. Also, any discussion of open source, FSF, Stallman, etc,
> is very likely colored by politics. Corporate types cut their teeth
> on software licenses, WGA, DRM, etc. Open Source / Stallman supporters
> can be a number of things, including academics, hobbyists who want
> source code, people who distrust closed source monopolies, small
> scale freelancers with low cash flow, freeloaders, or even other
> corporations that simply cannot scale operations purchasing software
> licenses, such as Google.

Jan 05 12:08 AM

[Josh Thompson:]

Open Source is like FDR's New Deal. It's been reinvented and used to accomplish so many goals, it has become a mess. Open Source appears to work until it achieves success, then a few participants look for ways to profit and mini-MSFTs pop up everywhere. It turns ugly as soon as money is put on the table; when everyone is making contributions and no visible earnings picture is on the horizon, everyone's happily playing. Open Source turns into a battle of money and personality when it achieves success, that will probably be its nemesis. P.S. I liked the article.

Jan 05 01:30 AM

[Tom Royal:]

Hi Dennis - I'm Tom, Deputy Editor of Computeractive magazine, and one of my Google Alerts just brought your blog to my attention. Interesting post.

Sorry to hear you found our article "riddled with inaccuracies", though. For what it's worth I'd put the foundation of the GNU project as 1983 with RS's usenet post (snipurl.com/9qo60) - perhaps not necessarily "long before" Windows 1.0 was launched, but at least before it :)

As for our comparison of GNU and Windows, a little background might be in order: Computeractive is a magazine that explains in non-technical terms (we're certified by the Campaign for Plain English) how to use a computer. For many of our readers, the idea of using a PC and the idea of using Windows are one and the same - a few won't have heard of Linux, let alone used it. Hence the comparison: we're explaining that open-source software and Windows have developed alongside one another, and that rather than something new and scary Linux is in fact a system that's been developed, with great care, over a long period of time.

The reason we're explaining about Linux at all is that we think it could be a great thing for our readers to know about and use. Hence our recent Ultimate Guide (snipurl.com/9qodi), which comes with a Ubuntu CD on the cover and explains with clear, illustrated step-by-step guides, how to install and use it. Incidentally, you'll find another history of open source in there, written by yours truly - maybe you'd care to fact check it and let me know how I got along?

Anyhow, if you would like to raise any other issues with this or any other article in the magazine / on the website, drop us a line: letters@computeractive... There's been a very interesting debate in the letters page of late about Linux, so I'd be happy to include your thoughts.

All the best

Tom

PS - No word from Stallman on the article, by the way. I guess he's not a subscriber.

Jan 10 06:50 AM