Open Source Bloggers Don't Let the Facts Confuse Them When Attacking Microsoft

The open source blogosphere is up in arms again with its typical “don’t-let-the-facts-get-in-the-way” postings against Microsoft (MSFT). This time Microsoft’s co-conspirators are the Stanford and Harvard business schools because two of their professors did a “study (of) how a commercial firm competes with a free open source product.” Some of the related blog posts have added Oracle (ORCL) to the bad-guy list, perhaps in honor of Oracle’s proximity to Stanford’s Palo Alto campus.

Unlike the irate bloggers, I’ll admit I have not read the academic study. The study appeared in either the winter (according to Stanford’s web site) or summer (according to the Harvard web site) edition of Production and Operations Management. I would have to pay POMS, its publisher, if I wanted to read it.  A quick Google tells me the blogoblatherers didn’t read it either but only read Bill Snyder’s story about the academic study in the Stanford Graduate School of Business [GSB] News. Bill’s a great writer but a better source—because it is ascribed to one of the two academics—is the abstract on the Harvard site.  

(As an aside, just so you understand how these things work, it is likely that only one blogger read the Bill Snyder GSB article. The rest took the first guy’s interpretation and spun further fantasies from there. The pattern of outright fabrication on top of inaccurately describing another person’s writing by the open source blogosphere is really getting tiring. I cited a similar example on ComputerworldUK here.)

According to both the abstract and Bill’s article there seems to be some confusion between the terms free and open source software. What the professors allegedly say about charging money for a product or service when a similar product or service is available at no charge makes some sense. But the term “free software” has multiple meanings. Both the abstract and GSB News article imply that the professors mean software available “at no charge” (I am trying to confirm that). That does not mean it is open source. Supporting that interpretation is the fact that the Stanford professor says, according to Snyder, that the professors’ findings would also apply to the media world (as in paying for the Boston Globe each morning vs. “reading” msnbc.com). 

The term “Open source software” refers to some specific terms and conditions in the software’s license primarily related to redistribution. Most popular examples of open source software—e.g., Red Hat (RHT) Linux—are not free as in marketed “at no charge.” Most of the bloggers that bait the nerd world with their postings know this of course because they work for companies such as Red Hat. They are simply looking for some marketing advantage with their blogging although I cannot figure out what it is.

Microsoft gets hammered because the Stanford professor, according to the Snyder interview, cited Office as an example of a product that expanded its brand from enterprises to consumers. According to the professor, Apple (AAPL) went the other way with its iPhone. But none of this has anything to do with open source (and I don’t see what it has to do with “free” either since Microsoft makes many pieces of Office—e.g., Hotmail—available “at no charge”). But the open source blogbatherers never let the facts get in the way of a chance to attack Microsoft.

Comments

[wild eyed F...:]

The problem here is obvious - Apparently the Stanford researchers, the author of the unfortunately titled abstract, and finally you actually have no idea what "Open-Source Technology" is. You managed to almost point out their gaffe in your article, but then you went on to provide a... unique interpretation of what you think "Open Source" means.

Let me help: "Open Source" means that you can *see the source*, because it's "open". It has *nothing* to do with whether it's "free" or not, either figuratively or literally. In fact, there is plenty of literally "free" software that is not "Open Source".

So, even the title of the paper is based on ignorance. The abstract certainly is, and your article as well.

Maybe you ought to familiarize yourself with what it is you're ranting about. Then you can explain to the brain trust at Stanford Business school that "Open Source" doesn't necessarily mean "free" in any sense of the word and that Businesses are just as likely to have to compete with "Closed Source" technology that is also "free" (literally).

2008 Sep 24 08:57 AM

[Josh Thompson:]

Open Source has come to be known as 'free' because it is thought of as being developed by a community that shares all progress with the community. It all sounds like a beatles song. I have read that MSFT would rather foster a strong online community for the developers that they sell to because that is the positive effect of open source.

2008 Sep 24 11:22 AM

[Dennis Byron:]

Dear Wild-eyed FOSS Zealot.

At least you are honest about your biases. But I believe your zealotry makes you read things that are not in my article and ignore things that are.

If you do not understand why the sentence “Open source software refers to some specific terms and conditions in the software’s license primarily related to redistribution" is accurate then it is you who bases your opinion on ignorance. Note that I say "primarily related to redistribution." Most of the investment-research readers of this web site are sophisticated enough to know the obvious link between the word "source" and the phrase "source code" and we don't bog down each other by repeating things.

The rest of your comment is unclear since the original article clearly says there is confusion in the Stanford/Harvard abstract between the words free and open source. So are you re-iterating that or disagreeing with it?

Thanks

Dennis Byron

2008 Sep 24 12:26 PM

[wild eyed F...:]

Thanks Mr. Byron. You are apparently correct that in my zeal I managed to overlook your saying
"According to both the abstract and Bill’s article there seems to be some confusion between the terms free and open source software. What the professors allegedly say about charging money for a product or service when a similar product or service is available at no charge makes some sense. But the term “free software” has multiple meanings. Both the abstract and GSB News article imply that the professors mean software available “at no charge” (I am trying to confirm that). That does not mean it is open source."

So my assertion that the paper's authors don't actually know what "Open source" means is bolstered by your article.

However, your contention that if I find your odd take on Open Source having something to do with licensing that means I am ignorant of something seems to indicate that you still don't understand.

I'll try again: *Regardless* of licensing and other frankly irrelevant factors, the *only* thing that can possibly make software "Open Source" software is if the *source* is *open*. That is to say that you can see the source code which is compiled into the executable program. There is no such thing as software that is somehow "Open Source" due to "specific terms and conditions in the software’s license primarily related to redistribution" as you assert in your article.

If you actually want to stand by your bizarre definition, please point out a piece of "Open Source" software that *doesn't* provide the code which it is compiled from. You cannot, because, as I pointed out, the *whole point* of "Open Source" is to have access to the source, so you can modify it, etc.

To try and tell me to "Note that I say "primarily related to redistribution." only re-enforces my assertion that you don't know what "Open Source" means. To then tell me that your readers are sophisticated enough to know that the "source" in "Open Source" refers to source code begs the question why you are not.

Explain how "redistribution" could turn software for which the code is not available magically into "Open Source" software. There are many different types of OSS licenses which deal in part with redistribution... of Open Source software. The licenses don't make the software Open Source, it's the source code being "open" that does. Hence the name. Licensing has nothing to do with it. However, if you were talking about "Free Software", then licensing has everything to with it. Perhaps you, like the Stanford authors, are confused as to what is open and what is free. Conflating Open Source with Free seems to be something you are able to detect in others while simultaneously making the same mistake.

2008 Sep 24 01:06 PM

[Dennis Byron:]

Dear Wild-eyed Zealot:

I would prefer to email you directly about this rather than bore other SA readers but I need to assure you that my definition is not "odd" or "bizarre," I am not confusing free and open source, and I fully understand all the implications of what I am writing about. You are missing something but I can't figure out what it is. Again, I assume it is your admitted zealotry.

In my research, I use the Open Source Initiative definition of open source. Please note that the word distribution and/or redistribuion appears in seven of its 10 characteristics, including the first (see www.opensource.org/doc...). In two of the three characteristics where the words are not mentioned (the discrimination characteristics, numbers 5 and 6), the subject is clearly about distribution. The concept of distribution appears ahead of the obvious characteristic of open source being source code related, which is only mentioned in two of the 10 characteristics.

That is why we say "The term Open source software refers to some specific terms and conditions in the software’s license primarily related to redistribution." Again I point out the word primarily. I did not say exclusively.

I still don't get your point about "free" but try me again and I urge you to email me direct.

Dennis

2008 Sep 24 03:17 PM

[Snidley:]

Thanks to Dennis for correcting some of the nuttiness out there. I wrote the piece and I want to make a number of things clear:

First and most important is that the authors of the paper have NOTHING to do with Microsoft. Allegations that MSFT funded the study are preposterous.

Prof Mendelson and his colleague created a theoretical model of the market. They know full well that there's free and there's open source and what the differences are. Economic models are, by definition, a simplified view of reality. I believe I made that clear in the article.

As I also made clear (at least I think I did) the research is not meant to be a "how to" manual for MBA's bent on the destruction of open source.

I'm proud to be associated with Stanford's Graduate School of Business. Beat on me all you like, but the blogosphere really missed the boat on this one.

2008 Sep 24 04:25 PM

[wild eyed F...:]

*sigh* No worries Dennis. This will be my final comment on the topic.
You say "The term Open source software refers to some specific terms and conditions in the software’s license primarily related to redistribution." Again I point out the word primarily. I did not say exclusively."
And once again, I will point out that, despite you pointing to the OSI definition and counting how many times the words distribution/redistrib... appear in it, the simple, irrefutable fact of the matter is that, unless the *source* is *open* no license in existence will magically make any piece of software "Open Source". The ridiculous aspect of the Stanford study's apparent misconceptions and your own also ignore that certain OSS licenses, like in the case of BSD, actually allow for a proprietary developer to use the code in their closed source products and charge money for those. Not to mention that the same business who is "competing with open source technology" can also watch their bottom line by using it, both in the running of their business and in their products. Apple's OS is a prime example. The "simplified view of reality" that Snidely claims informed their Economic model would better be described as "fiction" if it misses these very real factors of actual reality as we know it. What service does this study provide if it full of misnomers and omissions?
I will say that, as far as the advice for staying competitive goes, it does sound like an excellent plan for a commercial software house to stay afloat otherwise, so it does redeem itself somewhat. Also, pointing out that consumers do benefit from the increased pressure on the market seems to be something critics of the paper missed.
Finally, I think the bulk of the undue criticism is misplaced and in many cases downright idiotic. I am happy to pay for decent software, and hope that the proprietary market never goes away. If a kid reads the paper and uses the advice to produce innovative products and keep his company afloat, then the authors have done the world a favor. My nit was and remains the misrepresentation of "open source technology".

Thanks for putting up with me.

Cheers

2008 Sep 25 04:43 PM

[Terry Cole:]

One sentence from your article: "Most popular examples of open source software—e.g., Red Hat (RHT) Linux—are not free as in marketed “at no charge.”" - needs expansion.

Red Hat Linux is indeed free as both binary and source up to and including version 9 (still running on some servers out there).

Red Hat source code is still free. It has to be, because Red Hat does not own the copyright to the source. In effect this means binaries are also free (the source can be downloaded and recompiled to create a perfect copy of the binaries).

What is not allowed is the use of Red Hat's trademarks. So Red Hat provides detailed guidelines for what graphics and other trade dress must be replaced to have non-infringing binaries. But make no mistake, the resulting binaries - usually provided by outfits like CentOS - work just the way the RH-branded ones do.

So how does RH make its money? Support. Why does the support dollar stream not dry up? Because the technotrain does not stand still. There is always some new wrinkle, and firms want RH to hold their hand while they learn.

2008 Oct 20 06:55 AM