An article on Pamela Jones, the founder of the blog-turned-Web site Groklaw (a site devoted to analyzing the legal aspects of the various SCO-related lawsuits involving vendors IBM and Red Hat and, now, user companies AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler), drove home the point that the foes of open source software (OSS) and the related GPL (anti-OSS/GPL for short) are fighting a battle that they can't win.

To understand why OSS won't be defeated, let's first look at what drives the anti-OSS/GPL crowd:

• A handful of vendors. Whether it's The SCO Group or Microsoft crusading against the evils of OSS and the GPL, anti-OSS/GPL activities and arguments spring largely from marketing efforts, PR campaigns, and the various SCO court cases.

Alternatively, the pro-OSS (we don't say the pro-OSS/GPL crowd because you don't have to be a supporter of the GPL to be in favor of OSS) movement is driven by:

• A large number of vendors. IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Sun Microsystems, and other technology vendors are supporting Linux and other OSS and GPLed software with their words and wallets. In addition, their employees are being paid to contribute, enhance, promote, and implement OSS offerings.
  
  
• Volunteers that believe in the cause. After hours or on breaks, a global volunteer militia is supporting the OSS cause, writing code, testing software, and posting online comments promoting the virtues of OSS. And most of these supporters believe in the right to charge money for software and keep code proprietary, too. They just don't think it always makes sense.
  
  
• Users tired of the high cost and single-vendor-control of critical software. From Wall Street firms to US government agencies to small businesses, OSS solutions are taking root. Even staunch Microsoft backers believe that having OSS alternatives will make Microsoft deliver more dependable and reasonably priced offerings.

Examining anti-OSS/GPL arguments

There are a few tech analysts who still tow the anti-OSS/GPL line, but it's hard to buy into their viewpoints. Let's look at some of the cases against OSS.

• Isn't OSS insecure because anyone can look at the code? Linux users like Merrill Lynch apparently don't think so. Neither do many security-conscious US federal agencies. Sure, sometimes security through obscurity helps, but when only one vendor controls and can fix the source code for a critical application, and thousands of crackers can exploit known security or code defects, the obscurity defense seems unconvincing.
  
  
• Doesn't OSS destroy the ability of vendors to sell software? Not according to vendors like Sun Microsystems, which sells a slightly modified version of the OSS OpenOffice.org office productivity suite. And companies like Red Hat, JBoss, and MySQL have all figured out how to make money off OSS (selling support and other services), even though their code is available for free.
  
  
• Won't the GPL destroy intellectual property rights and thus stifle software innovation? OSS and the GPL are not one and the same. The GPL is a specific license that grants certain rights and makes certain demands of those who distribute GPLed code. Companies can choose to release software under the GPL or under other licenses that don't require them to reveal the underlying source code. For example, Apple Computer offers some GPL software, licenses some of its software under a modified OSS license, and keeps some software completely proprietary. While doing so, most tech-savvy people still view Apple as an innovator.
  
  
• Isn't free software un-American (substitute "anti-capitalist and against freedom" for non-US readers)? Choosing a price -- whether free, $1, or $1 million -- seems to be the ultimate concept of exercising freedom. We can't imagine anti-OSS/GPL people protesting a wealthy foundation from offering a free summer concert series in their hometown. Why do they care if someone willingly offers their code for free?
  
  
• Doesn't free software drive away tech jobs? This doesn't seem to be the case with vendors like IBM. Lost technology jobs due to offshore outsourcing is mostly to blame on all manner of organizations -- both vendors and user companies -- trying to reduce costs by taking advantage of lower salaries for tech-related jobs in countries like India.

OSS advantages throughout the software life cycle

The advantage of the OSS movement can be seen in the entire software life cycle.

• Development and debugging. Employees of technology vendors, not just the stereotypical volunteer OSS proponents, increasingly provide major OSS contributions, enhancements, and bug fixes. This combination of salaried developers and dedicated volunteers brings an amazing diversity of skill and experience to OSS projects like Linux.
  
  
• Promotion and defense. The anti-OSS/GPL crowd typically must use its marketing and PR energies to influence the trade and mainstream press and its executives to influence decision-makers at large user companies and other organizations. But vocal OSS proponents fuel sites that both espouse and defend OSS. These sites were once the outposts of geekdom but are now mainstream, such as the tech discussion site slashdot.org and the aforementioned Groklaw started by Ms. Jones.
  
  
• Maintenance. At some point, commercial software providers end support for products, whether to prompt customers to move to a more modern offering or to save support costs. In an OSS environment, where source code is readily available, software support can be carried on indefinitely by anyone with the interest and skills.

The lesson: Learn to live with OSS

Lessons for how to live happily and profitably with OSS can be seen by examining the activities of IBM and Apple Computer. IBM sells expensive servers with Linux and provides services that include OSS solutions. Apple leverages OSS throughout its product line, including the core of its proprietary operating system and its Web browser. Both companies make money selling and integrating OSS, and both give back to the OSS community in terms of code and resources.

In the end, every software company will either have to prove the value of its proprietary offering, or embrace and extend an OSS alternative. Most will manage a combination of both. Even Microsoft will come to this conclusion sooner or later and reverse its anti-OSS course. Just as he did with the Internet in the 1990s, Bill Gates will eventually send out a strategy-changing email, and it will spell out how it's time for Microsoft to jump on the OSS bandwagon and start making money off OSS.