It's open source, Jim, but not as we know it
- Reduce text size Decrease text size
- Increase text size Increase text size
- Print article Print
- Jump to comments Comment
- Share this article Share
- Email article to a friend Email
It has been another troubled few weeks in the world of open source software, and theres no reason to think the next few will be much better.
It has been another troubled few weeks in the world of open source software, and there's no reason to think the next few will be much better. A taste of the latest developments: SCO, the company that is claiming intellectual property rights over large sections of the Linux code, launched legal action against Linux distributor Novell; Novell promised to pay some of its customers' legal costs if they are sued by SCO; a group of companies, including IBM and Intel, contributed to a $10 million legal fighting fund, set up on behalf of Linux customers; and SCO submitted court documents outlining its evidence that IBM passed copyrighted SCO code to the Linux community without permission. The documents leave ample room for a vigorous legal battle.
All in all, it's a sorry mess, especially given the fact that the creator of Linux, Linus Torvalds, originally started out with high ideals that no-one should ever be able to make money from selling his open source software.
Open source software, and especially Linux, seems to be reaching all corners of the cosmos now - but it is definitely not open source as we know it. While it is still possible to download the kernel code for free, most Linux suppliers distribute the software with proprietary extensions and support agreements. Red Hat, one of the pioneers of open source computing, now charges $2,000 a seat for its server software - a move that has alienated many of its original open source allies.
Novell's promise to indemnify its paying customers against a legal challenge from SCO takes this a step further. Effectively, Novell is bundling in a form of legal insurance as part of the support contract - a move that, indirectly, may only serve to push up prices still higher.
Some people are beginning to argue that the cost of ownership of Linux is higher than the all-proprietary, non-free Microsoft Windows. That may or may not be true. But at least with Microsoft, everyone knows where they stand.
