Pennington's argument that government support of open-source software will foster competition is a curious one, because most people see his proposal as limiting competition, not increasing it. If the marketplace proves him right, if Linux can stand head-to-head against Windows and, in a fair system, emerge victorious, then why does he need legislation?

That's what Tim O'Reilly wants to know. Supporting Pennington's plan violates "my version of Freedom Zero," O'Reilly wrote, defining that freedom as "the freedom to offer your work to the world on the terms that you choose, and for the recipients to accept or reject those terms."

"My biggest beef with Microsoft is not that it offers proprietary software, but that it uses anticompetitive tactics and its monopoly position to take away my right to use non-Microsoft software through the introduction of deliberate incompatibilities and other roadblocks," O'Reilly wrote in an earlier blog entry. "If Freedom Zero for developers is the freedom to offer software on whatever terms the developer sets and a user will accept; Freedom Zero for users is the right to choose whatever software they like, without interference from platform vendors who try to deny that choice."

O'Reilly's column sparked a minor controversy on the Slashdot technology news site. The Slashdot moderator who introduced the topic went so far as to accuse O'Reilly, a longtime supporter of open-source software, as "promoting the agenda of Microsoft's Software Choice campaign ... but whatever his motives, his lame arguments are no reason to stop pushing for governments to use Free or Open Source software wherever possible."

Many Slashdot discussants sided with O'Reilly, however. "I couldn't agree more. Restricting the government to use only open-source software is simply insane," wrote one reader. "Within the bounds of law the government should be able to do what they need to do to get their job done. If that means using Windows or Office or some other proprietary software, so be it."

Pennington, for his part, dismisses O'Reilly's arguments -- "I don't think Tim really read my proposal," he says. (O'Reilly was abroad on vacation and could not be reached for comment.) "The criticisms that I've read haven't reflected that. I simply believe that the state should have the right as a purchaser to negotiate whatever licenses it chooses."

Tiemann, of Red Hat, says he was "a little bit disappointed" by O'Reilly's column. "I hear his libertarian principle, but here's the problem: We've got opponents to free software, opponents to open software. They're chiseling the very ground that we stand upon. Strong, powerful and moneyed interests are cutting it away. In a fair world where we don't have cynics taking away freedom, we can and have stood on our merits. The success of Linux is testimony to the fact that we have stood on our merits."

But, he says, "we take it for granted because these things were the status quo when our opinions were being formed: the freedom to write open-source software, to use open-source software. But when you look at the way that new laws are being applied and constructed -- the DMCA, the Hollings bill -- you look at a lot of other legislative saber-rattling that's going on, and the question becomes: How do we protect the freedoms that we have today?"

Tiemann thinks that the open-source community will come around to this view, and that developers and companies who support open source will rally around political measures to protect it. "Historically the open-source community has been full of libertarians, and O'Reilly expressed that viewpoint: 'Let's solve the problem by ignoring government,'" he says. "You've got a whole industry that has been politically mute. But Red Hat doesn't have that option. Maybe IBM has not fully comprehended how changes to the law that diminish open source can hurt their business -- maybe they think they can just go back to proprietary software. But for Red Hat, if open source cannot be selected by government, or open-source cannot be used or written, then Red Hat's in deep trouble."

As yet, Red Hat has contributed no money to the effort, Tiemann says -- "We haven't been asked" -- but Tiemann's sure that if it's necessary for the promotion of the bill, the company will be willing.

The more interesting question is whether the open-source community will be willing to support it. Pennington says that people will be "enthusiastic," but the interesting thing that emerged from the Slashdot thread is that many people think the bill would limit choice, and they think that's unacceptable -- even it helps "their side."

More than a few people note that the hallmark of open-source software is freedom -- freedom for developers, for consumers and, presumably, for governments as well. The movement to promote free software has always been predicated on such freedoms, and any success it's had has probably been due as much to the appeal of these ethics as to the quality of the actual software.

Pennington and his supporters insist that they're not trying to limit anyone's choice -- they're just pushing for necessary "standards," they say, and if those standards happen to make it very hard or even impossible for firms to sell proprietary software to the state, that's a problem the firms will have to deal with.

But for some people, it's not merely ironic that supporters of open software are promoting a bill that would apparently limit freedom -- they see it as worse than that, as selling out, going to the other side.

"This is something I've been worrying about, that anti-corporate zealots would turn the open-source movement into something just as bad as the major corporations/monopolies," wrote one reader on Slashdot. "I'm rather quite relieved to hear Tim O'Reilly of all people sharing the same opinion as me: that good as open source is, it should _NEVER_ be forced on people. That in essence destroys the 'freedom of choice' that is the driving force behind open source."

Recent Stories