Editorial:The Purer OS

Kenneth R. Kinder has written an editorial entitled The Purer OS. He speaks about an issue that has manifested itself in many ways- the desire for Linux to be 100% completely free, from the kernel to every instruction that gets executed on it. I disagree with this one, but it is a major issue that needs to be addressed. So read what he has to say and decide for yourself. Should everything on Linux be free, or is there room for closed source competition on an open source OS?

The following is an editorial by Slashdot reader Kenneth R. Kinder

The Purer OS

Many Linux users find themselves struggling between the growth of the Linux and what they feel is "purer" software. True purist will accept nothing but free software, met under the guidelines at http://www.opensource.org/ or http://www.debian.org/. But most users won't commit to only using OpenSource software, and even more users clearly support proprietary software's availability. The dilemma, however, is that with too much commercialism, proprietary software corrupts a standard, bringing fragmentation and lower quality. No free software advocate, and few Linux users would like to see Linux decay to what Unix has, but boycotting proprietary software could stifle Linux's growth as a "mainstream" OS. Besides the inability to modify and distribute the source code freely, the sword of proprietary software has many edges.

Exclusive contracts, of any kind, can poison and severely fragment an open system. Interbase 4, for example, is "licensed only" for Red Hat's distribution. Caldera's "Open"Linux distribution comes with a fair amount of undeniably closed products, some of which can't be found outside of Caldera's re-sales of them. Red Hat and Caldera alone, both innovators (Red Hat, for example, has contributed a great packaging system called RPM), pose future threats of severe fragmentation if they continue to use exclusive contracts with third parties.

Software patents, most of which aren't even patented by the inventor, are deplored by most free and open software advocates with very good reason. An 18 year old in a college dorm can be held back from his own projects by software patents, even if he's writing free software and never heard of software that has a patent he's violating. Linux is not safe from Microsoft, Apple, or similarly villainous anti-innovators patenting algorithms they may use in Linux-based software.

Exclusive "standards," or specifications that can only be used by one company generate monopolies. OS/2, MacOS and Windows are all unacceptable as standards because one company controls the specifications and who can use them. If OS/2, for example, becomes the one true OS, IBM owns the market. Linux advocates have long argued that competition can be preserved in Linux, because you can choose your distribution, and the software you download or buy runs on any distribution. But when Red Hat or Caldera sells software run exclusively on their distributions, one can't help but question whether Red Hat and Caldera are doing far more harm than good.

If Linux's popularity continues to grow, who's to say companies far worse than Red Hat or Caldera will attempt to capitalize in similar or even worse ways to monopolize? Red Hat, for example, seems to be choosing to release their own code under GNU's General Public License, which is exceptionally good behavior compared to most of the software industry. Even Microsoft could do what they tried to do with most popular standards, and make their own Linux "standard" hooked to an exclusive distribution they would sell.

Whether its a change in license, simple boycotts, or something more complex, one thing remains certain. Something must be done to limit just how common place highly proprietary software becomes in Linux. A drop of red paint can ruin a liter of white paint.