Text
E-book Incorporating the Digital Commons : Corporate Involvement in Free and Open Source Software
In March of 2012, The Linux Foundation released a report entitled, ‘Linux Kernel Development: How Fast it is Going, Who is Doing It, What They are Doing, and Who is Sponsoring It’. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system that facilitates communication between computer hardware and soft-ware, and the Linux kernel development project is considered ‘one of the largest cooperative software projects ever attempted’ (The Linux Foundation, 2012: 1). Aside from a technical overview of how kernel development has changed over time, the authors included a curious note in the report’s highlights: Microsoft was one of the top 20 contributors to the kernel. This marks the first time that Microsoft appeared as a top contributor, but it was not the only corporation in the top 20. Other corporate contributors included Intel, IBM, Google, Texas Instruments, Cisco, Hewlett-Packard, and Samsung, as well as others. The Linux operating system is a form of Free (Libre) and Open Source Software, or FLOSS, which allows users to freely study, use, copy, modify, adapt, or distrib-ute the software. Why, then, would major corporations contribute directly to a FLOSS project, especially when that project seemingly does not directly con-tribute to corporate profits? This question becomes even more curious when one considers that many of the companies contributing to the kernel not only compete with one another in the market for information technology, but that companies like Microsoft and Google are direct competitors with Linux in the market for operating systems.Indeed, Steve Ballmer, the Chief Operating Officer of Microsoft, once referred to Linux as ‘a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to eve-rything it touches’ (Greene, 2001). Ballmer was referencing the GNU General Public License, or GNU GPL, which is the most commonly used free software license. The GPL grants users of GPL-protected software the right to study, use, copy, modify, or adapt the software as they wish. In addition, users are granted the right to redistribute the software, as well as a modified version, and the user may even charge a fee for the modified version, provided that the distributor does not place greater restrictions on the rights granted by the GPL. The GPL does not preclude corporations from modifying free software or charging a fee for their modified versions, but the corporation must still grant free software rights to end users. Ballmer’s quote implies that free software is antithetical to commercial software companies. If this were the case, then Microsoft and other commercial software firms would have no incentive to contribute directly to one of the largest open source projects.Furthermore, consider the fact that Ballmer made his denunciation of Linux on 1 June 2001. Merely 27 days later, on 28 June 2001, the United States Depart-ment of Justice found Microsoft guilty of monopolistic business practices in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act primarily for bundling its Internet Explorer web browser with its Microsoft Windows operating system to rap-idly increase its share of the market for web browsers. However, Microsoft has dramatically changed its position on Linux and open source since 2001, as sig-nified by its inclusion in the top 20 contributors to the Linux kernel in 2012. That same year, Microsoft created Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary dedicated to facilitating interoperability between Microsoft and non-Microsoft technologies, while promoting open standards and open source. What changed during this 12-year period that Microsoft would so dra-matically reposition itself in relation to FLOSS?
Tidak tersedia versi lain