Linux, open-source, and control

Over at Slashdot, they're debating a statement by Greg Mancusi-Ungaro, Novell's Linux and open-source software marketing manager, in a recent LinuxFormat interview, that "Well, if we ever woke up one day and said 'Wow, Novell is the Microsoft of Linux' or 'Red Hat is the Microsoft of Linux', then the Linux movement would be over."

The point was: Could a Red Hat or Novell somehow take over Linux and become like Microsoft?

I'm a little puzzled by the question. The answer is no. NO, with a capital "N" and "O."

Yes, companies and individuals want to control open-source software. Even now, many people have real trouble with the idea that you can make a very successful software business and not own a single line of its code.

This is why I always smile at the idea that Microsoft will someday try to destroy Linux by releasing its own MS-Linux. The current generation of Microsoft leadership will never make that move.

I know these guys. They don't just see Linux as competition. They simply can't wrap their minds around the various open-source business models. And, even if they did, so what?

The code is open. It's free.

If you want a prime-example of how this could play out, read my story from yesterday about how the "open-source" Mambo CMS (content management system) is continuing to fall apart.

Here, Miro International owns some of Mambo's IP and they've tried to use that control to say who can call the shots with the project.

Bad idea. Last August, most of their developers walked and started a similar CMS project called Joomla!. Recently, as I describe in my most recent tale, they lost some more.

What could Miro do? The answer: nothing.

The Australian company didn't own all the IP, some of it really was open-source.

They also didn't control the developers, and without developers, a software project is nothing. By this time next year, Mambo will have finished its drop from a first-tier open-source CMS to the bottom of the barrel.

In the old proprietary world, the software company would have owned all the IP. A developer who walked would have to start any new project from the beginning.

At many companies, the programmer might not even had been able to work on a similar project thanks to that modern form of slavery called the non-compete clause.

You can't pull that junk in open-source, though.

If I'm a kernel developer at Red Hat, I can walk across the street to Novell whenever I want. Or, I can join up with Mandriva, or I can start my own distro.

Welcome to the world of open-source, where not only the software is free, but the programmers are free as well. They're free to work for whom they want to work, on their terms.

So, sure, maybe someday Red Hat will have the gross income of Japan, but if the developers decide one day that they've had enough of Red Hat, they can go off to another Linux company. And, not long after that, Red Hat will have the gross revenue of San Marco.

By its very nature, open-source makes sure that a successful company has to treat its customers and developers well.

I like that. I like it a lot.

Everyone talks about quality in business. Almost no one does it.

In open-source, it's everything. We all know that only the good code survives in the open-source development wars. We should also realize that an open-source company must do well by its people and users or it will quickly fade into irrelevancy.

What a great system! Open-source not only makes sure that we'll never face a Microsoft-style Linux monopoly; it ensures that successful businesses must do the right thing for everyone and not just the CEO and stockholders.