Transcript Standard Setting in High

Class 8
Antitrust/IP Policy Seminar, Spring, 2005
The Information
Commons
Randal C. Picker
Timothy Wu
The Law School
The University of Chicago
Bartholomeeusen:
Pollution?

Should we be surprised that pollution takes place? Should
we be surprised that commercial companies attempt to
capitalize on the open source movement? Given that
commercial companies also contribute to the open source
movement, the fact that they somehow try to capitalize on
the open source movement should not necessarily be
seen as a negative thing. However, pollution may not be
necessary. It seems that commercial companies might
have enough incentive to contribute to the open source
movement even though a land trust model would prevent
them from polluting.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
2
Bartholomeeusen: CostBenefits of Ambush



Does a developer’s approach to release protocols in the
public domain depend on the expected profit (P) it could
make from selling the product?
If P > x, then the developer sells, while if P < x, then the
developer gives the source codes away.
A developer makes a cost and benefit analysis before
deciding whether she prefers to sell the ‘information’
instead of giving it away for free. More specifically, since
the open source development is community-based, the
developer considers the costs and benefits before
engaging in an open source project.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
3
Bartholomeeusen: Rep and
Venture Capital

As a matter of fact, we do not very often hear names of
great developers working at commercial firms such as
Sun, Microsoft, HP, IBM. However, considering that
Microsoft is such a powerful and innovative corporation, it
is likely to hire impressive programmers. I do not know
who developed Windows XP, Microsoft Office or Adobe
Acrobat. By contrast, I have read and heard many times
that Flanning invented Napster. The point is that when
developers release in the public domain or create open
source software, they have more visibility than when they
work anonymously for Microsoft.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
4
Bartholomeeusen: Pollution
as Monop

Adding proprietary extension to the codes, and
stating that the new codes were trade secrets,
Microsoft made the codes not interoperable. As
the same time, its monopoly position in PC
operating systems seems to have enabled
Microsoft to coerce consumers to use the codes.
This very feature looks like a monopolization
attempt. Is it necessary to set up a land trust
model, as Van Houweling suggests, when it
seems to me that Section 2 of the Sherman Act
could be an appropriate tool?
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
5
Benner: GNU as “Legal
Jujitsu”

The GNU license is, according to Zittrain,
“legal jujitsu.” It enlists copyright protections
in the service of open access. The
mechanism is similar to a covenant running
with the land, except that here, it runs with
source code. … The catch is that each
copying, and each derivative work, must
bear the same covenant of open access.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
6
Benner: GNU and Lock-In

The GNU also appears designed with the
lock-in problem in mind. To the extent that
software created under the auspices of the
General Public License becomes an
industry standard – which may soon be the
case for Linux, at least for some things –
the running limitation on proprietarization
prevents one user from charging monopoly
rents.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
7
Benner: GNU and Fair Use

The “land trust” model does not anticipate the
problems inherent when object code is unwittingly
(or surreptitiously) copied from a non-participant
in the General Public License – exactly the
problem posed by the SCO litigation. One
possible solution is reliance on the fair use
defense. Paradoxically, however, the GNU/Linux
model undermines the intellectual foundation for
fair use, and may limit it explicitly. …
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
8
Benner: Cont.

In fact, in certain respects, the GPL may be less
free than the current regime. The Terms and
Conditions appear to induce waiver of fair use
rights. §0 purports to define a “work based on the
Program” as “a work containing the program or a
portion of it.” This includes what is covered by fair
use. While one could counter that fair use is
outside of the creator’s initial rights, the license is
unambiguous in its exclusivity. In §4, copying and
modifying are “expressly under this license.”
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
9
Benner: Cont.

Secondly, §5 tells us that “nothing else
grants you permission to modify or
distribute . . .” The fair use right may not
matter if the limitations only appear as part
of a larger right to copy. However, as fair
use can act as a shield in the hands of Free
Software, it can also act as a sword for
proprietarians to gain access to platforms.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
10
Benner: GNU and DMCA

As a final matter, the license prevents any users from
taking advantage of the DMCA. If a distributor of Linux
wants to add a DRM to limit use only to paid users, this is
ineffective if source code must also be distributed.
Because this applies to all derivative works, the GPL goes
too far in cutting off opportunities for proprietary
companies to make money, absent some fair use
consideration. Reinvigoration of Fair Use strikes a
balance between the risk of ambush and the threat that
too much desirable profit-making can be cut off.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
11
Beuerskens: Three Open
Source Myths
„Anyone can improve Open
Source Software“
“Open Source Software is
created by a huge group of
hobbyists for free”
“Open Source Software is
more functional, more secure
and runs faster”
July 20, 2015
“How many users can read
source code let alone
program themselves?”
“Most developers work fulltime for companies on opensource-projects”
“Why do people still prefer
Windows? Only for marketing
(FUD)?”
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
12
Beuerskens: Open Source
and Patents
Copyright:
Protected Expression
Patent:
Protected Process (=Idea)
GPL: Right to create and
distribute derivates
Exclusionary right
Additional License
Allows competition
(and free-riding?)
?
Prevent re-use,
limit competition
GPL-Preamble: „Any patent must be licensed for
everyone's free use or not licensed at all“ = no
patent
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
13
Beuerskens: IP vs. Secrecy
Copyright (Basis for Open Source!)
Protects expression (i.e. direct
copying of source/binaries)
But: hard to prove, costly to
enforce, easy to circumvent
Patents
Protects process
(i.e. re-implementation)
But: Costly to get and enforce,
limited subject matter
Trade Secrets
Fully protects internal workings
(but for reverse-engineering)
July 20, 2015
Reverse-engineering is
expensive, updating is cheap
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
14
Beuerskens: Market share:
OSS v. Microsoft
Microsoft Windows (Desktop)
Linux
Microsoft Office
OpenOffice
Microsoft Internet Explorer
Firefox
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
15
Beuerskens: Open Source
v. Public Domain
Allow others to
see your source
Public Domain
Open Source
Re-Integration
Require all derivates to be
open as well
Open or closed source
derivative works
Non-commercial
derivate clauses
July 20, 2015
Assignmentrequirements
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
Code-Forking
16
Beuerskens: Five dead sins
of Open Source
Not invented here
NIH
MIB
never accept anything that you didn't create, no matter
how good or sensible the decision to use it would be
Microsoft is bad
If Microsoft does something it must be wrong
Code is Art
CIA
Results are never as important as the way they are
achieved
Code it yourself
CIY
Don’t wish for features or bugfixes,
implement them yourself
Read the f… manual
RTFM
July 20, 2015
We give no support – we design source code
– so help
yourself!
Copyright
© 2005
Randal C. Picker
17
Bodepudi: Good Licenses
Solve Pollution

It is unclear how Van Houweling conceptually
separates the functional and non-functional
aspects of the Kerberos protocol when she
makes the claim that the Sun method of
conditioned use may not have worked in the
Microsoft case. It seems that a carefully worded
open license stating the conditions of use and
development should be able to protect
interoperablely intended software from pollution.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
18
Bodepudi: Ambush is Legit

However, Van Houweling points out the inherent
protection already involved in the GPL model:
because the original source code is already in the
public domain, if there is an ambush by the
copyright holder, other people are free to modify
the original and make its use free. Nonetheless,
Van Houweling argues that the copyright holder
herself is not subject to GPL rules, so he argues
relying on copyright alone for protection is not
good enough.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
19
Bodepudi: Cont.

It is interesting that Van Houweling is so concerned about
an ambush. I always believed that inherent in a property
interest, is the owner’s right to make a decision to raise
prices. If a copyright owner gives out software for free in
the beginning, and then decides to charge for its use,
shouldn’t the copyright holder be allowed to do that? Isn’t
this within the exploitative nature of a proprietary right?
We must remember that if a software developer gives out
software for free, the public stands to gain by his good
fortune. However, if a copyright holder should change his
mind when he sees an opportunity to earn money,
shouldn’t he be allowed to take back what he had given
for free?
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
20
Bodepudi: Land Trust
Unnecessary

I question whether having a third party to enforce
the restricted use of the software is necessary. As
mentioned above, a carefully worded license for
copyrighted software will simply do the trick. I am
also concerned about how this land trust will be
implemented. I can easily see this land trust
organization becoming something of an extension
of a government branch that creates more paper
work and clearance checks such that it actually
hampers the innovative process.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
21
Bolinger: Giving It Up for
Open Source

It might seem a bit obvious at this point in
the class, but the first interesting issue with
the GNU License is the issue of control.
While open source software is “free” from a
monetary standpoint, any users or
improvers of it are still giving up something
by using it. Any improver loses a significant
amount of future value on any developed
product based on the open source code. …
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
22
Bolinger: Cont.

While it might not seem that remarkable
that programmers are willing to donate their
work to open source groups, it is hard to
imagine that the open source groups could
really harness enough resources to
effectively police the open source software.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
23
Bolinger: Identifying the
econodwarf
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
24
Bolinger: Cont.

Money is ultimately just a symbol a value – it is just a
conduit for basic exchanges of time and effort. Its ease of
measurement makes it an attractive guideline for human
behavior. But obviously it is not a perfect tool for
explaining human behavior. Even the econodwarf will
readily acknowledge that money cannot perfectly capture
human behavior. Some might insist that such behavior is
“idiosyncratic,” but most would acknowledge that behavior
to acquire personal benefits not hinged on the bank
account is not irrational.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
25
Bolinger: We Separate
Sames All the Time

Ultimately, though, Eben Moglen’s argument breaks
down. He claims that indistinguishable things cannot be
treated differently in a stable regime. That much is correct.
But differing numbers are different things. While the
format is the same, the combinations are different. The
physical world is the same as the digital world in this
case. For example, at some level, a human heart, a boat,
and a tract of land are all the same. All consist of protons,
electrons, and neutrons at some base level, and the only
distinctions we have between different objects is the
differing compositions of protons, electrons and neutrons.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
26
Bolinger: Cont.

Thus, if we can have different legal treatment in
the physical world of different objects (the
particular set of sub-atomic particles) within the
same framework (all defined by those particles),
we should be able to have different legal
treatment in the IP world between different
objects (the particular arrangement of numbers)
within the same framework (using numbers to
define some algorithm).
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
27
Creve: Controlling Pollution
under the GPL

First, the GPL encompassment of derivative works is not
overly broad since copyright does not protect the purely
functional aspects of a software program. The GPL does
thus not hinder a company to develop and own a free
software-inspired program if the underlying free software
program has been rewritten on a high enough abstract
level. The free software movement should therefore also
include patent and/or trademark licenses, but that
requires a very organized, centralized and well-financed
entity, which may have its own problems as discussed by
Van Houweling.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
28
Creve: Cont.

Second, it is difficult for the holders of copyleft licenses to
detect whether the distribution of proprietary software
constitutes an infringement of the GPL license, because
there is usually no access to the source code of
proprietary software. Zittrain could only find two recorded
instances of such infringements. A possible solution is a
notification process to a government agency, e.g. the
United States Patent and Trademark Office, that keeps
the source code confidential and checks for any copying –
if technically possible and if the benefits outweigh the
administrative costs.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
29
Creve: Cont.

Third, the GPL proprietary pollution control provisions and
the resulting advantages of free software seem to be
much more appealing to non-reselling users with
sophisticated in-house teams than to resellers and their
less experienced customers. The advantages of free
software systems as compared to proprietary systems are
the following:




it allows the collaboration with a global community of
independent developers;
it allows the user to copy, modify and redistribute software;
it offers the user ongoing access to improvements made by
others; and
it has lower service provider switching costs for the user.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
30
Creve: Another Proprietary
Trap

Apart from the proprietary ambush, another
proprietary trap category exists: namely a firm
claims proprietary rights with regard to code that
has been contributed by one of the developers in
the free software community. As Zittrain points
out, this trap is more difficult to avoid than the
proprietary ambush. First, the collaborative
nature of free software development makes it
more difficult to determine where various
contributions are coming from, and whether they
belong to those who contribute them.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
31
Gower: Stallman as the
Founding Father

Richard Stallman, who founded GNU and the
GPL, seemingly had a very clear idea of what
software was to him: something that he’d been
getting for free, and wanted to keep getting for
free, but was no longer getting for free. There are
several implications to this. First, it sounds like a
sort of petulance, thinking of software as
something you’d been getting for free and should
always get for free. There are two insights to this
perspective: software as an endowment, and the
distribution cost. …
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
32
Gower: Cont.

Unfortunately, this tale is a little bit
simplistic; as Moglen notes in Part II of
“Anarchism Triumphant,” under the heading
“How We Created the Microbrain Mess,”
“free” software existed because IBM’s
hardware monopoly gave it the ability to
extract all value from the hardware alone.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
33
Gower: Morals v.
Economics

Raymond had pointed out the economic, as
opposed to the moral, advantages of open
source, rather than strictly free, software. This
was an important distinction for several reasons.
First, the transition away from free solved two
problems, one conceptual and one practical. The
conceptual problem was the distrust of truly free
stuff; generally speaking, you get what you pay
for, and free means not good.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
34
Gower: Cont.

The practical problem was that the
Stallman/Torvalds system required a great deal of
background knowledge; as Moglen describes,
Microsoft made its money designing a product for
the least technically-sophisticated users. The
solution was to allow open source to move to
these people as well, through intermediaries such
as RedHat’s Linux package.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
35
Gower: The Limits of Open
Source

Can open source, then, lead to the development
of new products? Given these examples, the
answer seems to be mixed at best; two products
replicate the functions of commercial products,
one comes out of a proprietary product that was
developed in an educational/government setting
where the private need was insignificant at
greatest, and one was developed by some bored
college students; none of these is a path for the
sort of breakthroughs we have seen.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
36
Liu: Software Patents

Turning to the patent system for software solves
several potential problems with the current
software copyright system. Firstly, and most
importantly, it allows producers to disclose
inventions without fear of piracy or theft.
Currently, Microsoft and other owners do not
disclose their source code. Under a patent
system, parties would in fact be required to
disclose a clear and precise description of the
invention accessible to anyone skilled in the art.
…
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
37
Liu: Cont.

Disclosing under the patent system allows
inventors to capture many of the benefits of the
current disclosure system. If Microsoft were to
disclose its code for Windows, it would be
assured that there would be thousands who
would want to tinker with it and they could
potentially solve many of the flaws of windows.
An open code also allows others to see
innovation and build off of it. For example, Linux
was modeled after Unix. Had Unix code not been
public, Linux would never have been developed.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
38
Liu: Cont.

But at the very least, after 20 years, the software
becomes part of the public domain. Since patents
are required to be novel and non-obvious, an
inventor would have a difficult time extending
their patent term for more than 20 years without a
substantial improvement in it. It would also help
with concerns of ambush after a code has
become integral in the system. All code would
eventually be donated to the public domain.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
39
Liu: Sources of Open
Source

Advocating a system where there is no copyright
for software leads to an overall decrease in code
and innovation. Those who were motivated by
monetary rewards offered only under copyright,
will no longer develop software. Moglen also fails
to acknowledge the role that funding for
universities, contributed substantially to the open
source movement. The early development of the
internet and operating systems such as unix were
mainly due to government funding.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
40
Liu: Gov’t as Land Trustee

One alternative to the Free Software Foundation may be to establish
a governmental agency. While the Free Software Foundation may be
great, the resources needed to vigorously enforce these property
rights from pollution and ambush are many, and may better be
provided by an agency rather than a non-profit organization which
may or may not exist in 100 years. The agency wouldn’t preclude
private actions, but would make sure that important infringements
were caught and uses of the donated property monitored. This
wouldn’t be the first time the government has stepped in to regulate
the internet. It seems appropriate in this situation because
encouraging disclosure to the public domain benefits all users and if
open source leads to more reliable software, it helps the system
overall.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
41
McKinney: The Takeaway
from the GPL

The General Public License (“GPL”) should motivate the
production of innovative software by at least some
innovators. It does not follow, however, that traditional
copyright property rights in software should be eliminated
altogether. Instead, the creative boost provided by GPL
leads to two conclusions: one practical and one legal.
First, companies should be willing to relax their property
rights in at least some circumstances to spark innovation,
which will benefit their firm in the long run. Second, the
law should relax copyright protection somewhat (though
not eliminate it altogether) for the creators of derivative
software works licensing their development under a GPL
or like license.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
42
McKinney: Different Regimes
for Different People

Zittrain rightly points out that the copyright regime should
differentiate between those that are producing for
monetary gain and those that are creating to give their
creations back to the public domain. The first created is
unjustly enriched by the original property holder’s
creation, while the second creator enjoys no such undue
benefit. Zittrain suggest that it might be a good idea to
grant tort immunity to those not producing for monetary
gain or to expand the realm of what is considered fair use.
He also proposes the possibility of a statute of limitation of
copyright infringement suits in software.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
43
McKinney: Problems with
the Land Trust

The Land trust model seems expensive and
complicated. Instead, the laws could be changed
to require those to adhere to the GPL for the life
of the product, or at least to only be able to
prevent new users from accessing the software
under the GPL. As for the problem of pollution,
the law could also be changed to waive the privity
requirement (or say that it is assumed) in these
types of suits.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
44
McKinney: Cont.

The land trust model simply seems unnecessary
to deal with the current problems the GPL does
not fully address. Zittrain’s proposals should be
enacted to contemporaneously encourage
motivation for creation in those that are motivated
by economic gain and those that are not. In
addition, the law should be modified to limit costs
to allow suit against polluters and to limit the
effects of ambush.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
45
Sopena: Two Different
Markets

Much of the debate turns around the
dangers that “free” products entails on
“proprietary” products and/or viceversa
(understanding free products as, for
example, illegal CD copies, copyleftprotected software, opensource software,
etc., and, as proprietary products, for
example, registered music, proprietary
software, etc.). …
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
46
Sopena: Cont.

However, it might be possible that both
products could coexist. In fact, it may be
argued that they constitute two different
relevant markets (free as opposed to
proprietary) satisfying different needs. Both
categories would impress some competitive
constraints between them, but would not be
exchangeable products.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
47
Sopena: Fee Can’t Do Free

Although the first intuition would be to affirm that
both free and proprietary software developers
could easily switch and start producing either kind
of software, a close analysis reveals some
difficulties. First, if proprietary vendor starts to
produce only free software, it would have to
change its model of business entirely.
Remuneration would no longer be obtained by
royalties, but for consultancy or post-sale
services, for example.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
48
Sopena: Cont.

Second, the said advantages of free
software over proprietary software
(commonality of minds all over the world)
may not be achieved by a proprietary
software that “frees” its software.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
49
Sopena: Pollution/Ambush
as Monopolization

On the one hand, any attempt to “pollute” free
software could be regarded as an attempt to
monopolize a neighbor or downstream market to
the one dominated by the proprietary software
(normally by definition because of its proprietary
rights–although this assertion can be seriously
discussed). On the other hand, any attempt to
ambush customers can be challenged as a
monopolization practice seeking exclusionary
effects and lock-in customers.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
50
Sopena: We Are in the Early
Days

We may not have to question, at least yet,
the benefits of an IP rights system or
whether they have to exist at all. We can
wait and see where will the digitalization
and internet revolution will lead is in the
short and medium run to, then, adapt the
legal system accordingly. The free software
market would be still in its incipiency.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
51
Sopena: Cont.

It is hard to see if it has been born following a
new world-wide spirit of cooperation and
innovation-joy facilitated by the Internet, or as a
reaction to market power and attempts to
monopolize of dominant vendors such as
Microsoft. In this later case, once Microsoft is no
longer powerful and there is a big piece of cake
at stake, we will see if all free software vendors
agree to give it for free or if they will start selling
us the cream, cherries, plate, fork and knife.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
52
Sutarwalla: Another Quarter
Gone

After a quarter’s worth of reading, I found both
Van Houweling’s and Zittrain’s articles to be the
most enlightening so far since both authors
described a complete picture on the current
status of software ownership and presented
questions that need to be answered before a
meaningful legal solution is reached. In
comparison, Moglen’s article seemed like comic
relief and/or a manifesto for the programmer’s
wing of the International Socialist Organization.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
53
Sutarwalla: Cont.

In fact, it even seemed a little anticlimactic
for Moglen to copyright his online work for
private ownership when he had spent the
majority of his article bashing the selfish,
profiteering motives of software companies
that protected their “bitstreams” similarly.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
54
Sutarwalla: How Much
Control

In my mind, two of the larger questions for
the class have been how do we give control
to authors over their works and what
amount of control is the most desirable,
from society’s vantage point. Closely tied to
these points, the pragmatists in our class
will ask how laws can be shaped to benefit
the general public as well as the authors of
protected works. …
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
55
Sutarwalla: Cont.

On the other hand, Zittrain’s normative analysis of
software protection advocates the necessity of a
bipolar system, where both free and proprietary
software co-exist in some sort of market-imposed
balance. Thus, new IP laws should not be
concerned with extinguishing one form or
another, but rather about allowing the authors to
have tighter control over how others use their
works (and derivative works).
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
56
Sutarwalla: The Land Trust
Idea

To decrease the fear of this happening in
the future, Van Houweling proposes an
intellectual property conservancy that is
sustained by the flexibility of both free and
proprietary software licensing. The magic in
this system is that it allows individual users
to aggregate their creative and financial
assets to promote future use and fend off
possible infringement jointly.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
57
Sutarwalla: Cont.

Instead of alluding to an environmental conservancy
where assets are allowed to waste in the traditional
sense, Van Houweling’s IP conservancy would operate
more like a kibbutz or Islamic “waqf” trust. Based on how
royalties were distributed and how much work was to be
done by current contributors, the IP conservancy could
also be a vehicle for negotiating/promoting products in a
more horizontal and communal fashion, instead of the
traditional vertical model employed by software
companies today (like Microsoft’s FUD strategy).
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
58
Sutarwalla: Open Source
Incentives

Even though Moglen denies the econodwarf’s focus on
incentives, he conveniently obfuscates the real-life
experiences of free-software programmers. They
moonlight because they want to obtain a better-paying or
more prestigious programming job, not only because
there is a thrill of creativity. It is unfair for the advocates of
the free software movement to push for more adherents
when it is financially unsustainable to do so. Just like any
gold rush in modern history, only a lucky few such as
Torvalds, will make millions when they move half-way
around the world and start hawking proprietary software
once they have made their mark.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
59
Sutarwalla: Cont.

On the other side of the free software movement
are people like Sir Tim Berners-Lee, who created
the standard for the World Wide Web. More than
the Linux phenomenon, Berners-Lee has
maintained his creation royalty-free and without
any companies making their improvements to
analogous products proprietary-based. He has
done all of this while being funded solely by the
University of Southampton and MIT.
July 20, 2015
Copyright © 2005 Randal C. Picker
60