Related Resources • Free Microsoft Office Alternatives • Free Open Source Software

Elsewhere on the Web • Microsoft's Letter • Villanueva's Response

Open source software is gaining momentum in both the public and private sectors. Microsoft claims that open source software is dangerous due to security threats and due to the potential negative economic impact of the free open source software movement. Open source software is software for which the complete source code is made available for examination and modification. The software is usually, but not always, free.

Microsoft contends that having the source code of mission critical software open to viewing and modifying by anyone makes it more vulnerable to malicious hackers and cyber-terrorists. They also argue that the large scale adoption of free open source software will put people out of jobs and create grave economic consequences. Those who support the proliferation of open source software take the opposite view on both points. Open source software proponents also see a promise of better software and independence from monopolistic behaviors.

This has suddenly become an important debate. Numerous governing bodies including the United States Department of Defense, China, Germany, France, Finland, the Philippines, Peru, South Korea, and Taiwan are all considering or already have embraced open source software. Microsoft's version six license agreement, which treats large volume software purchases like a subscription with ongoing fees, is forcing many companies to also take a serious look at open source software. Is Microsoft correct? Is the World headed for disaster at the hands of renegade programmers wielding dangerous open source software?

You have probably already guessed my opinion, but don't take my word for it. A congressman from Peru has penned a brilliant rebuttal of Microsoft's stance on open source software. You can read the English translations of both Microsoft's letter condemning open source software and Congressman Villanueva's reply -- see the link box above. I've summarized a couple salient points below:

• On threats to security - Microsoft stated that open source software is dangerous. Congressman Villanueva aptly pointed out that Microsoft gives no specifics on the dangers of open source software. Mr. Villanueva takes the stance that open source software is by it's nature more secure in general than proprietary software. He bases his argument on the notion that, since the source code of proprietary software can't be examined, its security can't be assessed.
  
  In my opinion, he has a valid point. Just consider the number of security flaws being constantly uncovered in Microsoft's proprietary software. Security through obscurity can, and often does, lead to sloppy practices and lax security.
  
  
• On economic impact - Microsoft states that the proposed Peruvian government policies supporting free open source software are anti-competitive and will cause a loss of jobs and corporate revenues. Microsoft also points out that open software is not truly free and actually will cost the government more in training and support.
  
  The congressman counters by noting that Microsoft contradicts itself in indicating that open source software involves more costs than proprietary software. Mr. Villanueva also clarified that, while they believe they will save money, that is not the motivation behind backing open source software. The primary goals are better security and better accessibility of public information. He also takes a stinging jab at Microsoft by highlighting the irony of a business with monopolistic practices trying to say that supporting open source software is anti-competitive.
  
  It seems to me that the only risk of economic loss here is to Microsoft, who I suspect, is starting to quake in their boots for the first time in a long while. Competition is most certainly a good thing.

More Articles ...