[Ecommerce] The Register: Open source movement screws up again

[James Love]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/33841.html

Open source movement screws up again
By Drew Cullen
Posted: 07/11/2003 at 09:39 GMT

It=92s a sad fact of life that those in charge are often the last to see
the inevitable.

And this had been ably demonstrated yet again over an issue set to blow
up in the next few months: the sudden u-turn by the World Intellectual
Property Organisation over a meeting to discuss the issues surrounding
"open and collaborative development models".

WIPO describes itself as "an international organisation dedicated to
promoting the use and protection of works of the human spirit". It seems
only natural then that when the organisation=92s head, Dr Kamil Idris,
received a letter in July signed by 59 highly respected and
Nobel-prize-winning economists, academics and IT experts asking for a
meeting to "examine new open collaborative development models, and to
discuss their relevance for public policy" that he would view it favourably=
.

He did and no less than the imposing figure of Francis Gurry, WIPO=92s
assistant director and chief lawyer, told Nature magazine: "The director
general of WIPO looks forward with enthusiasm to taking up the
invitation to organise a conference to explore the scope and application
of these models as vehicles for encouraging innovation."

The letter was written with a September meeting of WIPO in mind, where
its members would discuss what was on the agenda for the next two years.
The letter pointed to several examples of a new style of collaboration
made possible through new Internet technology. Among them were Net
protocols, the Web itself, the Human Genome Project, the SNP Consortium
(biomedical work), GPS, and open academic and scientific journals.
However, also included in the pile was "Development of Free and Open
Software".

Despite Mr Gurry=92s and apparently Dr Idris=92 firm backing for such a
discussion, in just a few weeks, the organisation suddenly changed tack
and said that such a meeting was not going to go ahead.

Mr Gurry - not a man prone to changing his mind - was quite candid to
Technology Daily when explained the following month: "What happened in
the intervening weeks is that a request for an open discussion on a
range of =91projects=92 became transformed into an increasingly
domestically, as opposed to internationally, oriented, polarised
political and trade debate about one only of those =91projects=92, namely
open-source software.

"In those circumstances, the possibility of conducting a policy
discussion on intellectual property of the sort that might be
appropriate for an international organisation devoted to intellectual
property became increasingly remote."

The open-source software devotees who had signed the original letter -
including the all-too-familiar names Ralph Nader, Bruce Perens, Eric S.
Raymond and Richard Stallman - immediately sensed the hand of Microsoft.

With intensive lobbying Microsoft managed to get the meeting pulled, it
is said. It even got acting director of international relations for the
US Patent and Trademark Office on side, Lois Boland. Boland had several
arguments over why such a meeting at WIPO was not appropriate.

First, she said, "to hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim
or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO".
Secondly, Gurry had backed the meeting without proper consultation of
member states. Thirdly, WIPO=92s budget couldn=92t stretch to another
meeting. And lastly, ideas for meetings come from within and not outside
WIPO.

Now, it certainly doesn=92t help that Ms Boland=92s arguments are complete
nonsense and can be very easily picked apart with reference to WIPO=92s
own stated goals, previous meetings and procedures (a simple search on
"open source" on WIPO=92s site shows that the movement has hardly passed
the organisation by). But, with depressing predictability, the open
source posse came screaming in, guns blazing, crying out all manner of
ancient curses, and screwed it all up.

It was this, just as much as pressure from the US and Microsoft that saw
WIPO shelve any such plans. It has alot of other issues to discuss and
spending valuable time and money on creating a headache for itself was
not something that topped the list.

However, while the open source movement=92s zealotry has again been its
own worst enemy (EU patent law Part II), that is not the main issue at
stake here. Plus, open source has distinct strengths that will make
WIPO=92s decision better for it in the long run.

First, it is undoubtedly right. No one can argue against the new ways of
working that the Internet has thrown up. They can only be seen as a real
and positive influence (the flip side being the currently fashionable
virus writers). If it would learn to shut it trap occasionally, this
fact will get it most of the way.

Secondly, it has become an efficient lobbying body in its own right.
This whole situation was really decided at the end of September but the
Web is starting to rise up and discussion of the situation (albeit
pretty partisan) is increasing across the Net. It threatens to blow up
and into the mainstream media. We shall see.

However, the main issue is not the bickering and shouting, it is the
failure of those in power to see what is going on or to perceive open
collaboration as a threat. In the same way that the short-sighted MPAA
and RIAA have made the very idea of Internet media files synonymous with
stealing and evil deeds, Microsoft and various other threatened
organisations have done a good job of turning open source into a pariah.

What they don=92t realise and we do is that they will soon be reliant on
the very things they are spending so much effort demonising. That
governments and international organisations can=92t see beyond the people
up close to them and waving their wallets to obscure those behind is
sad, and irritating. But it is also the way of the world.

--
James Love, Director, Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:james.love@cptech.org
tel. +1.202.387.8030, mobile +1.202.361.3040