Open Coercion

This is a great analysis of the M$ vs. OLPC situation ...

• Why Microsoft Must Control One Laptop Per Child

• Bruce Perens

  Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:53:16 PST

  Open Source Software

It's a threat Microsoft can't let stand: the entire third world learning Linux as children, and growing up to use it. And Microsoft is going to get its way.

It comes after a sudden wave of SCO-like problems for the OLPC project. A specious patent lawsuit over keyboards. Board-member Intel thrown out of the project for attempting to convince national governments to drop OLPC purchases and go with its own (Windows) product. First, OLPC is shown what its problems will be if it doesn't cooperate with Microsoft. Then, Microsoft approaches with money and technical help - you just have to run Windows to get it.

The move is presented as enabling choice. It starts out with a dual-boot capability, provided by Microsoft engineers. Not that any work by Microsoft was really needed, Open Source firmware that boots Microsoft operating systems has existed for ten years. Microsoft says they will issue guidelines, and start field trials this month. Dual-boot sounds harmless, but Microsoft's version of choice is better stated as we'll give you choice and then make you choose Microsoft. I'm sure there will be pressure on national governments to select Windows-only loads for their OLPC purchases, or to specify texts protected with Windows DRM for classroom use.

Nobody can pretend that the world has ever been absent any choice to run Microsoft software, or that Microsoft must work with OLPC to increase choice. Microsoft operating systems are the only option offered with the vast majority of desktop and server computers. By refusing to tolerate hardware that runs another OS by default, Microsoft is working to reduce choice.

Consider how good it might have been for the third world to have a computer infrasturcture they could support on their own, without any capital and technological drain to the United States. That's what they'll be losing. But that was never the goal of the OLPC project. It's meant to bring free e-Books to students, at a lower cost than their national governments could sustain. With OLPC based on all Free Software, it was likely that those books would have themselves been under similar licensing like Creative Content. Now, it is likely that third world students will be running DRM-locked textbooks that are only acessable under Windows.

Nicholas Negroponte has always been willing to go where the wind blows: the original OLPC prototypes ran Debian, notable because it's produced by a public-benefit non-profit. Once Red Hat offered money and resources, Debian disappeared from the system. Now it's Red Hat's turn to disappear.

The folks I have the most sympathy for are those students who might have been offered a way to take control of their own destiny, and make their nation self-sufficient for the IT infrastructure they need to participate in worldwide trade. Now, they'll get less. But I also feel sympathy for the many Open Source developers who participated in OLPC, and will now see their work discarded or perverted to support Microsoft.

Bruce Perens