New name, same smell

A FEW MONTHS back, I mentioned a bill that could greatly impact the world of open source: the proposed Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA). The SSSCA has now been retagged Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA) and is working its way through the Senate at this writing.

As I mentioned before, the open-source world stood against the SSSCA, as it would declare illegal any “digital media device” — including software — that does not enforce government mandated security systems (see ” Troublesome horizon “). Because any such implementation in an open-source form could easily be circumvented by the device’s owner via editing of the source code, it seems unlikely that any truly open-source implementation of the bill would be deemed satisfactory. This could have the net effect of making open-source operating systems illegal in the United States. Of course, your PC and your Walkman will fit into that category as well, unless you can prove that they were manufactured before the bill goes into effect.

But there is a secondary effect that this legislation has on the open-source world: It strengthens the resolve and the numbers of the open-source community. How? Because the more rights any legislation takes from consumers, the more the consumers look for alternatives.

Consider what happened to Virginia Beach, Va., During the fall of 2000, the city was ordered to prove that it was not pirating software. The order did not come from a judge, it came from a vendor: Microsoft. While scrambling to prove the city’s innocence, city staff members discovered that they did not retain the paperwork documenting the legal origins of some of the software in use. As a result, the city shelled out a reported $129,000 in licensing fees for software it had already purchased. Published reports estimated the total cost of the exercise at $200,000.

“Innocent until proven guilty” is clearly passé in the new IT realm. The assumption now is that the user is a criminal. The list of customer duties in licenses grows longer and longer, while the list of vendor responsibilities seems to dwindle. It is getting more difficult to tell whether the vendor merely owns the software or if it actually owns the customer, too.

This is precisely why the new tendency in the industry is bolstering consumer affinity toward open source. For this group of folks, open source is not about seeing source code or even reducing costs. It is about recovering what was lost: basic dignity and freedom. It is also about restoring simple control over one’s activities.

Open source does not force companies to perform expensive audits, nor does it seek to make CD players illegal. Open source restricts the power of software producers not unlike the way the rule of law restricts the power of political leaders. Political rulers without absolute power have to work harder to accomplish their goals, but those under their influence are all better off for that fact.