Eben Moglen is brilliant. Period. I don't think there can be any question on that matter. He's in the middle of his exceptional OSBC keynote and it's a reminder to all who force themselves to limp through open source that there is much more abundance to be had in sprinting through open source (with 100% open source business models). Yes, I'm biased on this. But Eben's thinking succeeds where mine does not. He fi Eben Moglen is brilliant. Period. I don’t think there can be any question on that matter. He’s in the middle of his exceptional OSBC keynote and it’s a reminder to all who force themselves to limp through open source that there is much more abundance to be had in sprinting through open source (with 100% open source business models). Yes, I’m biased on this. But Eben’s thinking succeeds where mine does not.He first argued that software started out as free – it was the free lunch given away by hardware vendors to encourage buyers of not-so-free beer (hardware). In that time, hardware innovation exploded. Eben walked through an example of this innovation (storage that used to take up acres now takes up my front pocket and costs $40), and correlated it to standardization. To openness. Software, his punchline went, has not fared so well. It has not kept up with hardware innovation. Patents and copyrights (and business models around them) is the likely culprit. Eben then called out Microsoft’s role in the industry over the last few decades: sucking out much innovation from the market, squeezing hardware and services margins, etc., and appropriating all of this value for itself/its software. This is an interesting point. Undoubtedly, Microsoft did open many opportunities for other software companies on the desktop, but it arguably closed more doors than it opened. It’s hard to rewrite history as it might have been, but I can agree that having any single vendor control 90%+ of any market is a bad thing.Free soil. Free labor. And free men to provide the latter to develop the former. That is what built the United States. Shouldn’t the same principle apply to growth in the development of the software industry?Community, declared Eben, makes products valuable in the 21st Century. Community thrives in openness, not closed (software, standards, etc.). The GPL/copyleft offers a better community-building model. It keeps everyone on the same track, no matter the different flavors vendors may offer around the single track. (Incidentally, this argument cuts against my annoyance at Oracle’s Unbreakable Linux. Eben argues that the GPL prevents forks, and that we should not prevent competing services around the core. I think he’s right, though I never would have thought I could be brought around to accept Oracle’s move. More choice is good. Undercutting others’ goodwill is not, but perhaps there’s something to this….)Freedom means share and share alike. It turns out to be the best way to do business in 21st Century. Open Source