Open source as industrial policy
How far you go down that slippery slope shows how devoted you are to the ideology.
It has become clear to me over the last few years, however, that many countries see open source as an important industrial policy. Ideology be darned.
This is clearer today, with EC Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes (above) stating plainly that open standards, and open source, are preferable to anything proprietary, especially Microsoft's OOXML.
"The Commission must do its part," said Kroes. "It must not rely on one vendor, it must not accept closed standards, and it must refuse to become locked into a particular technology – jeopardising maintenance of full control over the information in its possession."
Notice how resistance to Microsoft is pushed as EC patriotism.
Europe isn't the only place taking this stand. Brazil has long seen open source as its route to software independence. Having built that independence it now wants to export its fruits, starting with Africa.
Open source, in other words, is causing U.S. technology to lose markets. Resistance to it in the name of ideology is futile.
The industrial policy of open source is letting our trading partners stand on their own feet against the U.S., even compete effectively against the U.S. in other markets.
Good business isn't ideological. Good business stands for what works, for profit. And if a little industrial policy is needed to see profit down the road, no good businessman is going to say no. Because the ones who do say no wind up out of business.