<img src=”http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/8517/mozillazinefirefoxforumpn4.jpg”>

I’ve already ditched FireShot for screengrab ( https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1146 ) which is free, less obtrusive and doesn’t have a seriously ugly icon unlike the alternative.

I’ve already ditched FireShot for screengrab ( https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/... ) which is free, less obtrusive and doesn’t have a seriously ugly icon unlike the alternative.

Mozilla.org has been one of the most successful proofs that open-source collaboration is not only a viable business model, it is a very dynamic model, far more so than the proprietary commercial licensing schema practiced by big companies like Microsoft and Adobe, but emulated all the way down the chain by smaller and less well-known opportunists. The core justification (necessity) for open-source collaboration is the preservation of work. I could write at length on the subject, but that’s not my reason for posting this.

While my enthusiasm for using Firefox (for example) has been on a steadily increasing plane for several years now, I have been concerned, and now I am starting to feel some of the feelings of outrage that I historically attributed almost solely to Microsoft. I’m going to cite a simple example, one you will very likely consider trivial, but which makes (and closes) the case as far as I am concerned.

While perusing the add-ons for Firefox awhile ago, I downloaded one called “Fire Shot by susbox”. It’s an add-on which allows you to take photo snapshots of your browser page (and surroundings), and provides some useful photo editing capabilities as well. It is very well-designed, the user interface is pretty good, and when I finally got around to using it, I was very impressed.

Assumptions I made (because I downloaded this from the Firefox add-ons website were: a) it’s free, and b) if I need to, I can go into the sources and either fix something if it’s broken, or find out how to do something with the program it can’t yet do, but which I have discovered a need. I also made the general assumption (with no guarantees) that the authors of the program would very likely be providing improvements to it over time.

Therefore, I felt comfortable adopting it’s use, investing my time learning how to use it, and generally standing down from looking for or considering other open-source tools that offer similar features. Today, I got a dialog box that informed me that “my trial period using ‘Fire Shot Pro’ had expired, and that my feature set had now reverted to their ‘basic’ edition.”

I don’t think I need to spend much time explaining the fundamental and inexorable conflict of interest which exists when a software developer portrays themselves both as “open-source collaborative” and “commercial” at the same time. That is an oxymoron, and it has no place on any Mozilla.org affiliated website. I’ll also make mention of the contradiction between the Susbox ‘strategy’ of offering their product as a free, open-source add-on to Firefox, when in fact it was ‘trialware’ that morphs itself into ‘hobbleware’ after a period of time they hope will get a percentage of the early adopters to become paying customers.

I’m wondering what percentage of the $20 Susbox wants for their ‘Pro’ version found it’s way into the pockets of the folks who contributed to the millions of man-hours which have gone into Firefox, and all the truly free and open add-ons which, together, make this such an outstanding example of open-source collaborative software development? Whatever it may be (if anything at all), Susbox has no right to step in at the top of the pyramid and skim off it’s own piece. That violates the entire principle, and by allowing this tiny incursion, Mozilla.org enables and facilitates the erosion of trust and the eventual demise of the basic ideas which are part of it’s mission statement. (Which I have just read carefully.)

No one can prevent (nor would I want to prevent) Susbox from offering Trialware, Hobbleware, or whatever other variations they might consider to provide a commercial value-added product for use with Firefox. As long as their code is not violating the public-license established by Mozilla.org, they have every right to do so. There are plenty of websites which cater to providers of that type: CNET has download.com which offers all different variations. And by the way, I can select out any software which has those ‘strings attached’ which would lead to me having to purchase something, after investing my time learning to use and apply their software tools to my problems. But for Mozilla.org to nibble around the edges of it’s own sterling principles is a disaster in the making, I believe.

Lord Acton, a 19th century theologian and philosopher wrote: “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The same could and should be said of commercial software licensing.

I’ll add this one post-script which I hope underscores the importance of this issue: I am presently working with a local non-profit organization called ‘cureneuro.org’, the goal of which is to ‘encourage open collaborative medical research’. We are actively exploring ways to adapt public licensing protocols used in the software industry for use in medical research. Why? Because since 1980, when Congress passed legislation allowing academic research organizations to license the product of their publicly funded research. The result has been predictable: literally billions of dollars which can generally be categorized as ‘medical research’ actually goes to administrators who work for the ‘intellectual property departments’ of major medical universities (like OHSU here in Portland for example), to IP (Intellectual Property, not IP address) specialty law-firms, and to a handful of doctors who think of themselves now more as entrepreneurs than medical researchers. (And by the way, they are entrepreneurs who do not invest their uncompensated time or their own money in their ventures…those funds come from the public trough.)

Over my professional career (35 years or so), I have come to understand that free-enterprise and competition is an ideal embraced and admired by those who are starting out, and who want to both create something worthwhile, and profit from it as well. I have also discovered that these same folks, once they get a toe-hold on some niche, set about doing whatever they can to prevent others from adopting their enterprise of choice, and failing that, doing everthing they can to limit competitive pressure. The iconic epitome of that (in our time) is referred to as: ‘another Bill Gates’, but the sick philosophy behind it saturates our economy and corrupts our democracy.

So while you may think that Mozilla.org can tolerate a few trivial misrepresentations or omissions of fact (ie: lies), I would suggest that you err on the side of strict preservation when it comes to the principles stated in the corporate mission. We will all be better off in the long run if you do.

Mozilla.org has been one of the most successful proofs that open-source collaboration is not only a viable business model, it is a very dynamic model, far more so than the proprietary commercial licensing schema practiced by big companies like Microsoft and Adobe, but emulated all the way down the chain by smaller and less well-known opportunists. The core justification (necessity) for open-source collaboration is the preservation of work. I could write at length on the subject, but that’s not my reason for posting this.

While my enthusiasm for using Firefox (for example) has been on a steadily increasing plane for several years now, I have been concerned, and now I am starting to feel some of the feelings of outrage that I historically attributed almost solely to Microsoft. I’m going to cite a simple example, one you will very likely consider trivial, but which makes (and closes) the case as far as I am concerned.

While perusing the add-ons for Firefox awhile ago, I downloaded one called “Fire Shot by susbox”. It’s an add-on which allows you to take photo snapshots of your browser page (and surroundings), and provides some useful photo editing capabilities as well. It is very well-designed, the user interface is pretty good, and when I finally got around to using it, I was very impressed.

Assumptions I made (because I downloaded this from the Firefox add-ons website were: a) it’s free, and b) if I need to, I can go into the sources and either fix something if it’s broken, or find out how to do something with the program it can’t yet do, but which I have discovered a need. I also made the general assumption (with no guarantees) that the authors of the program would very likely be providing improvements to it over time.

Therefore, I felt comfortable adopting it’s use, investing my time learning how to use it, and generally standing down from looking for or considering other open-source tools that offer similar features. Today, I got a dialog box that informed me that “my trial period using ‘Fire Shot Pro’ had expired, and that my feature set had now reverted to their ‘basic’ edition.”

I don’t think I need to spend much time explaining the fundamental and inexorable conflict of interest which exists when a software developer portrays themselves both as “open-source collaborative” and “commercial” at the same time. That is an oxymoron, and it has no place on any Mozilla.org affiliated website. I’ll also make mention of the contradiction between the Susbox ‘strategy’ of offering their product as a free, open-source add-on to Firefox, when in fact it was ‘trialware’ that morphs itself into ‘hobbleware’ after a period of time they hope will get a percentage of the early adopters to become paying customers.

I’m wondering what percentage of the $20 Susbox wants for their ‘Pro’ version found it’s way into the pockets of the folks who contributed to the millions of man-hours which have gone into Firefox, and all the truly free and open add-ons which, together, make this such an outstanding example of open-source collaborative software development? Whatever it may be (if anything at all), Susbox has no right to step in at the top of the pyramid and skim off it’s own piece. That violates the entire principle, and by allowing this tiny incursion, Mozilla.org enables and facilitates the erosion of trust and the eventual demise of the basic ideas which are part of it’s mission statement. (Which I have just read carefully.)

No one can prevent (nor would I want to prevent) Susbox from offering Trialware, Hobbleware, or whatever other variations they might consider to provide a commercial value-added product for use with Firefox. As long as their code is not violating the public-license established by Mozilla.org, they have every right to do so. There are plenty of websites which cater to providers of that type: CNET has download.com which offers all different variations. And by the way, I can select out any software which has those ‘strings attached’ which would lead to me having to purchase something, after investing my time learning to use and apply their software tools to my problems. But for Mozilla.org to nibble around the edges of it’s own sterling principles is a disaster in the making, I believe.

Lord Acton, a 19th century theologian and philosopher wrote: “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The same could and should be said of commercial software licensing.

I’ll add this one post-script which I hope underscores the importance of this issue: I am presently working with a local non-profit organization called ‘cureneuro.org’, the goal of which is to ‘encourage open collaborative medical research’. We are actively exploring ways to adapt public licensing protocols used in the software industry for use in medical research. Why? Because since 1980, when Congress passed legislation allowing academic research organizations to license the product of their publicly funded research. The result has been predictable: literally billions of dollars which can generally be categorized as ‘medical research’ actually goes to administrators who work for the ‘intellectual property departments’ of major medical universities (like OHSU here in Portland for example), to IP (Intellectual Property, not IP address) specialty law-firms, and to a handful of doctors who think of themselves now more as entrepreneurs than medical researchers. (And by the way, they are entrepreneurs who do not invest their uncompensated time or their own money in their ventures…those funds come from the public trough.)

Over my professional career (35 years or so), I have come to understand that free-enterprise and competition is an ideal embraced and admired by those who are starting out, and who want to both create something worthwhile, and profit from it as well. I have also discovered that these same folks, once they get a toe-hold on some niche, set about doing whatever they can to prevent others from adopting their enterprise of choice, and failing that, doing everthing they can to limit competitive pressure. The iconic epitome of that (in our time) is referred to as: ‘another Bill Gates’, but the sick philosophy behind it saturates our economy and corrupts our democracy.

So while you may think that Mozilla.org can tolerate a few trivial misrepresentations or omissions of fact (ie: lies), I would suggest that you err on the side of strict preservation when it comes to the principles stated in the corporate mission. We will all be better off in the long run if you do.