This fascinating effort could herald the start of a movement to make Mars habitable for humans. When we do, we will have shown that Earth-evolved life is capable of thriving in distant worlds, and we will have set the stage for human colonization. Your arguments, and there were many, were compelling ones to say the very least. While the confines of this column prohibit me from publishing them all, I would like to direct your attention to a particularly articulate one which seems to encompass the majority of the issues the others addressed. Those among you particularly interested in this issue might also consider reading Linux creator Linus Torvald's thoughts on Microsoft's new strategy as well.
Open source is clearly a public benefit.
However, software licensed under the GNU General Public License, or GPL, is not truly open source. Microsoft is not arguing against the sharing or giving away of code, but rather against the GPL, which is intended to turn shared code into a weapon against the interests of legitimate software businesses and even the programmers who wrote it. Those who have read my writings know that I seldom side with Microsoft on any issue, but in this case it happens to be correct. Programmers are duped, by the misleading rhetoric in the GPL and on the FSF's Web site, into destroying their own markets and hurting their own prospects of reaping a just reward for their efforts. And the GPL has, indeed, caused businesses with worthy ideas and good technology to fail.