Aaron's a good guy and a productive contributor to the local open source community, but he's blogging again about how we should all stop using proprietary instant messaging protocols and only use open protocols like Jabber/XMPP.

I'm a long-time satisfied user of open source software and of Jabber/XMPP instant messaging. I would love to see the whole world embrace Jabber as the One True Instant Messaging Protocol just as the whole world has embraced SMTP as the only viable protocol for sending e-mail. That being said, I am repulsed by Aaron's "you shouldn't use that software because it's not Free Software" message.

I know many in the open source culture have had more than their fair share of the Richard Stallman Kool-Aid and believe religiously there is something morally wrong with software that doesn't come with source code and a license to do whatever you want with it. I'm not one of those people and I think it's an immoral philosophy.

In my opinion, open source software is about choice and having choices. You should use whatever software fits your need best. I don't think the fundamental principle behind open source or Free software should be to stigmatize people from using non-open, non-Free software.

Now, I'm not defending the practices of the purveyors of proprietary instant messaging protocols. Clearly, Yahoo, MSN, and AOL have all exhibited their various dark sides trying to circumvent the interaction of unofficial client software (both open source and otherwise) with their chat systems. But, they have the right to do so! Eventually they'll learn it's futile. :)

If you write software for the public to use, you have choices on how you want to distribute it:

• You can withhold the source code and charge for the use of it.
• You can withhold the source code but give the software away for free.
• You can provide source code.

I'm generalizing here, but my point here is that it doesn't really matter how your software is developed or distributed. The public will choose based on many variables such as cost, ease of use, accessibility, etc.

Not many people will actually care whether or not the source code is available. What most people will care about is how well the software works and what the cost is to them to use it. Cost is and always will be a compelling reason to choose open source software, but you can't ignore the features of the software itself.

Case in point: Adobe Photoshop is still priced quite high for the average user. While open source alternatives like GIMP continue to gain competitive ground on Photoshop, users continue to pay Adobe's price because Photoshop provides what they need and the price is worth the benefit.

On the other hand, if someone buys Adobe Photoshop to crop and resize photos, I think they're a complete idiot!

I think the software playing field is like any other market and the capitalist in me says, "Let the market decide!"

Wouldn't it be nice if no one ran Windows and everyone ran an open source operating system?! Yes! It would be AWESOME! In fact, I think Microsoft is doing a wonderful job of pushing many of their users in that direction with XP and Vista, but they're also trying very hard to produce software to convince users it's worth the price for the benefit they receive.

The Free/open alternatives should be able to (and usually do) compete on their own merits. We shouldn't go around telling people they're behaving in an immoral way for choosing the software they choose. We should definitely inform everyone of the benefits of using open source software, open protocols, open standards, etc., and, as a community, we can continue to improve the software we're personally involved with.

Now, as a note,I don't think many companies are adopting proprietary solutions for internal instant messaging. They're using some Jabber/XMPP platform (some of which are commercial, proprietary implementations). As this phenomenon spreads, as more people are using XMPP, I believe it will become the de facto standard and other protocols will either fade away, adapt to become compatible, or become niche. If and when it prevails it will be because it is the best solution and not because of the lobbying power of a bunch of self-righteous nerds.

Vocal supporters of this "abandon all proprietary messaging platforms" bandwagon are opposed to the efforts of projects like Pidgin -- an open source, multi-protocol messaging client -- which they claim only perpetuates the use of these bad closed, proprietary messaging platforms.

Hogwash! Pidgin is an excellent example of open source software that was created to meet growing demands of users. Is it perfect? No! But it epitomizes open source software and continues to evolve toward more of what its users may want.

I'm going to continue to use Pidgin as it does a fantastic job of simultaneously allowing me to converse with my contacts via AIM/ICQ, Yahoo! IM, MSN Messenger, Google Talk (based on XMPP), several IRC servers, and several Jabber/XMPP servers. For what it's worth, I communicate via IRC and Jabber more than anything else.