At this year's Stanford Innovation Summit, the CEO of MySQL stated: "There is no technical argument for keeping code closed. It will never deteriorate being open." Well, thats a bit misleading. There are plenty of business arguments for keeping code closed, and that will affect code's market adoption and overall contribution to innovation. Further, there is no technical reason why closed code would "deteriorate" unless the creator found it no longer useful.

The MySQL CEO continued: "Companies have to choose how to make money and today that includes choosing proprietary elements. Maybe five or ten years from now we'll figure out how to make money and [still] keep all the lines of code open." This makes a bit more sense, and I'm all supportive of any company, including open source entities, making money (especially if they create good products that I as a consumer would buy). However, I'm baffled about the stated conflict between "mak(ing) money and still keep(ing) all the lines of code open." Are these goals on equal footing, do they relate, or do they strengthen each other? The more likely scenario is that open source will continue to rely on proprietary technologies, as pointed out by David Mowery and Stuart Graham.

Although open-source software is widely hailed as a significant challenge to the “pro-patent” regime in the U.S. software regime that has emerged since 1980, it seems likely that the future viability of open-source software is likely to depend on the creation of proprietary complements to open-source operating systems, tools, and applications. Graham, Stuart J.H. and Mowery, David C., "The Use of USPTO 'Continuation' Applications in the Patenting of Software: Implications for Free and Open Source" . Law & Policy, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 128-151, January 2005.