Slashdot Log In
How Open is Open Source Really?
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wed Feb 28, 2007 01:16 PM
from the buzzwords-and-the-companies-that-kill-them dept.
from the buzzwords-and-the-companies-that-kill-them dept.
jg21 writes to tell us that several industry leaders have chimed in with a response to Nat Torkington's recent piece "Is 'Open Source' Now Completely Meaningless". In the original piece Torkington raised the question of whether the term "open source" had lost any meaning because of companies that use the label yet largly restrict user interaction. Sun's Simon Phpps chimed in by stating: "I see open source as a term relevant to the way communities function and I'd support the reunification of the terms 'Free' and 'open source' around the concept of Free software being developed in open source communities. On that basis it's not dead."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Open Source means you get the code, that's it (Score:4, Insightful)
I see open source as a term relevant to the communities function ...
Except that you don't get to define what open source means. The Open Source Initiative has that luxury. IIRC, they went to great lengths to differentiate Open Source and Free Software as two distinct entities. Open Source means you get the code and nothing more. No guarantee that you can redistribute, no guarantee that the vendor pays attention to you. The list goes on. You can have closed source with an open process (I think the Java Community Process is a good example of this), open source with open process (Python and their Python Enhancement Proposals) and open source with a closed process (XFree86, the reason we have X.org today and the old gcc before it was replaced by egcs. Even free software doesn't guarantee the openness in the process that you might want, as the case with the old gcc clearly illustrates. If community is important to you, that should be part of your selection criteria, not something that you let surprise you after you have picked.
Amen! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, SCO [slashdot.org] (back when it was called Caldera) invented Open Source back in 1996 [google.com]. Yes, that's before the OSI thing, though after the foundation of the FSF.
Scary, huh?
Re: (Score:2)
who invented open source? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, SCO [slashdot.org] (back when it was called Caldera) invented Open Source back in 1996 [google.com]. Yes, that's before the OSI thing, though after the foundation of the FSF.
The Tech Model Railroad Club [mit.edu] of MIT had open source software as early as the 1960s and early 1970s beating out SCO by a long shot. The first computer game, Spacewar [duke.edu], came out in 1962 as a result of many programmers' contributions in an open manner. They used to compeat to see who could come up with a nifty hack, something that was considered impossible, never thought of, or was able to shave a few lines out of a program. Those programmer were amoung the first computer hackers and followed the Hacker ethic [antionline.com].
FalconParent
No kidding! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Amen! (Score:4, Interesting)
For MS, this involves building a product, calling it a de facto standard and then trying to get it approved formally by a standards body. This is irregardless of the fact that MS allows basically *ZERO* industry participation in developing their 'standards' before they are submitted for approval.
Parent
Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So, the article we're discussing is nonsensical, that's what's "so".
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I've met a number of people that make the distinction between "open source" and "source available". "Source available" simply means that you can view the source code, but not redistribute it, or not compile and distribute the binaries.
Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it (Score:5, Interesting)
Their idea of how they were an opensource company was because they used php to develop code, and, because when a site was written they gave the client ownership of the code.
No matter how much we employees tried to explain that didn't make us an opensource company the powers that be refused to listen. It was made worse by the fact that the president of the company was invited to DC to testify on the benefits of opensource.
Our contracts even stated that code developed in our own time was the property of the company, and the company policy was that no code developed could be released to the opensource community at large.
It can be really frustrating to have such a loose term as 'opensource' where a company can choose to interpret it in such a way as to benefit them and no one else, or companies that simply fail to understand the concept.
Parent
Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Seems to me like your employer was trying to do the right thing, but giving the source code to the people who bought the program, but didn't want to have the code available to everyone, just those who had paid for the product. It's just another level of open source. It may not be as open as GPL or BSD
Actually, the GPL allows distributing the source to your customers (i.e. recipients of your software) only, and does not require distribution to anyone else. Of course, the GPL requires that your customers can redistribute to anyone they like, which may not have been the case here.
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations on not understanding the difference between Open Source and Free Software.
Here's a hint: If you give the source to the customer, it's Open Source.
If you're giving the source to everyone, it's probably Free Software. But that depends on the terms under which you distribute it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sure, your customer has the right to distribute the code if they wish, but even if they do, they are only obligated to provide source code to the parties that they distribute the software t
Re: (Score:2)
No, but it does give you the right to distribute the code to third parties if you wish, so long as the license is retained (along with the copyright info to give it meaning.) The author is simply not obligated to do so. This is the primary difference between Free Software and Open Source; in the latter case the code can be encumbered with a license that prohibits redistribution. In the former case, it cannot.
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations on not understanding the difference between Open Source and Free Software.
Here's a hint: If you give the source to the customer, it's Open Source.
If you're giving the source to everyone, it's probably Free Software. But that depends on the terms under which you distribute it.
If you contract a person to develop a website for you in php how it is possible to give them the site without it being visible sourcecode? When the small print in the clients contract specifically denies them the right to redistribute the code (which I failed to mention originally) you could not be a lot further from open source.
Yes I will concede the point that on a technicality providing the source code (which is unavoidable in their situation) means you are giving them 'open source code', however, you
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OSI redefined the term Open Source to be something different, but the term existed before they did, and they just redefined it. Open source originally just meant that if you bought the product you could see the code. I think the concept goes back to IBM mainframes in the 1950's, but it might go back further. At that time people didn't automatically get copyright, and most code wasn't copyrighted. If the company s
Re: (Score:2)
The top three points are: Free Redistribution, Source Code, and Derived Wroks.
This research took all of 30 seconds.
Vendors don't have to listen to you, but you definitely have to be allowed to redistribute.
The segregation of Free Software and OpenSource software was a strategic decision: Free Software and rms argue from a moral standpoint (software should be free, proprietary software is wrong,) Open Source argues from an economic&quality standpoint (thi
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, since there are plenty of actual open source developers - like yours truly - that don't want to subscribe to the militia-style enforced 'freedom' preservation, but who do want the pragmatic benefits of making source available and helping others. As many people have commented, open source has its own definition [opensource.org] - that it was ever simply a 'mispronouncement' of Free Software and doesn't thrive on its own merit is bullshit. (Yes, even if some people will write 'open source' when you tell them to wr
Why is this hard? (Score:2, Insightful)
Verbiage (Score:2, Interesting)
-uso.
Diff between OSS and FL/OSS (Score:4, Insightful)
Not only that, but just because the code is open doesn't mean it's accessible [re: properly written/designed]. Shitty code, even though it's open, can disuade newcomers to develop.
For OSS or libre software to be truly effective it has to target key problems and stay on focus. It also has to be written/documented to encourage new developers to learn from it and add to it. I suspect on projects like the Kernel and GCC there are many "old farts" who lead most of the significant development. In 20-30 years who will replace them if nobody can learn from what they have done?
Tom
Extreme open source (Score:4, Interesting)
In the original piece Torkington raised the question of whether the term "open source" had lost any meaning because of companies that use the label yet largly restrict user interaction.
Just because some people disagree with or don't understand the term "open source" doesn't mean it becomes worthless. All it means is that some people don't quite get it yet.
It's like the word "extreme", which marketing has over the last few years beaten to death. Extreme doesn't mean anything anymore to most people - the mind simply edits it out. But that doesn't mean that the word is suddenly broken. It still means what it means, it's just that we're desensitized to the word through repeated misuse.
It's much the same way with open source. When you repeatedly misuse the term, it loses meaning. A good example is everybody's favorite, Microsoft. They use the term as a negative. [com.com] Then turn around and use it as a positive [nwsource.com], albeit in a somewhat misunderstood way.
dead? maybe just diluted (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't be confused! (Score:5, Informative)
GPL software is Free, as in libre.
Open source is not necessarily Free, as in libre.
Pine, Cedega (Score:2)
"Open source" has absolutely nothing to do with the development process or the rights you have with that source. It simply means the source is open for viewing and for educational use and that's it.
OSS is meaningless therefore Microsoft should (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.cooltechzone.com/Departments/Columns/W
This is not a joke but it seems to fit the general thrust of this article.
There are a number of questions the need answering
1) Why would Microsoft really want to buy Linux?
2) If OSS is meaningless what would Microsoft get from buying it
3) Could they acquite RH, NOVELL, Mandriva, Debian, Ubuntu etc etc?
4) Could they acquire the rights to the software contained in a typical distro?
5) Why would they want to buy something that is free?
My albeit simple take on this is Patents!
The FUD eminating from Redmond and these articles all aim to discredit Linux and FOSS in general.
If Microsoft is violating patents held by OSS companies then buying them would quietly make the issue go away.
reunification (Score:5, Funny)
Have you tried that new frepen software?
That's the best frepen software I've ever used!
That frepen software frepped my freppy frep, and now I'm frepping frepped!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, great.
I already have enough of a challenge convincing upper management that I'm not some sort of martian for simply suggesting that we use free software to solve a problem, now you want me to sound like a Farscape nutjob, too.
Frak that.
Not much to say (Score:5, Insightful)
This is in paragraph one of a 6 paragraph article. Not a good start.
There is one genuine arguing point, where someone named "Tim" tries to claim that certain software is cool because it embraces and extends Postgres to make it Oracle compatible. Its a silly claim though. If you ditch Oracle for someone else's proprietary Oracle look-alike, what exactly are you gaining? Certainly nothing an Open Source or Free Software advocate cares about.
Open Source != GPL (Score:4, Insightful)
Open Source = Development Model, not a release model/plan
GPL(free) and open source can be mutually exclusive.
How open it is??!?? (Score:2)
Fuck this ambiguity ... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you want to go today?
Example of qualified Open Source (Score:2)
There were a number of odd differences in the developer community, as compared to similar types of open source projects I have worked with. Here's some non-comprehensive highlights.
- There wasn't good, free web-based documentation. T
What it means to me (Score:2)
You have free (software), which means I can own (the program) and don't have to pay (for a fully working version). Whether that be a closed source or open source piece of software, doesn't matter. Before or after compilation, they give it to me for nothing (public domain, freeware)
You have free, open source, which means that I (personally) can only own the source code and don't have to pay for the fully finished version. Whether the binary blob and/or support during o
Free Software has nothing to do with communities (Score:2, Insightful)
They don't own the expression more than you or I, but as they are its original coiner, I will bring the GNU definition of Free Software, as seen in their The Free Software Definition [gnu.org] page:
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely,
Both Free Software and OSS are Bad Terms (Score:2)
Free Software was a bad choice to begin with, because of the obvious freeware ambiguity. This is why Open Source gained traction so quickly -- people found it difficult to communicate about "Free Software" without constantly being misunderstood (and then having to resort to the "free as in freedom" spiel which isn't exactly what you want to do when you want to convince your manager to switch to a different software solution). But Open Source completely neglects to mention the notion of "freedom" and, hence,
Free Software, not "open source" (Score:3, Insightful)
You can not be "somewhat free". You might not like the GPL, but it is ten times more resilient to abuse than most of the open-source-but-not-free-software licenses.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Free Software, not "open source" (Score:4, Insightful)
It's only the geek crowd, and specifically in the software context, that thinks of free as freedom. For most people "free" connotes free as in beer (zero cost), even in the software context. A little test to put yourself in Joe Average's shoes: imagine yourself outside a bookstore. A sign above a shelf in the window says "free books". Now, do you think "cool, freebies", or do you REALLY think "cool, books that I can copy, modify and sell"?
The simple truth is that people just have to learn about the nuances. You can't create a cover-all term and expect everyone to agree on the meaning and trust everyone not to abuse it.
Aspects such as cost, availability of source and restrictions on use and redistribution are not necessarily tied together at all. I can devise a libre-but-not-zero-cost license that allows people to modify and resell the software, but forbids them from giving it away for free. Or an "zero-cost-redistributable-modifiable-only-for-pr
Parent
Term "open" has been meaningless for a long time (Score:2)
Anyway, once a term has been exploited by management and marketing types, forget it, the term becomes meaningless.
Source available, but licensing for commercial use (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think that any company should use any important infrastructure software that they do not have source for. Open source like Linux, OpenOffice.org, Apache, etc. are best, but for some more niche infrastructure components that are not commercially sponsored, an approach like the one I am starting to use make sense: consumers are protected by having source code, and developers of niche projects have some chance of making money to support future development.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)