Has Open Source Lost Its Halo? 277
PetManimal writes "Open-source software development once had a reputation as a grassroots movement, but it is increasingly a mainstream IT profit center, and according to Computerworld, some in the industry are asking whether 'open source' has become a cloak used by IT vendors large and small to disguise ruthless and self-serving behavior. Citing an online opinion piece by Gordon Haff, an analyst at Illuminata Inc., the article notes that HP and IBM have not only profited from open-source at the expense of competitors, but have also boosted their images in the open-source community. The Computerworld article also mentions the efforts by the Microsoft/Windows camp to promote open-source credentials: '[InfoWorld columnist Dave] Rosenberg is more disturbed by the bandwagon jumpers: the companies, mostly startups, belatedly going open-source in order to ride a trend, while paying only lip service to the community and its values. Take Aras Corp., a provider of Windows-based product lifecycle management (PLM) software that in January decided to go open-source. Rosenberg depicted the firm in his blog as an opportunistic Johnny-Come-Lately. "I'm not impressed when a company whose software is totally built on Microsoft technologies goes open-source," said Rosenberg, who even suspects that the company is being promoted by Microsoft as a shill to burnish Redmond's image in open-source circles."'"
OSS gone commercial is still OSS (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, they follow the letter of the GPL - I can get the source - but since the kernel must be cryptographically signed to execute on the device, this source is useless.
But the GPL never said anything about me being able to hack my device. Tivo is just like any other corporation in that respect, they don't want me adding functionality, they want me to pay for it.
They've taken from the community, made a good deal of money, and really have given nothing back, and really don't have to.
The GPL, and OSS in general, really isn't about giving back. It's about taking advantage of the altruism of others. I don't mean that in a negative way either. When I set up linux on old hardware as a router, I was doing the same thing. I've never released the firewall scripts I tweaked up, or even told anybody upstream of a couple of bugs I've fixed for myself. Tivo, and for that matter, IBM, HP or Novell all have the same rights that I do.
Those who don't understand UNIX... (Score:2, Insightful)
The bigger picture (Score:2, Insightful)
Ain't nobody ever happy (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't live in a utopian communist state. Progress is driven by self-interest, and I am happy that companies make money using open-source technologies, because it not only affirms the essential role of OSS in the marketplace, but also provides incentive for support and adoption of OSS by those who were previously skeptical.
A bit of terminology shear happening here (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as the source is open... (Score:4, Insightful)
The only good argument from a business perspective for open source is that if you use open source software you are not going to be held hostage by a licensor that alters the deal when your business is wedded to the IT infrastructure they provide. As long as the open source license these "bad" open source companies release it under is really an open license that allows you to modify and redistribute the code, that's all that matters. I don't have to care why the released the source. It just doesn't matter.
BS (Score:4, Insightful)
For example, Eclipse had killed JBuilder and Symantec Cafe (?) not because it was free but because it was so much better. GOOD commercial Java IDEs are still alive and kicking - see IDEA (http://www.jetbrains.com/) for example.
Apache Derby is hardly ever used outside of small embedded databases. Everyone uses Oracle/Postgres/MySQL/...
A lot of GOOD commercial products exists and successfully compete with their OpenSource counterparts. For example, Tangasol Coherence (http://www.tangosol.com/) beats JGroups and JBoss Cache.
why it is not predatory. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, tomorrow if IBM decides to change the fee structure and demand an arm and a leg or it thinks it should change the file formats to keep the competition out or decide to drop support for some API to maintain an advantage... Guess what? There is nothing to stop the customers/competitors to take the ball run circles around IBM. That is why Open source is not all that predatory.
Sometimes some people get a profound insight and that produces a view point that is strikingly different from the crowd. This article mimics the symptom, "being radically different from the rest" but without a cogent underlying argument that is the hallmark of a "profound insight".
Ideology vs Technology (Score:3, Insightful)
If selfserving companies (what other kind is there?) find it in their interest to open their source, then I welcome them joining the open source "movement". More source needs to be opened in the selfinterest of its originators. And more selfserving companies opening source will help convince others how its in their interest, too. Which will release more source.
What needs to die is the idea that open source is some kind of ideal. It's an engineering collaboration technique. It's like object oriented design. There are OOD ideologues, but they're harmless and lost in the roar of people using OOD to solve real problems. Some people are still arguing about the ideology of file vs project variable scoping. But practically no one lets that get in the way of writing code with well-defined interfaces for other code. Let's see open source outgrow the ideology, and just remain a stable way to produce and use software.
Ruthless and self serving behavior??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ruthless and self-serving behavior is how businesses compete. No one is in business to help their competitors. No one who has to deal with the realities of the business world gives a rat's ass about the ideologies behind Free/open source software. The only thing anyone cares about is whether open source provides a better solution than the alternatives, or provides a similar solution at a lower price. IBM helps and promotes open source projects because these projects help IBM. This isn't altruism, but quid pro quo.
Capitalism is based on (Score:4, Insightful)
But isn't this same philosophy driving Open Source essentially? People give to the whole because they know it is cheaper to maintain and they get more (features, reliability, freedom, what have you) out of it than going closed source?
I am not so much bothered by big companies jumping in for their own benefit than a company like SCO and Microsoft behind it, who aren't satisfied with a piece of the pie, but want the whole pie, even if it means destroying the existing community - and those are the players that really aren't involved in the first place.
IBM has a right to try to make money and if there business is good enough that they entice people to spend that cash, they deserve it. Otherwise, it makes no sense for IBM to be in Opensource in the first place. And they have contributed enough to be seen and acknowledged as a general benefactor.
Re:OSS gone commercial is still OSS (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you sure TiVo has never made patches to the kernel that got accepted? I doubt it, I'm sure they have caught and fixed bugs. But even if they didn't, we (as users) get the benefits of them using Linux. Using it cut the development time, cut the price of the box (no OS to develop or license), and reduced bugs (compared to if they had to write their own OS).
And let's not forgot all those people who have hacked their TiVos to do neat things, basically with the implied blessing of TiVo. In fact, I believe that TiVo has even integrated some of those features into their boxes over the years.
Just because someone is using OSS without providing new functionality back to the core all the time doesn't mean they are freeloading.
TiVo is better off, Linux is better off, TiVo users are better off, seems good to me.
Just like a non-profit organization... (Score:3, Insightful)
The same thing holds true for open source.
Note that I fully support open source (and would contribute if I could program anything more complicated than "hello world") and encourage others to use it...regardless, that still does not mean that open source is all green pastures and trippy skies.
The motivation to do something merely for the sake of doing it is fantastic...on the other hand, the potential of making millions and millions of dollars (or losing it, for that matter) is one hell of a motivater too. Granted, certain software companies are motivated in better ways than others, but there is something people often forget:
Just because a programmer works for a major software company does not mean they don't take pride in their work the same way an open source programmer does.
A corporate programmer is a whore. An open source programmer is a slut.
One does it for money, one does it for pleasure. The one doing it for money gets pleasure out of it, just in a different way than the one that is not motivated by money.
(To quote the great George Carlin on the subject of prostitution: "Selling is legal...fucking is legal...why isn't selling fucking legal?"...gotta love those multiple-meaning jokes:-))
Re:There was an open source version of Halo? (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean really... is anybody truly upset that IBM made a bunch of money cuz they threw a bunch of code and developer time at OSS projects?
I don't care how much money they all make, so long as they abide by the GPL in letter, and spirit. In fact, if I thought Microsoft was capable of playing by the rules, I'd even be happy to see them contribute.
[sarcasm]
zomg! money!!! we're all communists though, this can't be right!?!
[/sarcasm]
Re:GPLv3 (Score:2, Insightful)
The software monkeys of the FSF have no right to impose hardware restrictions on a manufacturer. How are they any better than the requirement for HDCP on an HDMI-compliant device?
Oh, right, because they care about "freedom."
rms's "freedom" is just another kind of chains. If TiVo's business model is so abhorrent, then someone ought to build a better TiVo-esque device and market it.
See how far you get on your "we're Free as in Freedom!" line.
Re:There was an open source version of Halo? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, that's why I still read slashdot.
is anybody truly upset that IBM made a bunch of money cuz they threw a bunch of code and developer time at OSS projects?
That's exactly why I don't mind they profit from open source. They contribute. Not only do they contribute code, but many educational articles on various technical details.
spirit and letters of the law (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's an important lesson for programmers and activists in the years to come. Look, the basic point of GPL was a rather radical one: the intellectuals and programmers who held the skills necessary to build the software wanted to wrest some sort of control over their work from the bosses and use it to promote rather radical anti-capitalist ideas such as freedom-to-hack, etc. etc.. I think in many ways that goal has not been realized, and I think people who try such things in the future have to realize that you can't achieve such goals by clever licensing alone. The market will find a way.
Re:OSS gone commercial is still OSS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:OSS gone commercial is still OSS (Score:5, Insightful)
"But the GPL never said anything about me being able to hack my [software]. Tivo is just like any other corporation in that respect, they don't want me adding functionality, they want me to pay for it."
That applies to any software company. If the intention wasn't for me to be able to modify the Tivo's software, why the hell should I bother with anything OSS? Print out the source and frame it?
Linus has way too much faith in the general purpose computer and that "the best technology wins", and that whatever smart thing Tivo does he can just include in his mainstream kernel. For now that's true but the day you computers come with TCPA and his unsigned kernel doesn't get to touch any mainstream media, it's a dead duck as far as the general public is concerned.
Nice problem to have (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft Shared Source? No. Mysql? Sure. Tivo? Partially (it's essentially a GPL kernel and FOSS OS on top of a proprietary BIOS and hardware design).
Don't compromise the licenses, and don't let anyone get away with branding themselves "open" short of the licenses, and we will continue to see sociopathic business interests kept to a modicum of user accountability.
Re:Only in /. (Score:3, Insightful)
Boo Hoo, OS is making $$$: Businesses are making money of open source. OK? So? What'd you think a FOR_PROFIT company would do with it? At least they didn't M$ it: Embrace, make it proprietary, and then lock everyone out of using it. I read /. daily and I guess I missed the thousands posting how they no longer can use a flavor of *nix.
Companies are lying: This is a morally hollow argument. It's like saying, "I won't give to the bum on the street because I bet he makes $150k a year as a 'bum'" Even the lack of evidence of a conspiracy is proof there IS a conspiracy.
I somehow get the vibe that the author is really thinking it's lost it's gleam because OS is:making money, becoming mainstream, and some how no longer just a geek's product of tinkering. All of these are GOOD things to me. Make it mainstream...make money...make it easy....
These are just my ramblings.
Re:GPLv3 (Score:3, Insightful)
What part of "userland" do you not understand? TiVo almost certainly uses more GPL software than just a kernel, you know!
No, no, no (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice Self Serving Sophistry You've Got There (Score:5, Insightful)
A voluntary agreement can not in any conceivable way restrict freedom. It's voluntary, you are free to not enter the agreement. Funny how many people's definition of "freedom" really means freedom for them, not freedom for the other guy. Your position seems to advocate a kind of software socialism for corporations, where programmers are forced to cede control of their own creations in order to benefit another's bottom line.
Re:It never had a Halo (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, to put it more simply, those two camps consist of those who focus on the cause, and those who focus on the effect.
It only find it unfortunate that some people think they can get to the effect without working for the cause. But the principle of Software Freedom is not an abstract thing. It is a practical requirement. It has a direct relationship with the ability to achieve technically sustainable software at least cost.
Re:OSS politics (Score:3, Insightful)
I want:
1) To conform to open standards
2) To have the source code to the application
If it interoperates, that is best, If I can tweak it, that's something I can do if I get really bored.
Re:GPLv3 (Score:3, Insightful)
BSD "keeps companies from using the code in a way that hurts the overall community"? What crack are you smoking? You can do pretty much anything with code licensed under the BSD license. There isn't even that obnoxious advertising clause in the more commonly used three-clause BSD license.
And if I do happen to come up with code that is worth sharing--something new and different, say--the GPL is right out, whereas the BSD license is worthy of serious consideration. The BSD license is an actual Free license, as opposed to the "you can't do things because we don't like them" GPL.
Don't like it? Take your own advice and make a new OS.
Why? I have the perfectly useful BSD operating system. I use Linux out of convenience, but switching to BSD will not be a hardship.
Losing its Halo? (Score:3, Insightful)
Puns aside. WTF is this about? If IBM and Co. are making huge amounts of cash on OSS I'd say good for them and all of us. If I get Sun and IBM sending Netbeans and Eclipse into battle over who can build the best all-free IDE and they're making money on it I'd say we have a win-win-win situation here. And if it's just that opinion leaders such as OSS geeks tell their bosses to buy stuff from Sun and IBM because they rock - all the better.
Shrinkwrap software only business is over. People yearn for paradise which is a standardized operating system free and flexible enough to deal with any useage scenario. Currently it looks as if this is going to be some unix variant. The situation described in TFA emphasises exactly that: OSS will take over. Get with the programm.
Re:Bad Apples Spoiling the Barrel (Score:2, Insightful)
Screw developers with over-inflated egos who think we should kiss their ass for releasing barely functional, undocumented, unusable piles of crap.
If your attitude towards your software's users is this hostile why bother even releasing it, under the GPL or any other license? By releasing it you're, as the GP post pointed out, only going to sour people's impression of open source software or software in general. Like it or not, "open source" is a brand like Coca-Cola or Starbucks and when you damage the brand you hurt anything that's associated with it.
Re:Nice Self Serving Sophistry You've Got There (Score:5, Insightful)
What "business" are you giving that crowd, anyway? How much are you paying them? Nothing? You mean you're just a whining leach who doesn't want to contribute but wants to dictate how others contribute? Gotcha.
Today Was Our IT Town Hall (Score:3, Insightful)
"Have we thought about what our policy is regarding Open Source software?"
The answer was short and simple. "Our policy is to use the software that works. If we have an area that you believe can benefit from Open Source, make a case for it."
Simple enough. The truth is that we licence software from Oracle, Microsoft, Sun, and many other companies, and nearly all of it is closed source. We have some OS stuff around, but we don't pick software because it's free. Our direction must always be to solve business problems. And if the closed source product is better at that task, we're fine with paying for it.
The quasi-religious attitude towards open source that you find in many places isn't present here. If it works, we use it.
We don't see a halo. Just tools that we might or might not be able to use.
Re:Bad Apples Spoiling the Barrel (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to disagree here. A release in the OSS world in no way means that the software is ready for use by consumers. If you don't release it, it isn't actually open source, since the only one available to develop your project is you. Holding off a release until it is polished enough to be used by consumers would likely mean that the software would never be released.
Releasing software to fellow developers is an essential step for all open source projects. No one knows about unreleased software sitting on some guys private hard drive, and thus, no other developers can help developing it.
If everyone followed your advice, there wouldn't be any open source software around.
Re:No, no, no (Score:2, Insightful)
Linux != Open Source in general (Score:3, Insightful)
I've said before that with most of the little people associated with Linux, there isn't a problem...they're just doing their thing each day, maybe contributing patches to a few different projects here and there, and generally living quietly and agreeably. The "leaders" of the "community" on the other hand, are people who I really wish would crawl into a hole in the ground somewhere and die, to be honest. (Bruce Perens, I'm talking to you, among others) That also includes a number of ACs I've had replying to me on here recently who don't even have the basic courage to put their name to what they write, and then expect others to care about their opinions.
I've realised that one of the main differences between Linux people and the BSD developers is actually posessiveness. The gift culture that ESR wrote about doesn't actually exist with Linux. The BSD people *do* give away their work, genuinely and completely, with no strings attached. The GPL on the other hand encourages an attitude which basically says, "We wrote this, but we'll let you use it...but on the other hand, we don't ever want you to forget that we wrote it, and we also want you to know that we feel that because we wrote it and you are using it, you are forever beholden to us, and we have the right to dominate you in more or less any manner we see fit."
I want to suggest to Jeremy Ellison and a few of the Debian people in particular that maybe you're nowhere near as high minded as you think, but that in fact, you're actually a group of extremely selfish, controlling, mean-spirited human beings who get off on the fact that writing FOSS under the GPL allows you to superficially appear to be altruistic when in fact you're the complete opposite.
BSD developers use the BSD license to completely give away software without stipulation in order to benefit other human beings. *Some* GPL developers at least use the GPL to write software which they can then try and use to *control* other human beings...because they have the attitude that if people who use said software start doing things they don't like, the access to the software for said users will be removed.
You can try and justify this as much as you want, (and doubtless you will) but I think it sucks, that you're completely rotten human beings, and that you're made all the more rotten by the fact that you try and make out that morality is something that you actually are concerned about. You're confusing your own morality with a desire to control what it is that *other* people do. Although again, that's merely an idea that you picked up from the usual source...the root of most of Linux's fundamental problems: Richard Stallman.
Re:Bad Apples Spoiling the Barrel (Score:3, Insightful)
End-users shouldn't use development versions unless they understand that they are unfinished and may not do what they want. If they download development versions without understanding this, they themselves are only to blame. Part of this could in theory be solved with user education, so that users understand that a release in the OSS world isn't really the same as a release in the proprietary world. But in practice, I think user education is more or less impossible, just as it is almost impossible to teach users about computer security, especially where it will degrade their convenience.
It already exists, in the form of versions below 1.0.
Sounds like way to much work. With such a requirement, the risk that developers would refrain from releasing their programs to the community would be substantial. But that might be what you really want.
Better to release non-finished apps than not releasing anyting at all.