Slashdot Mirror
VA Linux to Sell Proprietary Version of Sourceforge
Cassivs writes: "There's an article claiming that VA Linux is planning on selling a proprietary, closed-source version of SourceForge, SourceForge Enterprise Edition. See the letter to SourceForge members assuring them that VA Linux will continue to provide free hosting/etc. at SourceForge. They will also continue to maintain a GPL version of the code, SourceForge Open Edition." VA is Slashdot's corporate parent.
This really isn't a big deal. Linux/dot-com company sells new product. Where's the story? The only reason this got posted is because hundreds of readers would have moaned and griped if it didn't, saying "slashdot is censorware!"...
As a side note, does anybody know of any companies that are actually using sourceforge enterprise for interenal development?
Juiced? Or Not?
I do feel for the guys though, watching your stock drop, having to basically shutdown VA, that couldn't of been fun. Oh, and they've got all of us laughing our asses off. Its just cruel
What, me worry?
Is it allowed under the GPL to make money?
that was sarcasm by the way, though I am sure this will anger many zealots.
tinfoilmedia
Subject lines asks the question.
Slashdot, where open-source fascists live...
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
A closed source version of an open source community? Quite the oxymoron.
"I'll just chip in a bit for RedHat: I actually have that installed on my university machine." - Linus, '95
So they've finally decided Open Source doesn't pay the bills... :p
The current project team of sourceforge is listed as:
Ariel Garza, Tim Perdue, Dominick Bellizzi,Chad Schwartz, Dan Bressler, James Byers, Jim Gleason, John Mark Walker, Marc, Trae McCombs, Jacob Moorman, Ze Arruda, Patrick McGovern, Paul Sokolovsky, Uriah Welcome, Darrell Brogdon
are all these people employed by VA? Are they going to be compensated for their efforts once VA starts making cashola off this?
just curious..
There is nothing wrong with selling value added extensions, as long as they aren't violating the lisence on the original body of code.
The idea has always been pay for people not software.
Custom modifications and services are the only way Open Source will survive.
Free as in Freedom not Beer. Get it.
I hope it works out for VA. If they can make money with this, and still supply the services that they are now, *great*!
I would much, much rather see this then VA going down the tubes becouse of lack of funds. They've done so much for the comunuity.
Why is it so hot? Where am I going? What am I doing in this handbasket?
i hope slashbots don't go off the deep end because some company wants to stay alive.
Glad to see that VA Linux finally "gets it."
Information wants to be secret!
I can't see why a company may want to deploy sourceforge on site. Maybe I never worked for a big enough company but unless you have hundreds of projects I can't really see why one might one to have sourceforge in the office. Even when I worked for my biggest ever employer they had some sixteen distinct projects and that was a company with well over a thousand employees. Where's the selling point?
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
"VA is Slashdot's corporate parent"
And therefore Slashdot cannot criticize them, even if there are very valid reasons for doing so.
give me bongo
i think VA needs whatever money it can possibly get these days.
In a recent meeting with some VA Reps, they mentioned that a closed-source package of Oracle hooks would be coming out in the future, at the request of many of their large customers.
This was, of course, an answer to our question, "when will you support Oracle?" I felt funny asking that question, but OSS be damned. Oracle has it over any other database when it comes to performance and management.
And troll...
:)
I prefer my code open, others can do whatever they want, as long as they don't go DMCA and postal
I want freedom... Free Software! As long as there is an alternative that is free (as in freedom) all is well.
Windows has its alternative (Linux, FreeBSD, etc) so all is well. I couldn't care how many problems Windows has, I have all the functionality I need (and WINE exists). Just wish the Blizzard series ran under WINE.
But you are correct, insulting masses is a good way to get happiness raised. +1 for you!
--
CodeRed, the lower user #. No relation to SirCam.
Simple fact, if VA Linux goes under they'll be taking SourceForge, Slashdot, and a bunch of others down with them. Its not like they're closing the source completly after having had people work on it openly, it another product (presumeably the GPL stuff (which remains GPL) with closed source extensions). So I say let them sell, coz the profits from such go toward keeping the pretty cool free stuff around.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Got modded down - well i thought you could leave it alone but then again who knows - it might have been offtopic there but i have been seeing the misinformed stories all day
Reposted in CORRECT FORUM
the end of the world as we know it
Actually the story says that VA linux is going to sell some investigate ways to make some money from their software development and thus build some applications that move in new ways - this is perfectly reasonable as their employees have mouths to feed.
I quote: (lifted without permission but maybe this wil stop the register being slashdotted)
SourceForge is the new ERP - VA Linux
By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco
Posted: 24/08/2001 at 07:49 GMT
Barely six weeks ago VA Linux Systems was an open source hardware vendor. Now, the company is undertaking a Napoleonic retreat from the hardware business and it's doing the unthinkable: adding proprietary subscription software to its open source software flagship SourceForge.
VA swallowed charges of around $230m in the last quarter - $160 million coming under the category of "impairment of goodwill and intangible assets", and almost $70 million as a one-time charge - contributing to a net loss for the quarter of $290 million as it liquidated its PC manufacturing and sales businesses.
Costs will continue to affect the bottom line for two further quarters, said VA. Its Japanese subsidiary will continue to sell hardware, the company said, but that amounts to chump change.
The new software-only VA expects to make an operating lost of $10 to $13 million on revenue of $3 to $4 million in the forthcoming quarter. With a cash pile of $83 million, that gives the company as little as six months to ramp revenue, or else seek new investment. VA said its burn rate will continue to decline, suggesting that more layoffs are to be expected.
But CEO Larry Augustin is bullish. He says there was no competition for the distributed code management system SourceForge. Current development processes and tools haven't kept pace with geographically dispersed or ad hoc teams, according Augustin, who predicts that the impact of SourceForge could be as great as ERP or CRM.
Typically VA deals with in-house developers using a range of tools (it cites Borland, Rational and Microsoft as well as GNU tools). The company emphasises that seeks to complement rather than supplant existing tools.
VA is gunning for $600 revenue per seat per year - it claims that buyers typically see a return on investment within six months.
Augustin talks of adding "proprietary software features and functionality" to the subscription version SourceForge. That VA is looks at the software-hoarding model to save the business is an irony a few will savour, but we guess that by now badly singed VA investors will simply be hoping it flies. ®
IN OTHER WORDS
They are not 'going closed source' they have had a subscription service for some time - the code is well developed and they are looking at new areas like ERP - they have a right to do it and if they dont they may very well be down the tubes.
From someone who works in MIS and who's company has just spent AU$20 Million on SAP let me tell you that this is a field where some competitors would be good - there arent many new products that ar worth buying and three companies have it tied up - SAP, Peoplesoft and JD Edwards.
And no - no company in their right mind would ever buy a free GPL erp system - these systems are the heart and sould of a business when you implement them - they do all payroll and accounting functions etc and no one would trust a product without a company with cash and controlled development backing it up.
I have been accused in the past of defending MS - so it might seem strange for the people who can't see past the MS sucks argument to defend an open source company but im not that narrow minded.
VA Linux have not sold out the GPL - they are simply running their free software projects and at the same time trying to make enough money to survive and build a new product in the meantime.
And you can only attack them ?
Christ have you stopped to think what this means if these guys get this right - ERP's are run on Windows or Unix Platforms - what this might give the world is a stable lower cost ERP alternative that is built on linux.
The problem with free sourcing applications like this is that VA would be expected by their clients to do all the development work but by the brethern to give everyone that work for free and thus give competitors the chance to profit off their hard work when they adapt the code and havent got to pay for the development.
Open source does not have to mean free IMHO - devlopment of corporate systems costs money - but maybe VA can start the ball rolling and we might win a few of those corporate file and app servers and some corporate desktops.
So please no more meaningless VA have sold out posts - its boring and innacurate and they are only being posted here because they own Slashdot and your trying to be smart (and failing)
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
I'm curious what licence the'll use...
I think the easiest way would be to change the licence of sourceforge code to something less GPL, offer the free (beer) version (with source) to non-profit projects, and just licence the use of their code to profit orgs...
this was the only plausible reason for making proprietary extensions - to provide 'embedded' interfaces proprietary software. Of course you have to make the interfaces between these extensions and the GPL SourceForge 'clean' in licensing terms.
Otherwise - if VA had really been converted to proprietariness - they'd have just re-licensed the whole thing.
Some reps from VA came by and gave a presentation at my company regarding this product about 2 months ago.
Its actually pretty neat - they'll set up your own internal sourceforge on servers in your organization. And while they are doing it, they'll customize it so that the backend works with all of your already establised CM and problem tracking tools.
The idea is that even if your company makes closed software, you can benefit from a structured way to share code within the company. They can even close off portions with restricted access, so that classified projects (I work for a defense contractor) will only be available to the developers working on it.
The product the and the services they bring with it are really amazing... if I was in charge of such things here, I'd switch over ASAP. I really hope they make a go with this.
_sig_ is away
After all the slashdot stories worrying that Microsoft might try to "embrace and extend" open source work, here's VA Linux doing the job for them. How thoughtful.
Sourceforge is a marvellous thing for developpers and it helps a lot the free software community.
However, Sourceforge is very buggy. Sometimes the CVS server refuses authentication. Sometimes, uploading new releases is impossible. Sometimes, I have to authenticate dozens of time. And it doesn't like Opera.
Maybe VA should fix Sourceforge before selling it.
{{.sig}}
The V is getting a little to big, time to move on people.
It does promise good times ahead though!
sig sig sputnik
When you sort bug by priority, you cannot go to the second page. Bug reports do not offer links to patches (and vice versa).
How hypocritical is it that the people who run this site, while espousing the virtues of open source take an open-sourced program and make it proprietary.
While they will have a "Source Forge - Open Edition", there will undoubtably be features in the "Enterprise" edition missing from the GPL'd release. Is this fair to those who have contributed to SourceForge on a voluntary and uncompensated basis? Will the open-source contributers receive royalties from the commercial product?
Where is JonKatz and CmdrTaco crying out against this now? I guess moral superiority stops at the hands of those who sign their checks.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
In my opinion, this is a good sign for companies in the future. I mean, we have a company demonstratably commited to open source able to or trying to make some money from their open source. I hope they succeed.
/.
To me it shows that they've understood how to make a living out of the free software fad, and are showing others how to make dollars out of the service industry. Good for them, and I truely thank them for what they've given me in the past, in the form of sourceforge.net and sites like
Alas gallinaceas de urbe bovis volo
It's in flash format, but it's fairly informative. http://hyperspeed.org/files/weee.html. If you're using Linux, you can see it with Netscape and the appropriate plugin, but I couldn't get it working with Mozilla. ;-(
Yeah, go ahead, mod me down. I don't care about my Karma.
Not that VA is necessarily doing something bad, but that this is quite a change in their direction.
"We are firmly committed
to Open Source development as a methodology for creating better
software, faster." -- Dr. Larry M. Augustin, president and CEO of VA Linux Systems, as quoted in a September 2000 press release.
Later down that press release we learn that "VA Linux Systems'
mission is to make its customers successful through the use of Linux
and Open Source -- whether they are e-businesses rapidly expanding
their Internet infrastructures, or technology companies leveraging the
power and methodology of Open Source software development. As part of its commitment to expanding the Open Source community, VA Linux
Systems operates the Open Source Development Network (OSDN)."
Take all the references to "Open Source" out, and you have a more accurate and to-the-point statement of what seems to be their current mission.
Well I didn't yet notice. Whenever there was something (serious) with VA there was first the slashdot story.
:o)
Like VA leaving the hardware sector -> slashdot story.
VA reducing staff count -> slashdot story.
I guess you don't have any proofs for your statement, slashdot usually picks on all equally and doesn't stop with it's corporate parents
I don't know about you guys, but this is not a good message for Open Source. Why doesn't VA, one of the biggest proponents of Open Source, switch to a closed source for business purposes all of a sudden? Sounds like 1). there is something wrong w/ the open source model after all, 2). there is something wrong w/ VA management, 3). there is someting wrong w/ me (always the possibility). Any insights?
//./
The only selling point might be the ease of starting new projects. Even that isn't all that great.
The whole thing is basically just some basic open source software development tools haphazardly latched together.
Now is the time to create a backup copy of the sourceforge CVS archive somewhere safe.
Please.
...so now maybe some PHBs will take notice instead of being afraid of using hippie commie software to manage their projects...I sure know it would help around here...
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I've already seen a dozen or so posts detailing why this isn't fair to the people who have contributed to sourceforge and helped create the functionality that it has now. To be honest, though, who offered the first olive branch? Im sure most if not all the people who have contributed code have also used sourceforge to communicate/facilitate their ideas and projects. That's payment enough IMHO. We have a huge, free, well developed architecture that VA said, "Hey develop here! It's free!" And now you want to give them a hard time when they want to make some money off of it? It has to come from somewhere ya know! The alternative would be they run out of cash and Sourceforge Open Edition gets closed down. It takes alot of resources and people and money to keep SF open and free for us to use. Howabout showing a little grattitude!
Have a Happy.
First of all VA may have asked the authors to sign over copyright to them - as the FSF does. It's believed by many that this makes it easier to defend against GPL violations. I don't know whether this has happened or not - but I'd guess not.
Simply charging for distribution of GPL'd software - is not a violation of the GPL. The only possibly violation would be whether the 'extensions' together with the GPL'd stuff constitute a 'derived work' or merely an 'aggregate work'. That's what I meant about 'clean' interfaces.
My guess would be that we're talking about stand-alone programs which can be called by SourceForge with specific command line flags, input files etc. The fact that they are really designed to be used with SourceForge doesn't matter so long as they can be seen to be distinct programs.
From what someone else said - it looks as though these extensions are actually doing is talking to Oracle databases. So they have to make these extensions separate and proprietary in order to be able to interface with Oracle and not violate the GPL on the core software. It's a compromise based on the fact that their large customers want Oracle integration.
For it to be hypocrisy, the people closing the sourc e -- not "the people running this site," whihc is a dangerously misleading phrase (Vice Admiral Empanada and crew handle the editorial decisions, and they didn't make the decision) -- would have had to
See, some might call it "changing one's mind." Maybe they used to think they could make a go of it by being completely open source.
Well, apparently that didn't work. We can be saddened by it, but that doesn't mean we can ignore the evidence in front of our eyes.
BTW, one can see the posting of this story as evidence of editorial feelings on this matter; if it weren't VA doing it, it wouldn't be a big deal.
But then, I suppose the knee-jerk response is the one that should be given? Yeah, that always plays well.
The more realistic you are about business and the way the world works (as opposed to how the open/free community wishes it worked) the more you have to wonder why VAL's stock isn't already down to about 10 cents/share and RH's isn't about a buck a share.
If Microsoft were adding closed source extensions to Sourceforge and selling it as a package, I think the Slashdot story might have run just a bit differently...
People don't realize that there is a FEE in
FREE. VA Linux is only using their right
to sell Open Source/Free software (GLP'd)
with proprietary extensions.
Hopefully they'll be adding a lot of value to the product. I mean, I can get for free a product with source code I can fix, or I can pay for one that I can't.
I can already see it.
News for lawyers. stuff that costs money.
Please keep us informed of your progress!
frist prosts r kewl
Polish up your resumes guys,and start recruituing volunteers to help you run /..
From the article:
And VA needs a proven business model. It reported revenue of $16 million Thursday; most of its loss was from its abandonment of Linux computer sales in favor of software and services. The company said $267 million of the loss was from non-cash charges for goodwill, intangible assets and restructuring charges because of VA's departure from the computer business
I'm still working on a clever footer.
I'd like to see his open source philosophy explanation of this.
Do you even know what ERP is? The idea (according to thereg) is not that sourceforge will provide ERP, but that the services that it does provide will be as sweepingly popular in (at least part of) the business world as ERP was during the last few years. That is, they are hoping Sourceforge installations will be the next 'thing to have' for software development shops.
...SourceForge Open Edition." VA is Slashdot's corporate parent.
For a second, I thought I was reading an MSNBC article.... *Phew*
A leading "Open-Source" company is taking the work of the "community", repackaging it into a closed-source product and selling it corporations and government as a proprietary product.
It is news because it highlights the death of the "Free Software" large-scale business model.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Umm im in the middle of a frigging huge SAP implementation - do i know what ERP is ?
Oh god yes and i wish i didnt - ERP=Hell on Earth (BTW this is implementation 2 of this as 2 different companies and i used to sell and support R5 Camms and JD Edwards so yeah i know what ERP is - DO YOU ??
The article talks (from what i can see) about being able to leverage sourceforge code to ERP type solutions
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
If they have all of the copyrights they can change the license. The guy I spoke with, one of their lawyers, I think, asserted that the code would remain under an Open Source license...
Does this creep anyone else out..?
Uh I think it's called version management or change control or version libs or problem-queues or something like that. At any rate since the days of Panvalet or CA-something or PVCS we've had this function. All this is a more open ended spin on it. Open ended as in less process bound not open as in (Ta-Da) OPEN. This is great VA gets to sell a product and make some money doing it. What's the big forking deal?
How can a business possibly expect to survive when they *don't sell anything*? Free software as a business model works if it's in conjunction with a product/service you're selling (hardware drivers, for instance). Open source is supposed to be a community movement, not a business one. If they want to sell money-making add-ons to sourceforge (I'm suspecting these are add-ons that most OSers wouldn't care much for anyway - sourceforge is doing fine without them as we speak), good on them. If they improve the OS core while they're at it, even better.
Last post!
There are currently many users of this code outside of the SourceForge staff & probably more than a few who contribute back to code.
In light of (somewhat) competing products... how does one go about submitting patches to the GPL'd product??? Should a submitter license their patch under the GPL??
Doesn't this violate the GPL, or have the only contributors to SourceForge been VA Linux employees?
It's that little part not in italics at the end that says "VA is Slashdot's corporate parent."
Christ, we used to not bother reading the linked-to stories, then we stopped reading the whole Slashdot stories, and now we're not even reading the whole teaser before we post a reply?
Your stupid, they are just selling the server, not the service.
check out the posts that defend sourceforge's new direction.... mod:5, now check out the posts that question it.. yeah, that's what i thought..
Its not open source its the GPL. The problem with GPL Open Source is its greatest asset. Being free is a double edged sword in a capitalist system. You Companies just have a hard time making money off a License that's designed so companies can't control/make profit (whichever way you look at it) off of it.
Actually if you think about it the GPL seems historically new to the capitalist system. Think about it, where has there been a service or good that when received required the user to not sell any changes but release them free and include the exact information on what specific changes were made. Currently this can only work for software, as it just wouldn't make sense for other industries. Even public information of the past (and present, not the future of course because that hasn't happened yet) has not been setup like this. Imagine if the Wright brothers had GPLed the basic design for an Airplane. We would have literally never gotten off the ground.
I guess my point is that a capitalist system like the one we live in has a lot of difficulty with the GPL, just look at all those profitable (or unprofitable I should say) linux companies out there.
I'm probably going to get alot of replies about how linux is not supposed to be profitable, etc... And i'd reply "Thats great just don't expect it to put food on your table or become mainstream."
Interesting... So what about any Source Forge code wirtten by external developers who did so under the terms of the GPL? Unless they signed over the copyright to VA, then VA can't do this (unless those developers agree to it and license them the code under a different license).
Actually though I suspect this isn't an issue which leads me to a significant realization about the poor implemtnations of open source based businesses we've seen come out of the recent hype. What are the advantages of open source?
1) Many eyes to find many bugs
2) Large collaborative effort distributing cost of development
Now, if Source Forge was all code written by people in-house, why is it open source? There is absolutely no business justification for this within their business model. I mean don't get me wrong, I'm glad they do it, hopefully out of a sense of community, not just a PR thing. But the result is that they are getting ALL of the drawbacks of open source and none of the benefits. No wonder VA is having financial problems and no wonder they have to make a proprietary version.
People keep thinking that open source can't make money. That's only because we keep seeing a lot of companies make the same serious mistake, trying to develop an open source project in a proprietary development style then just opening the code.
If you look at successful open source projects and companies who are making money off it, their approach is entirely different. RedHat actually gets it! They subsidize some of the cost of developing linux, but not all of it by any stretch. They release new products by taking existing open source projects, branding them, and then throwing some developers at it (see also RedHat's new Postgres database).
Hopefully VA and the rest will soon learn that you can't set out and build an open source project overnight. It is something that has to grow organically by a bunch of geeks recognizing a common usefulness of a piece of software. If you try to force it, fronting proprietary development costs, and then just saying it's open source, your company will fail because it is not a sustainable model. Doesn't mean anything is wrong with open source, just means these people aren't doing it right.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
If anyone looks at the stock profiles of RedHat or VA Linux, it's interresting to note that their line graphs would make excellent ski slopes.
I use to work for VA, and they do NOT support free software. Their a corporation and they use Linux's good name to make money. This isnt the only closed source project that they have.
It's up and running at savannah.gnu.org
Does the community really need corporations? I
personally don't think so. All software should
be free.
I mean, is it still open source? Where it can be found (sources) ?
That is one of the things I really agreed with as a business model that gives back.
Make the most current version closed source and binary only, then each time a new version is out, put the last one into an open source license.
Everybody wins. Sorta like how patents were SUPPOSED to work.
DanH
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins anymore
I know I'll get modded down for this, but so be it.
Who was it that came down hard on Microsoft running closed source? What tired cliches about the fallibility of closed source can you trot out now, kettle?
Just for old time's sake, I'll trot this one out: first jobs.osdn.com, now this. Can't wait for VA Linux to become a fully closed-source sellin' shop running on top of open source software, preaching the ardline open source mantra.
Unless they want to make money, get something done, or play some games, in which case they're secretly sort of OK with Microsoft.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
I knew it was bad news a year and a half ago when VA bought out Andover.net. At the time the /. crew, as I remeber, was buzzing about their new high end VA linux systems they were getting out of the deal, and could not see the inevnable corperate takeover of slashdot. Yes VA said they would give slashdot editorial freedom, but things have gone downhill ever since they where bought. That, and a serious crack down on trolls. Come on, "First Post" is(or shoud I say was), a big part of /. culture.
Why would nobody think of charging subscription fees to read, post and search technical mailing lists and its archives to generate income ?
I never understoodd why, if the source code is open, the technical support to explain how an open source code software package works to other users and developers, is a thing you can get for free. This is a free like in free beer thingy and it is not necessary to give that kind of technical support away for absolutely nothing.
A developer who donates code to an open source project might be willing to pay a little to the mailing list to show support for open source code in general (even though he already donates his work and his time).
All the others, the ones who just profit from the knowledge of the (in general) few real developers of the package, who just use the mailing list to learn and get advice for free, should pay a subscription to fee to support the overall chance for open source software to make money for the developers and the companies who hire those developers, IMHO. May be it is time that the community helps itself to generate income for open source projects in paying "a little bit" to the most helpful and used item by all users and developers, the technical support mailing lists of any open source project ?
I want to stay source code opened up as much as possible. I would pay a subscription fee to a technical mailing list, where developers help to explain their software's features, detect and fix their software's bugs and open up in which direction the software is going to be developed.
I think cvs and bugzilla is the best and most beneficial invention of all things I have seen so far, for all, users and developers alike. I would not hesitate to pay a subscription fee to be able to read, post and search a mailing list's archives.
Of course it has to be a low subscription fee that is affordable.
Is that not a way to generate income for a company like VALinux too ? Or would it be just peanuts ?
as long as the base is free and open (I.E. the main program and all the protocols and file formats) then the programs built on top of that base can be either open or closed, it does not matter. what is the one reason that MS is hated?
because they place a barrior to entry to compete with their products. if windows, the protocols, and the file formats were all open and under the GPL and they sold word and office as a proprietary tool, I would have no issues with them, however, the barrior to entry is huge because they don't let anyone see anything.
that is why Linux is so great, everything you need to compete equaly is available free and open. the sam priciple applies to sourceforge, the base system is open and free, this allows anyone to compete in this arena, VA is adding extentions to the system that are proprietary, to add value that is exclusive to VA, another company can come along and take the base code and add proprietay extentions on it to make its sourceforge have features that are exclusive to that companies product. nothing wrong with that, just let the market sort them out.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Or what's the story here?
SourceForge doesnt contain any code borrowed from other GPLed programs, does it? If it does, how are they going to get away with this? Am I the only one who sees the irony in a Linux company violating the GPL?
Liberty in your lifetime
While its admirable for a company to strike out for new business, its probably time for the VA execs to fess up to the reality of it - the negative momentum on earnings is too much for the stock to bear. Once LNUX inevitably goes under $1, the dilution of the stock will bring the market cap to ridiculously low levels. Once the market cap gets under $80 million, the assets of the company are valued more than its valuation as a publically traded company (I believe VA has $83 million cash and securities).
Why not just sell off the assets and simply redistribute the funds to shareholders? Really, this isn't a slag on the company or its employees - the math is simply against them. Morningstar has given them five more quarters and then they predict it is all over for them.
I can't figure out why companies insist on spending every last dollar when its obvious that it isn't going to happen.
Under copyright law, it is my understanding that you own your creative works and all derivatives. That means, if you made a change in their system, you haven't created a work. VA automatically owns the copyright on your derivative work.
If you were to write a module that incorporated the code, the custom code would be yours, but it would fall under the GPL as a derivative as well.
However, patches/tweaks aren't creative works and therefore shouldn't grant the author any protection.
we're stuck with Visual Source Safe here at work, and it is a broken turd (doesn't help that we run it with shared drives [via the 'net] across the country). I've shown a couple of people here in the office how SourceForge works, and while they agree that it looks nice, nobody wants to even think about changing. (yes, I work with a big bunch of llamas).
ESR can't come to the phone right now, he's still surprised by wealth!
You don't plonk money down for support from a company that isn't going to be there in eighteen months, and in VA's case, this isn't even up for debate anymore - Morningstar has put them down for five more quarters until they are gonzo.
The author of the reg article is not claiming SourceForge is ERP, but claiming it could have the imapct of ERP products.
Really, read it again. Especially the part where I agree that there is no conflict!
It's just an insult to the community that a company that has claimed for years to agree with the idea that information wants to be free suddenly decides that some information for their customers doesn't want to be free.
So maybe now we discover, that they never got it at all.
This will probably me moderated as flamebait, but anyhow.
VA didn't make much money with run-off-the-mill PC hardware. Sure they could capitalize on the dot-bomb hype of 2000 (when some places were too lazy to install Linux themselves, check hardware compatibility, etc, and were willing to pay VA for a box with preinstalled Linux). One would think that now for VA the services is where it's at, but if they can't even generate much revenue with the services what's left? Oh wait, we have developed a web application that was never meant to go commercial, but since now it might very well be our last chance to stay afloat, what the hell. And if that doesn't go well (I can't see how this can be as popular as VA would need it to generate revenue) it's definitely bust for VA.
Well I found out about sourceforge last week. The funny thing is a banner ad at slashdot tipped me off. The company I work for happens to be in the market for collaboration software. Unfortunately, I was too late to throw this one the bucket. The decision had already been made for another product.
After talking to a sales rep from VA Linux on the phone the advantage of buying sourceforge is support. Which I'm sure is the same reason businesses buy RedHat. Time is money to business and I know first hand we cannot be down from a bug in software or at the mercy of newsgroups for technical support answers. What I found really interesting is VA Linux no longer sells hardware, but they do still provide support. Anyway, good move VA Linux. I really appreciate the open source collaboration sourceforge provides and I think its a great move to supply the same great tools at a price to businesses for proprietary development. Lets hope their stock prices reflect this decision.
JOhn
Campaign for Liberty
Call it Open, get all the bugs out of your software - and then close the door. Brilliant.
Cheap Beta Testing.
Any bets how long it will take before they start selling my profile in their desperation for cash?
The people controlling the site are the people who hold the pursestrings.
People are free to change their mind of course, but it does not help your credibility when you turn away from a license or a philosophy that is espoused as the only righteous and moral path by the "community".
What is hypocritical is that employees of VA Linux, namely the editors of this site, constantly and consistantly challenge the validity of copyright & patents as it pertains to "bad" organizations.
Will those feelings change when VA feels the need to defend it's intellectual property? How about when Slash become a proprietary product? You better believe it.
Feel free to moderate down to -1 Troll. I don't agree with the hivemind, sorry.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
I'd say VA can't just p and quit, because they are responsible to their investors. Of course, why the VC guys haven't closed the shop and cashed out is beyond me. Usually they have more brains than this.
Ummm, SourceForge is not an ERP system, won't become one, and the article you quoted doesn't claim that it will. "The impact of SourceForge could be as great as ERP or CRM" doesn't mean that SourceForge is an ERP system, it means that VA Linux believes it might become as important as an ERP system.
Maybe they would not download the source and compile it themselves, but why would they not use a GPLed ERP system? Do you seriously think SAP's market share would drop to zero if they decide to free SAP R/3? Also, if that were true, then why do people run SAP or their databases on Linux systems? If you "don't trust a free ERP system", then why would you install it on top of Free Software?
I'd agree if you say there is no free enterprise level ERP system available yet, but this doesn't mean there won't be one in the future.
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
The open source community uses source forge because it provides free hosting and tools to open source projects. The software could be very proprietary and it wouldn't make a difference to the community at large. It's the cost of bandwidth, hardware, etc, that is the important thing there, not the open-sourceness of the underlying software.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
CmdrTaco and company are MORALLY obligated to quit VA Linux.
I heard that the slashdot cruiser constes was done by the same outfit that did the McDonald's games. I am sure that Katz won the Cruiser and is now cruising playgrounds trying to pick up little boys
is where was that fat bastard ESR the moral guide of VA when they made this decision. At one point he had 40 million for having that job position.
Until I hear otherwise Eric Raymond has through this decision admitted that you cannot make money on open source.
We were useing VSS, but we switched to StarTeam from the company Starbase (www.starbase.com). It is a lot better then VSS.
what about Red Hat? They are not huge like some corporations but are not exactly a mom and pop software house either. And last I checked, they were a public company. Red Hat is responsible for the R&D costs that end up producing a lot of open source code, and while not everything that comes with the Red Hat distro is high quality software, the stuff that is produced largely at Red Hat typically has a more polished feel.
No, I don't work for Red Hat and I no, I don't own any stock in them. BUT, I think they are the perfect company to rebutt about everything you said. Now, I know open source as a business model has mostly failed to this point. But some have obviously figured out a trick or two to making it work. I think as time progresses and people do more and more analysis on the ways open source can be used in a business model, open source will only become a bigger and bigger part.
In other words, open source is far from over. You get over it.
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
When people say "SourceForge is the new ERP" they mean SourceForge is LIKE ERP. They mean it in the sense that "Grey is the new Black." Sourceforge will play the role in software development that ERP pays in purchasing/accounting/whatever. VA Linux is not literally going to go into ERP.
OH WAIT!!!
Will they now set up a Closed Source Developer Notwork?
Some fucking bullshit cencorship right here.
i doubt someone actually wasted a mod point to just made it "over rated"
/. crew, NICE!
fucking cencorship by the
how about this?. Show me a single
I don't think that will ever happen, mind you. But if it did then fork it and do your own. In fact the same thing goes with SF. IF you want to write the interfaces to rational, pvcs , and open it up. Go for it. Have fun. This is part of what open source is all about.
Honestly, sometimes I think that 99% of open source software is the willingness to do the work. I don't want to sound blasphemous, but it's just software. Anyone can write software and release it. And , looking at some of the code (oss and proprietary) just about anyone has.
Chris DiBona
(speaking for VA)
Co-Editor, Open Sources
Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
I'm not trying to troll, inflame, or commit heresy here, but I've been thinking about the following:
I've heard it said that Linux and the idea of an 'Open Source' movement can't die or get squished by Microsoft because there will always be people who will carry the torch no matter what happens to the Eazels(sp), Ximians, RedHats, etc.
Now, although I believe that is true to a point, it does seem that the whole Open Source idea is losing momentum. Maybe the novelty is starting to wear off. Maybe it's just the economy. Maybe I'm completely wrong.
But consider this - do you feel the same sense of excitement and wonder about the Open Source model of software development as you did in 1999 and 2000?
When the Open Source flagship decides to release a closed-source version of it's software on a subscription basis, is your first reaction to say "Why not?" or "Yeah - Damn Straight!" Or do you think, "Hey - isn't that why we all bitch about Micro$haft?"
To me, it seems that VA has just confirmed what Microsoft has been saying all along, and I find that pretty depressing. I truly hope that Linux and other open source projects gain ground and continue to offer the freedom that attracted us in the first place. But after reading this story, it seems like the apex has been reached and the thrill is gone.
They call me the working man. I guess that's what I am.
It seems that VA is not so subtly implying that "Open Source" and "Enterprise" are now mutually exclusive!?!
Why on earth is a "Linux" company doing this to the community?
Couldn't VA have simply sold "Enterprise Support" for the open product (a la Red Hat)?
Does VA have a stake in Microsoft these days, or something?
--
There is no hatred more pure and true than that expressed by children.
VA Linux is going to sell a closed version of open source code. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
On one hand they want free work from volunteers to help make Linux better (and to their credit they host a space for them to put their free work that benefits everyone, including them),
BUT on the other hand they want to decide what they put out for free and what they should charge for.
While on the surface this seems resonable, (after all, VA has to justify their existance,increase shareoholder value, etc., etc.) I can only wonder just how much of VA's 'stuff' will wind up on the 'free' pile compared to how much on the 'pay' pile.
I agree with earlier posters that all stuff like this does is give other companies reason to distrust and stay away grom the GPL model.
The only group this benefits are VA Linux and their customers.
No one else...and certainly not Linux/open source.
Sure, VA is a cool company and needs to make money somehow, but I question whether this is the way to do it. I highly doubt that proprietary extensions in and of themselves will win VA more customers. The real money is to be made in getting contracts for installation of turnkey solutions. Part of those installations may require either customizations or extensions of Sourceforge and could be sold as services to the customer rather than as software licenses. So it seems like merely a choice of how to raise prices to meet operating costs. Assuming that contracted services are priced the same as proposed license fees, the net effect would be the same, while keeping the source open to the public. If the market saturates, then it's probably time to search for new software to apply this model to. Anyone see problems with doing things this way? Has anyone actually tried this business model?
They've started to change.
The first sign of where they're headed.
Have some sense. Learn from history.
Or you'll find yourself repeating history, badly. The way some projects are repeating Unix, badly, I might add.
While this article was chock-full of idealistic rhetoric, it was completely devoid of any realistic business principles. How are companies that release their software under GPL going to continue to generate revenue, maintain profitability, and provide a dividend to their stockholders? How are they going to finance their software development? Pay their programmers? Keep their Internet connection up?
The problem I see with the "Free Software movement" is that there seems to be this misconception that money just falls from the sky. This follows along with the dot-com gold rush mentality from a few years back: "Who needs a business model? We've got a cool idea! Give us some money!" In the end, someone has to pay for the whole thing. In the case of the dot-coms that ballooned and then popped, the people who paid were the stockholders.
I'd love for someone to propose a solid business model based on developing commercial-quality software and then giving it away. I just don't think it's going to happen.
And before someone shouts "RedHat!," keep in mind one thing: by and large, Linux distributors are just that. They package other people's work, burn it to a CD and ship it. For the most part, they're not developing their own tools. They provide a value-added service by packaging other people's tools on CD and boxing it up with manuals, bumper stickers, etc to create a "product". Their business model is based on packaging, documentation, and support. Is this model working?
Notice that the Linux distribution market has changed somewhat over the last year. SuSE has pulled their North American operations and retreated to Europe. At the same time, they have decided to no longer offer ISO images of their product for download, forcing users to purchase a boxed set for a packaged version. Caldera has moved to per seat licensing of their OpenLinux product, and now seems to be focusing more of their development energy on revitalizing the UnixWare line purchased from SCO and redubbed OpenUnix (although, it really isn't all that Open). And the crown prince of the Linux arena (in North America anyway) is being forced by economics to branch out from mere distribution. RedHat has developed their RedHat Network subscription service, a pay-per-use software update portal (the first computer is free, the rest will cost you). This seems to have not solved their financial problems, because RedHat is now moving into the development arena with their new e-commerce suite, for which they are charging $3000 for a 12-month subscription. What happened to free? I think the long term viability of the Linux distribution business is at best uncertain, at worst: doomed.
Now, if a distribution and support model alone cannot sustain itself how on earth are companies like Sun and IBM going to cover the additional costs of ongoing development and marketing? If RedHat had to develop and maintain all of the pieces of software in their distribution themselves, they would not be able to continue operating.
So given that software companies who released their commercial products under GPL would be reduced to the role of a "distributor" of their product, and given the business reality that we've seen with Linux distributors, does anyone still think that this would be a wise thing for Sun and IBM to do? I think it would be pretty close to corporate suicide.
Here's what I propose: let's all grow up and realize that there will always be commercial, proprietary applications out there, and that there needs to be. The most that we can ask of these software companies is that they embrace open standards in their applications, and that they support the free software movement by porting their applications to platforms such as Linux and refrain from anti-competitive practices such as software patents. I see nothing wrong with paying for a piece of software, if that software has a value commensurate with the price.
It is my opinion that the concept of "all software should be free" is both childish and niave. Nothing in this world is free, everything has a cost, and someone has to pay that cost.
"Honestly, sometimes I think that 99% of open source software is the willingness to do the work. I don't want to sound blasphemous, but it's just software. Anyone can write software and release it. And , looking at some of the code (oss and proprietary) just about anyone has."
I agree with you, but I am critizing those who harp on with nearly religious fervor against the notion of intellectual property, patents & copyright and for the GPL and other "open" licenses. (the editors and bulk of the posters to this site in particular)
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
How fortunate for someone at VA Linux to have their head screwed on right. This is how open source development should be done if anyone ever wants to make any money. I have no complaint about the license if they release the proprietary version to open source in a year or so. However, for the moment, let someone eat cake.
If all flight research was GPLed... it might have made no difference. Certainly companies like Boeing amassed huge amounts of crucial data and 'intellectual property', but NACA also contributed greatly to research, plus you have to understand that in aviation, corporate espionage is as old as aviation itself. You're expecting that if people GPLed aviation research, everyone would honor this and go 'oh darn, now I can't use that without opening all my research!', and you're expecting that WITHOUT the GPL, everyone goes, 'woop! That information is not open source, therefore I'd better not steal it or anything!'. This is naivete.
...when you cry about it before you even get to your point. Save the reverse-psychology for your local 10 year old kid, numbnut.
Everyone knows these software companies are worthless. Combining the fact that in the last quarter, VA lost 256mil on revenues of a pathetic 16mil. Considering VA owns slashdot, well, it was nice knowing you...
Insanity! Larry Augustin should have stepped down ages ago, it would have been the right thing for him to do. Instead, hubris has lashed him to the wheel and the ship will go down, with a hold full of unwitting shareholders drowning at their oars.
I wonder if I should even look for any free t-shirts from them next week at Linuxworld.
Good point - so show me one SAP implementation running on linux (i have looked at documents from across the world and i can find none)
Pleant run it on Solaris etc but i have seen no unix
But maybe GPL is an answer for SAP - might make the products a bit cheaper
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
I asked VA a year ago to provide this service for us. For two months no one answered my emails apparently because they did not have anyone to look after european customers. After TWO months someone replied to me that they were just setting up their european office. When they finally got the office working someone called me to offer their "onsite" service for mega-bucks. I declined. :-)
Not that anyone has called me or emailed me now to offer this service. I guess their European office has been closed again
In all of this, it pays to bear in mind that the GPL was originally created by Richard Stallman as a way of destroying companies such as Symbolics and Lisp Machines, Inc. -- two companies which tried to build specialized hardware that was differentiated by uniquely powerful software. Just like VA. By embracing the GPL, VA Linux unwittingly clasped the serpent that was designed to hurt these two companies to its own breast. By backing away from the GPL and moving toward a win-win strategy that combines the advantages of open source and commercial software, VA can embark upon a sustainable business model.
--Brett Glass
SAP has posted three success stories of companies running SAP on Linux: Penguin Computing, Siemes Business Services and InterComponentWare. Unfortunately I can't read them because Acrobat Reader won't work on this stupid computer I'm working at right now, so I don't know how exactly they use Linux.
You can find the links to the documents at http://www.sap.com/linux/.
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)