Slashdot Mirror
5th Anniversary of Open Source
Augustus De Morgan writes "Five years ago today a brainstorming session in Palo Alto led to the adoption and promotion of the "open source" label. (You can find references to the label much earlier, however.) For some, it was a dark divergence from the free software movement; for others, the beginning of the adoption of key software principles into mainstream. Here's a growing set of resources and stories about the history of free and open source software, and a lament about the decline of altruism in the open source community."
Excellent - lets hear it for less altruism! The more people who write quality Free software because they need it themselves, because they take pride in their own work, and because they want to profit from it, the better. Selfishness is the route to quality in all things, from life to Free software.
Today is the 200th year anniviersery of the term 'democracy.' The idea had been around a long time before in Greece, but this was the first time when the idea had enough clout for an anniversery to be set... as such a great idea *has* to have an anniversery.....
Altruism is important, but ultimately people make most decisions on an economic basis. And people develop Open Source software for the recognition and geek-chic fame they get, for the opportunity to be the key player in a project when perhaps they are more of a cog in their day job (and it can be a great way to up your perceived value to saavy employers). The fact that economic decisions are behind a lot of the success of Open Source software (do you think IBM supports Linux out of altruism?) doesn't make it less of a good or diminish the positive value it provides to the community. So there.
I bet something else inconsequential happened five years ago too. Maybe even three or four other totally useless events.
Come on, who cares when the label was "officially" coined? Six years ago I was using OSS, even though it wasn't "official" yet.
But what do I know. I'm just looking for anonymous gay sex.
Id say 20 years for Open Source... not 5.
The Open Source movement made it acceptable to an individual who wanted to give the source openly, but didn't want to give in to the propaganda of GNU/FSF.
Think I'm a troll, then ask yourself with such a wonderful model of GPL, why was Open Source neccessary?
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
We work in companies because they will pay us for doing what we love, and because we can create larger projects when we work together. We work on open source for many reasons that derive from this. Here are two. First, open source projects offer fewer restrictions than corporate ones. Second, open source projects are less likely to be killed for non-technical reasons, like projects at a company. In other words, our utility function is being maximized by participation in the process of creation. The economics of whether creation is funded or unfunded are a red herring.
-m
If the recent Linux World Expo in new York is any example then the revolution is over and the Stallman's of the world have long since lost.
Reading Stallman's writings I come away with a sense that the ultimate over riding goal of the free software movement wasn't to see the code, or even to be able to share it with one another. It was to create a space in the software world where community could exist. Or to paraphrase Babylon 5...
The Gnu project was our last best hope for not being co-opted by business...
It failed.
Wandering the booths at expo it was astonishing to see a nearly endless series of suits all groping for the flavor of the week to sell to. The actual, "community", relegated to a small corner of the show floor off the beaten paths where they wouldn't scare financial analysts.
.I work for Microsoft. I have no problem with there being proprietary software, OSes, Apps, services etc etc. What does bother me is the wholesale co-option of our public spaces into corporate agendas. Such is the fate of Linux. Go to work for Redhat, or any other "open source company", and you will find you have to sign the same non-disclosure agreements and non-compete agreements as anywhere else in the industry. You will find you must censor yourself on public forums and avoid giving away the trade secrets of the new product.
It's not so much that I question the goal of making a buck, or even the observation that open source produces better software. What I question is the end result. Once again the best and brightest of the hacker community are locked up in the same corporate structures and goals that destroyed the AI lab community and Linux's agenda is being set in corporate boardrooms.
I have always thought of free software as being analogous to the Boston Commons. A small refuge away from the bottom line values of the rest of America. With the change of goals that open source represents it's as if we have invited the land developers into the commons. Sure a multiplex and a Starbucks are nice. But I miss the park.
Or for some people, maybe it's not some big fucking political stand. Maybe we just like good software we're allowed to analyze and tweak.
Whilst I don't make my own clothes, I expect to be able to darn my socks when holes develop; I expect that changing my shirt won't cause my pants to fall down; I expect to be able to by a hat from one company and shoes from another and be able to wear them at the same time; I expect to be able to turn up my trousers if the legs are too long; I expect to be able to dye a t-shirt if I get bored with the colour; I expect to be able to give my old clothes to second hand stores without having to provide proof that I own the clothes; and I expect not to have the Federation Against Clothing Theft strip searching me on a monthly basis to check whether I own the clothes that I am wearing.
Or like having good software that if you don't feel like tweaking it, or don't know how to, someone else probably will if the need is there. After all, we can't ALL modify the code to every program we own. But I am glad that others are able to.
potential sig: My Windows machine is more secure than my Linux machine. My Windows machine is powered off 90% of the time.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
You should really go back and do some more reading again then. It's quite simple really:
Your FUD about Red Hat or anyone else is meaningless because they release their software under the GPL which guarantees those freedoms. I'm not surprised that you're confused about this with all the talk of "Open Source", but don't worry, it's all really "Free Software" and there's nothing you can do about it.
Do you make your own clothes?
No, but sometimes I sew my buttons back on.
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
This thread quickly made it's way into the "what is OSS really about?" One contributor put it nicely "Engineers like to create things". I think it goes beyond that. I mean, here are all us /.ers here, giving away our keen insight and wit -- for what? Why, of course, to be a part of a community.
That's all it really is... Humans are social animals (even those of us stereotyped as "antisocial") and we end up gathering in groups of folks getting together and doing stuff we like.
Cheers
I was loading slackware on my 486 in 1994. When you see a good (right) thing you know it (or should if you aren't a rock).
And a comment on the 'Lament':
What a load of horsepucky. I build and release open source into the wild because, 1. I have something I want done that is not being done, or done well enough to satisfy my personal need, and 2. I have the hubris to think my solution may appeal to others, and so share. The writer of that article seems to think people are puppets of their desires, not knowing their true inner intentions. I also gathered that he is wearing some rose colored glasses when it comes to considering things outside of the realm of his own discourse.
I wouldn't pretend to know the complexity of any person's motivations, much less a whole community. He shouldn't either.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
A lot of applications with a 'g' in their name seem to be classed as part of the GNOME project, even though they have had no communication with other GNOME projects. The same happens with a lot of alledgedly GNU software. I blame agressive Stallmanism.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
There is a difference between 'Free Software' and the 'Free Software Movement'. The Open Source movement is just the subset of the Free Software movement devoid of the ideals and ethics of honesty and community that so many of us care about. It is entirely possible for an 'Open Source' company to behave as dishonestly and corruptly as Microsoft has done in the past. The same can not be said for a Free Software company as this implies an understanding and respect for the Free Software Movement.
On this "anniversary" of Open Source, we should be thinking about what has been accomplished and what needs to be done next. For instance, while the OS community has proven the value of providing open implementations, it is now time to start protecting and defending the community's right and ability to create those implmenations in the future. The best way to do this is to start pursuing "Open Ideas" or "Open Patents."
In recent years there has been an explosion of patents and patent applications by companies that seek to monopolize the exploitation of ideas and methods in software. With every patent granted, the scope of future OS projects is limited just a little bit more. Without going into flame wars about the patent system, I can say that there is something useful that we can do today to protect OS in the future.
A patent can be prevented if one can prove "prior art" exists that describes the method that the filer wishes to patent and, the USPTO accepts "Internet Publications" as prior art, using the "posted date" on messages as the date of priority. Thus, if people with good ideas document those ideas on the Web, from the instant that the description of a method is posted, then all future patents on that method are blocked forever unless the inventor can prove that they came up with the idea before the posting on the web. Thus, by adopting a discipline of identifying and posting ideas that others might try to patent, we can establish a collection of "Open Ideas" or "Open Patents" that block others from monopolizing the methods in the future.
It would also be useful for those in the OS community to become active in reviewing new patent applications as they are published by the USPTO every Thursday, and use the established procedures for "third party filing of prior art" to ensure that patent examiners don't issue patents on ideas that should remain Open.
Open Source isn't enough. We need Open Ideas to enable the Open Source of the future.
bob wyman
See: http://www.pubsub.org for more info.
Do anti-GPL folks sit around thinking up these things? What a bizarre point you just made!
Let me get this straight: The BSD license doesn't "force" companies to release their code, therefore you can spot the "believers" by the ones who release the code voluntarily? And who are these companies, by the way? Apple? Do you also have a list of BSD-using companies that DON'T release the source, so we can compare?
The point is not to play "spot the happy fun companies", the point is to make your life and job easier and better by having lots of free software available.
No. You had it right in the previous sentence:
Somebody who paints, but cares not how what they paint looks, and only cares about the money is not an artist, even though they may call themselves an artist.
Somebody who designs things, but cares not how their designs work, and only cares about the money is not an engineer, even though they may call themselves an engineer.
Engineering is a calling - you either are called or you are not. If you are not called, if you are not driven to design, to create, then you are not an engineer no matter what you would label yourself.
Just as true artists create their art even if they are not paid for it, true engineers create their art even if they are not paid for it.
Free Software is just one expression of this. The geek who helps you wire your house for (sound|Ethernet), the guy who helps you fix your car free of charge, the guy who gives you tips on how to mitre a doorframe at Home Depot are other expressions of this.
Ben Franklin gave away the design of his stove. George Washington Carver would give you full plans for any of his inventions for the cost of a self-addressed stamped envelope. They were engineers.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Wanting to be "allowed to analyze and tweak" it, is a pretty big fucking political stand.