Slashdot Mirror
The Open Group's New Open Source Strategy
Bruce Perens writes "The Open Group hasn't always had the best reputation in the Open Source community, mostly because of their handling of Motif, which remained proprietary for much too long. But there's no arguing with the success of our community, and now the Open Group leadership understands that their organization must be fully involved in Open Source... or it's time for them to change their name. To that end, the Open Group contracted me to develop an Open Source strategy for their organization. The draft strategy has been published and they are requesting comment. - Bruce"
>> Open Source = Viral.
It's because people have pride in their work and want to share it with others that open source exists.
This is perhaps the greatest (and one day maybe even the only) threat to Open Source.
The document is boring and long. You need to spiff it up with Flash animations and PowerPoint slides. The ratio of pictures to words is also extremely low. There is no executive summary. No one will ever read the whole thing.
I won't believe they're serious until they change their name to Gnu/OpenGroup.
Trolling is a art,
I beg to differ. Wait... No I don't.
"Open Source = Viral."
I'd agree except for one minor detail:
No one forces you to plunder GPL'd (and other similarly licensed) code.
Millions of programmers and developers get along just fine with the ideals set forth in 'open source' licenses. They also greatly benefit from the fact that some random person or corporation can't then steal their work.
Exactly. I feel the same way about my VD.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Huh? I thought Motif still was proprietary, even to this day. Or at least, it is proprietary software in the sense of not being free software. Or was there some big announcement I missed?
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
This is a very good question. The trend that Open Source software seems to encorage is a gradual but irreversable shift away from propriatary and profiting methods. As stated in the strategy, this is good for the majority (users) and bad for the minority (vendors). The question is wether or not this method of software development is sustainable if it's popularity grew to a point where it was the majority method of development.
Some would say that it would be great. Everything would be free, innovation would happen at a rapid rate, but what about compensation for the developers. Software written under a GLP type licience, does not leave room for profits from the actual software. Ad-hoc services can only go so far to support an entire development effort. Who pays the developers for thier hard work?
The question I leave open for disucssion is this: How sustainable do you think Open Source in it's current form is and do you think that varients such as the Apache Licience are an innevatable change necessary for the properity of the community.
Didn't The Open Group do an entire UNIX implementation (the only implementation of which was Digital OSF/1|UNIX|Tru64)?
If so, how much of this could they open? Anything useful in it?
Bruce,
I think that the opening section of your draft strategy is the best summary of the current state of the world of open-source/closed-source detente. It's exactly right that proprietary solutions are failing, and will fail with increasing rates, as open source proliferates and hardware increasingly becomes a commodity.
I have two issues with the summary. The first is that it a strategy should be a long-term document, something that might be as valid five or ten years from now as it is today (this compares to a tactical position.) I don't think that the current stated strategy, while appropriate to this time of flux, will be appropriate then.
Second, I just have a issue with the 'Sorry Vendors' line at the end of the first section -- everything else in the document is straightforward, concise, and emotion-free.
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
A BSD-like license.
Least restrictive, can be integrated into proprietary software with impunity.
And it can be used in other open souce software like the GPL. Notice how Bruce neglects to point that out.
GPLed code however cannot be put into BSD code w/o the BSD code loosing its far more open nature.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Does this mean that they will stop making POSIX/SuS certification an expensive pain in the ass for open source? I doubt it.
Still don't think we'll see an open source OS that meets the Unix trademark, which might help it gain legitimacy among some people. (After all, what's in a name? Lots.)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Why do comments that speak the truth always get moderated as flamebait?
Yeah, it's crude. So what? It's an opinion, and every opinion is valid.
People moderate in such an anal retentive way on slashdot. Any comment that dares to say something against Linux, or something for anything Not-Linux automatically gets moderated down. Wouldn't your mod points be of more use to moderate down the real troll posts?
Some slashdot readers seem to suffer from terminal anal retentiveness and dangerously close-minded fanaticism.
Seriously. The Open Group has a deservidly tainted reputation in the *nix community, and do we really need yet another open source/Open Source/Free Software advocacy group with its own slightly different message/agenda?
The best possible way to accomplish this is to set a model of co-operative enterprise that todays over-blown corporate despots cannot compete with. If you study nature co-operative systems invariably will out compete when up against closed single modeled systems. The fundamentals of this are already in the GPL which will go down in history as one of the great documents of our time. Along with other human social documents like the Magna Carta. RMS really is a visionary.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
I can see the position to share it but irreversable shift away from propriatary and will be used in the greatest (and other open source OS that meets the developers get along just fine with Flash animations and PowerPoint slides.) The Open Source Strategy GNU is the majority method of their name to add one forces you care about your draft strategy is today (this compares to further his own career.) I trust you won't believe they're serious until they will fail meaning I won't believe they're serious until they will fail with the success of Motif, which remained proprietary software with others that did.
No, no. Not Open Source = Viral, Open Source == Viral
My Karma is bad. May I take you out for a drink? It's on me...
"The Wide Open Group"
I couldn't stand getting suckered into clicking on a link to the Goatse guy again.
You sly dog: you got me monologuing! - Syndrome
Comment removed based on user account deletion
... "The Group formerly known as Open" doesn't really have the right associations for this move... ;-)
Ah well, it didn't work for Prince either.
OMG! I don't usually look at book reviews but glad i did... that was mayhem! Not one serious comment.
Hell, I mainly read comments for the good trolls anyway...
I am curious as to how this differs from MS's shared source. With it, MS will own what you have. And MS will take it legally as opposed to Illegally (intertrust comes to mind).
To me these issues are quite complex, and a draft like this need a follow up here at Slashdot soonish. Perhaps within a week to get a good brainstorming settle.
Unfortunately all good remarks will come very late to this message, when people have had time to read it carefully. Then, there are already more than 500 comments, of less value and people don't really care any longer.
My suggestion, in cases like these, would be to use the Slashdot forum as a forum with delay - as is done before an upcoming interview. A short notice in advance and a more indepth follow later. Let people have a few days to think it over and get a refreshener then. Perhaps overdoing it? Whatever.
I think it is an old-timey way of denoting a Boolean check. I'm not an Emacs person nor a Lisp person but I heard that somewhere.
So, wait, he expects the Slashdot readers to read a draft and comment on it? Ha! Read the article - that's a good one, Bruce.
The Open Group has been pretty much irrelevant for the last 5 years, not because they have been closed source, but because they are a Cathedral style closed source. Both Gnome and KDE have become far, far superior to Motif in a far shorter amount of time. What role is there to play for a centralized standards-blessing body in the world of the distributed, bazaar-style development?
and we both know why you say that..
When attorneys new to Open Source have access to another attorney who is experienced with Open Source licensing, especially the GPL, the process goes much more smoothly. One way we can help is to produce a reference for attorneys, or programs for attorneys at our meetings.
Does anyone know of a reference quide or set of resources that might help IP attorneys start thinking about the GPL and open source?
I'm working on building a cross-corporation (non profits) knowledge sharing network that will likely rely heavily on GPL like language. I expect the legal conversations to be less than fun. Any resources for convincing IP lawyers that there are other ways to do things would be much appreciated.
I'm much funnier now that I'm a subscriber.
Sadly, I haven't been around the *NIX/'open source community' long enough to know about the Open Group's misdealings with Motif.
However, this draft thingy looks pretty good; there are a couple things I'd look at in closer detail. For instance, observe the three distinctions between the various 'manifestations' of things "open source". Open Source Methods, for instance, bear little resemblence(sp?) to the concept of open source software licensing.
Notice that there is no "Key Point" under the second 'open source manifestation', open source licensing. Odd, that.
Note one of the recommended projects:
"Establish an "OpenForge" portal for The Open Group, where all of the various Open Group projects that are available in Open Source will reside. This portal could also be expanded to host deserving Open Source projects on the outside."
Sort of like a non-public, corporate-funded SourceForge? Hm.
Keep in mind, of course, that this is a draft.
---
"Jonas Miller. He's a nightcrawler. We all started out in the same lab, but Jonas went out and got himself some corporate sponsors. He's in it for the money, not the science!" -Twister
'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
i am not sure what you mean.
--sa
Careful, your fly is down, you could end up losing another few billion.
the -p stands for 'predicate'. it denotes something that returns true or false (T or NIL).
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
There's a whole lot that is not being said. Intelligence is one reason, there are a few more. The sweet point of it all is that it costs nothing, usually it's just using something in a different way.
BTW-duck
No. Open source licenses like BSD impose almost no restrictions on you and don't affect any of your own source code.
Free software licenses like GPL might be described as "viral". But if the GPL is viral, many commercial software licenses are even more "viral".
If you care about your IP, you have to be careful no matter what license you agree to, whether it is the GPL or a Microsoft EULA. And it certainly isn't hard to preserve your IP and still use GPL'ed software if you spend the same amount of effort on it as you do on a commercial license.
Yes, OSF (later The Open Group after they merged with X/Open) created OSF/1, which was originally going to be the Unix for all the member companies. I think that included DEC, HP, and IBM, but not Sun. In the end, only DEC moved away from using their own home-grown system, so it could be considered a failure based on the original goals.
Later, The Open Group developed mk, based on the Mach 3 microkernel. While the Unix personality for the kernel was tainted with AT&T code, the microkernel was able to be released for free. The free mk was released with a Linux-based server, with the package known as mkLinux. Some (most?) of the funding for mk came from Apple, and I believe that it is the basis for OS X.
There was a little-known project called mk++, which was a complete re-write of the Mach microkernel interfaces using C++. There was a plan to release a book on mk++ along with a CD containing mk++Linux. Unfortunately, a month or so before it was to be sent off, all development efforts were shut down, and The Open Group became a Unix branding organization.
NOTE: I worked briefly at The Open Group, doing work on mk and mk++.
> expects to read?
Probably expects publicity, which will then make it's way to those who can properly read and comment on it.
Does Open Source always equal free? I know it is nice to have the source code, but I must admit I have never really looked at it for the apps I use. In some ways, I really could care less.
But if I wanted a application that I knew needed some maintence, support, etc - I don't see any reason not to pay the money. Examples being mySQL, StarOffice, a Linux distro, etc.
I think Open Source's biggest gain is that it has a "nice to know" feature - the source code. Suppose someone offered a product for $50 dollars, and it came with the source code. You may never need it, but it's nice to know that it is there.
If the Open Group wants to endear itself to the open source community without doing a lot of work, they can start by making a policy change such that the SCO group's right to use the "UNIX" trademark, for ANY purposes, EVER, is revoked.
"Today the SCO group released a press release stating that every linux users owes them $30,000 and a ham sandwich. When asked what their justification for that is, they claimed that linux violates their copyrights on 'a specific operating system developed by AT&T in the 60s that we own the copyrights on, although we can't tell you its name because that would be a trademark violation.'"
Social darwinism, joined with a "market mechanism" mumbo-jumbo, to describe how Open Source, and research functions/works? I am, to put it mildly, astonished that Perens has written this!
I was sort of hoping that social darwinism to describe social structure was a relic of the last century, and best left that way.
Please ignore the drunkards walk part of the article, it's just a distraction from the real point.
DDR (Deutsche Democratic Republic) was the name of East Germany during the time it was a Communist, non-democratic non-republic, which was as ironic as the Open Group calling themselves an open group.
To bring it into the present: It's as ironic as George Bush announcing he's finally going to pay attention to military intelligence, instead of fabricating his own.
-Don
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
>> Open Source = Viral.
So you're proposing them to change their name to viral group??
:-) That really needs to be modded up. So true.
Interesting. It seems to me that the computer software industry is being commoditized into basic tools for jobs, and your write up seems to agree with this view.
In other words, companies need X and Y tools, and they need someone to provide them. Anyone will do, and the labor of the installation of X and Y is mainly what is paid over the cost of X and Y. It seems similar to, say, the furniture industry, where you have a Lazy Boy sofa, which you can get from anyone. The difference between the sofa providers is that some will deliver for you, but they charge more for the sofa, while others do not deliver, and they charge less. Etc.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Not only is it pretentious, but it's also IMHO factually wrong. Open computing is not just about open source. It's also about open standards. If you build your infrastructure around closed standards, then it's a closed game -- you can only use stuff from the one vendor. But, if you build it around open standards, you can choose different implementations more freely and the game is open to anyone who wants to implement the standard, whether it's a closed-source proprietary implementation or an open-source community effort.
I say this not to say that open source isn't a good thing -- in fact, I much prefer open source software. But, I do want to point out that both open standards and open source are important things if we want to avoid our computers' being enslaved to one organization. One of them (open source) is about where we get the individual components; the other (open standards) is about how we ensure components can work with each other.
My point, in case it isn't clear, is that if The Open Group had no involvement at all with open source but was involved with the open standards process, it would be perfectly justified in calling itself what it does.
No, this is a get them going document. Once their membership gets more deeply into Open Source, they should be able to determine their own direction - although I will be around if they need help.
Regarding the "Sorry vendors", there are a few more inflamatory lines in there to keep people awake. The one about having to change their name, and I pretty much blast strategic marketing in tech companies.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I hope you guys realize that it was an impostor.
Well darling, when you have a large mass of experts in anything from Rocket Science to Loosing Weight, why not making good use of them?!
Here's the link that could help you:
Renown IANA* Expert Group
__________
Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace!
The irony about the DDR, of course, is that once they did become a democratic republic (in 1990) the Volkskammer promptly voted to dissolve the DDR and join the Federal Republic of Germany (BRD). Perhaps the same thing will happen to the Open Group?
sulli
RTFJ.
Don't be ridiculous. The name "Bruce Perens" has long since entered into the public domain and everyone is entitled to use it. You can't be an impostor.
Make sure you're referring to the real Bruce Perens
sulli
RTFJ.
forget the monIE.
consult with/trust in yOUR creator. that's it. you/weave bin MiSled buy sum phonIE fauxking greed/fear based georgewellian fuddite felons from upon the pacific crest annex of wall street of deceit..
pay attention.
This really made my day. Thanks!
Bruce Perens.
<Thinks of SCO stupidity>
How about dropping this ridiculous lawsuit?
(See title -- pun intended.)
Respectfully,
Scott (t h e p h a n t o m a t m a c d o t c o m)
Your life must suck to go around on public message boards and insult people instead of adding anything constructive.
I too reacted specifically to the "hello vendors" thing - not becuse it is inflammatory (that's fine) but because the language in those sentences differ so markedly from the rest of the document. It feels like a late, beer-fueled addition two minutes before deadline. Maybe just clean it up stilistically?
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
There are certain applications that require far more than just great software skills to develop. One example is tax software; you need accountants to keep up with all of the federal, state, and local taxes, and those change every year.
Also, you have software where the setup/service part of it counts almost as much as the code. The physical plant at my university (where I work) is currently looking at facilities management software, and the process of the company people coming in and assisting in the massive job of populating/configuring the software for each site is probably much of the value; the software itself needs to be properly designed, but won't be Earth-shattering.
Finally, many companies sell hardware which needs its own special software, and while opening the code for inspection may "win points" and actually be beneficial, I think they'll still have their own staff of programmers.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
The key section is titled "Is Open Source Good for All of Our Members?", and from my reading of that
section, the answer is "no".
You say how a "nonrivalrous public good" is good
for the general population, but generally bad for
vendors. Well, the Open Group members are those
vendors, they are not the "general population"
or even "users".
You talk about reduced vendor margins and how vendors
must shift to services and make other "uncomfortable changes". But you never make any case
that Open Source is good for vendors. In fact,
you seem to be saying that it is *not* good for vendors.
You talk about HP's 40% profit margin and say that
those good times are over. That may be good for
consumers and the industry overall, but it certainly isn't good for HP.
If you really think that Open Source is good for
HP, Sun, IBM, and the others, then you need to
spell out the reasons much more clearly and
concisely. That section right now sounds like you're
saying "Open Source isn't as bad for us as you might think".
Andy
Did you ever learn English? I can't understand this.
Discriminating against bad code for demonstratably valid reasons is not equivalent to descriminating against people based on arbitrary social standards.
Why don't they release a leaner version of Motif and call it "Light Motif"?
commoditization doesn't apear to be an english word. Perhaps what is meant is commodification? In any case prorietary software is already a commodity by virtue of being exhangable for money.
with a great steel cluestick.
So what you're saying is that you're being a idiotic trolling asshole for free? Wow, thanks!
I'll be impressed when they actually release the source code to DCE 1.22 under the LGPL like they have been saying they are going to do for about a year now. Until then it is just a well written paper by Bruce Perens. The Open Group so far has a horrible track record grasping the concept of "open"
Finkployd
The Open Group should remain neutral to whether software is open source or closed source. I don't see why they should change their name? The word Open does not mean open source per se. X/Open and The Open Group have been and continue to be a very good organization for open and standardized interfaces. This is of great benefit also for open source.
I'd like to suggest a "mixed open" license. I envision this kind of interaction between open and proprietary code.
- The origianl owner would release software (binary and source code) under the "mixed open" license.
- Others would be free to run, modify, and redistribute the software. Distributors may not charge a fee for the software, except for costs associated with distribution. Binary distributors would be required to also offer for free or for distribution cost the source code. Distributors can sell support or value added services.
- The original owner, or his proprietary licensees, can develop and sell proprietary versions of the code.
- Proprietary distributors can integrate enhancements and big fixes made by the community royalty free, but must respect the following conditions in doing so...
- Proprietary distributors must contribute further enhancements and bug fixes to community contributed code back to the community.
- Proprietary distributors must provide integrated community code in source code form, such that the user can modify said code and relink it with proprietary code in object form. Users could not be prevented from linking in one program proprietary modules from multiple sources.
The goal here is to have the maximum number of developers, both open and proprietary, developing and enhancing the same codebase. Once a piece of code is open, it must remain open, but open code can be mixed with proprietary code.Imagine that AT&T/USL had open-sourced SVR4 under this model many years ago.
First, it would have preempted the development of BSD and Linux, since the goals of those development communities could have been met within the framework of the AT&T code.
Second, hardware vendors could produce versions customized to their hardware by licensing SVR4 directly from USL. In attempting to maximize ROI, they are likely to keep in lock step with the community version except for those drivers needed for their specific hardware. They would not have to fear loss of the trade secrets in their hardware or drivers.
In the long term, there would be one common open code base, available free, designed to work with generic or common hardware. There would then be small subsets of code, perhaps available for a price, designed to take advantage of specific hardware or do very customized tasks.
So Intel would license a SVR4 distribution that was 99% open, but has a few custom modules designed to take advantage of special features in their Dual-XEON configuration. They would sell or more likely offer it free to their hardware customers. Meanwhile NVidia sells a distirbution customized for their video cards. The end user takes some modules from each and links them with his own customized kernel.
>> That sounds eerily familiar like how junkies
>> and drug addicts think. They want to "share"
>> their love with someone else.
If your mentality is one which leads you to compare open source vs drugs, then you're really not worth our time.
BSD licensed code remains open too. Just because company_you_hate uses BSD licensed code, that doesn't mean the original BSD licensed code is somehow removed from existance. Stop and think for a second. Which license involves more restrictions? Which one is more free?
The GPL is not about freedom, it is about enforcing a developers wishes on people who may wish to use his/her work. Freedom is saying "here, anyone can do whatever they want with this", not "you can use this if you agree to my list of terms and continue forcing this on everyone who uses your software".
The reason why Open Source user interfaces are so bad is because the entire Open Source movement is engineer-centric, and most engineers (especially Open Source ones) are incredibly clueless when it comes to understanding and being empathic with the non-technical users who are using their software.
For years people in the HCI field been screaming at open source engineers to design the UI before the code is written, because there are things that pop up in the UI design process that have lower-level ramifications that engineers don't usually consider when they go the code-first approach. If these issues aren't taken care of immediately and much code is written, the engineers will be loathe to change something just because it makes the software more usable, and the result is that you've got usability problems that take years to fix (if they ever are).
The response we typically get when we tell the engineers they need to come up with the user interaction before major code is written: "You obviously don't understand the Open Source method".
While I am all for OSS, I fail to see how giving engineers even more power will make the situation any better.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
Commodification is bad for software publishers, but open-source software is bad for many of their customers. It depends on the software being discussed -- especially on how many people are working on an open-source clone -- but in many cases, a crappy o-s clone is so much cheaper than a good original that the o-s clone cherry-picks the skinflints which find that the o-s clone is good enough for the price. The result is there are too few people to keep new versions of the original coming, and all of the original customers wind up having to software which is either crappy or decaying.
How about the first move they make is returning a domain they stole from my friend, that was hosted on my server? Buying off the people at the ICANN to get a domain transfered isnt very friendly. Would be a nice gesture to give it back. From what I understand he will soon be getting a lawyer and going after them anyways. It would be a really good pr move if they just handed it back instead of him having to waste tons of money in court.
Thank you for calling it GNU/Linux. As much as I despise the Opensource movement for what it has caused to the Free Software movement, it seems things are finally attempting to return to the root.
Bravo. Good luck, and maybe one day you the Open Group will see that it's Freedom that really matters, and not cents.
Give BSD its UNIX rights back!
Recognise that BSD is UNIX and
make the financial requirements
for UNIX95 and UNIX98 less
stringent for the freely dist-
ributable BSDs.
I know GPL users think so, because they have much to gain (infringing use of other's IP) by thinking so. But one of several nasty GPL clauses requires that "the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it". The BSD license does not permit this change of licensing, whether or not the explicit terms of the BSD license are complied with. Doing so is a violation of copyright law which authorizes only the owner to determine the terms of his code licensing, including how it's distributed as part of someone else's derivative.
Now, the quoted clause only applies to third party derivers, but it's not much different for a second-party deriver who slaps a GPL on BSD-licensed code (again -- with or without complying with the explicit terms of the BSD lincese). The GPL's claim that it covers the (whole) derivative program constitutes an illegal re-licensing of the BSD owner's copyrights.
These problems could easily be changed, but the hubris of the GPL copyright owner (yes, it is copyrighted and not under a "free" license) would not permit it.
The GPL could also be easily changed to stop being "viral" with other open source software like BSD-licensed software, but that isn't going to happen, either. There's more reasons behind the terms of the GPL than the increase of free software.
And let's have no more requests from GPL users to "share and share alike" among "free" and open source developers.
The way he uses commoditization it seems to mean open source software is exhangable with itself. Well, this is hardly an impressive fact. The same can be said about Microsoft's software.
My criticism is more with the lazy way in which the argument is presented. In the typical fashion of software developers Bruce lazily throws around language without understanding the meaning of it.
My first impression of Bruce's draft is that it's merely another version of MicroSoft's strategy of extend and encompass.
Bruce seems to fail to understand that Open Group needs Open Source more than Open Source needes Open Group.
I never realized Bruce was so arrogant.
... and there was me thinking that it was me you were referring to Bruce :-))
actually, I'd say there are fewER companies trying to turn it into shrinkwrap software because in the past it was public domain code and now it tends to be GPL. It only seemed fewer in the past because you wouldn't find out about the use.
-pyrrho
and you are evidently under the assumption that all programmers and software engineers work for shrink wrap software companies.
the GPL shifts power back from shrink wrap one-size-fits-all programmers to custom in house developers who can profitably collaborate and provide better custom solutions in their own work.
payback's a bitch.
-pyrrho
As much as I despise the Opensource movement for what it has caused to the Free Software movement, it seems things are finally attempting to return to the root.
Then why try to co-opt Open Source to make it mean FSF 'free software'. Open Source is defined to include many views, including a GPL-centric view. 'free software' covers the the GPL and the ability to add GPL code to other works to make the whole new work GPL.
Two different worldviews. Open Source is more inclusive of other POV than the Free Software vision.
If Bruce Perens wants 'Open Source' to mean 'GPL compatible' there is a group that is well established to do that - FSF.
The effort, if implemented as per the draft, will add to the confusion.
Is Bruce Perens a Troll... is Bruce Perens a Troll, a deep and complex question, certainly.
If he is, he's a good Troll, and he lives on top of the bridge, and fishes for sharks.
-pyrrho
Mind if I ape that?
good job.
Promote broad certification of Open Source software by encouraging certification of a publicly available and redistributable version of an Open Source program, rather than a particular vendor's instance of that program. This will allow multiple Linux vendors to coordinate their activities on certification, so that a larger collection of Open Source becomes certified than any one vendor would achieve on their own.
And the BSD projects and vendors?
What about Open Source that runs on Windows?
Mr. Perens once said on his now-defunct political site 'it is not the job of GNU/Linux advocates to promote BSD'. Guess he's up to his old tricks.
That's mean that the OpenGroup could be join to Open Source Development Lab (OSDL) like sponsor?
It is about the GPL and the vision of FSF.
Assure that Open Source developers can participate in standards that are operated or facilitated by the Open Group, including the certification programs operated for those standards. This may require a special rate structure or coordination of corporate sponsorship for the Open Source project to go through certification.
Promote broad certification of Open Source software by encouraging certification of a publicly available and redistributable version of an Open Source program, rather than a particular vendor's instance of that program. This will allow multiple Linux vendors to coordinate their activities on certification, so that a larger collection of Open Source becomes certified than any one vendor would achieve on their own.
Note how Open Source that runs on Windows, Solaris, and even a BSD release is ignored.
How is 'multiple Linux vendors' 'Open' to BSD?
"Establish an "OpenForge" portal for The Open Group, where all of the various Open Group projects that are available in Open Source will reside. This portal could also be expanded to host deserving Open Source projects on the outside.
One problem that the Open Source community is presently facing is that the owner of SourceForge is having financial problems, and there's no guarantee that whoever eventually purchases it will be viewed well by the community. Thus, an organization-hosted portal similar to SourceForge would be appreciated."
Time to create one SF.net Foundation or pass the SF control to OSDL?
Ya this is off topic, but i think this is important to Open Source.
How does one go about getting Tux models?
I have started a project on sourceforge called Sound Orgy. I am rendering the logo in povray. I was wonder if there were any povray models of tux out there that I could use in my logo? (while my project is cross-platform, i'd like to promote the fact that it is developed for Linux).
You are soooo wrong.
You must be one of ESRs lackeys. He has credited himself with coining the term "open source" for a while now. It's in his jargon file.
A simple search of Google groups shows otherwise. There are 85 occurrences of "'open source' software" from 1981 to 1995. Most of these are relevent hits. Well in advance of when ESR claims to have coined the term.
There are another 648 hits from between 1995 and Feb. 28, 1998. This is just before Mozilla was released.
From Mar. 1, 1998 to Dec. 31, 1998 there are 9,670 hits. Clearly Mozilla had an impact on spreading the phrase but the evidence shows that ESR didn't start it as he claims.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
You know it was Richard Stallman that suggested the term "POSIX" which is now the official name of some important Open Group standards.
The reason why Open Source user interfaces are so bad
Open Source user interfaces usually trade ease of use for power. Many of them aren't bad, they're merely built to different design specifications.
One of my few projects is a program which has a mpg123-like UI, but handles a wide variety of music files. I'm sure if UI engineers designed it, they would come up with something like WinAMP or Windows Media Player; but mine works from a batch file or console, and works easier for me.
For years people in the HCI field been screaming at open source engineers to design the UI before the code is written
What ever happened to talking to people, or actually doing some work yourself? Screaming at people, especially volunteers, is not the best solution.
Could as well ask Condolesa Rice and George W. Bush for a world domination plan for the Arab world.
As long as they stop promoting Motif, I will be happy. Print it out and burn it.
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
Here's my simple, humble suggestion:
The Open Group should waive the fees for Free operating system with regard to Unix branding.
That way, operating systems such as Linux, GNU/Linux, and assortedBSD can truly, officially, be called Unix in name as well as in spirit.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
I think The Open Group should choose a name that reflects their long history with the Unix (not to be confused with UNIX--the registered trademark of The Open Group and you'd be stupid to use it in a sentence without their permission) community. For example:
"The Please-Pay-Us-Money-To-Call-That-UNIX Group"
"The We'll-Sue-Your-Sorry-Open-Source-Ass Group"
"The Everything-Is-Open-Except-For-Our-Trademarks Group"
"The Please-Buy-Closed-Source-Motif Group"
"The Never-Has-Been-Never-Will-Be Open Group"
Failing that, perhaps a more modern name that reflects their traditional outlook would be more appropriate:
"The goatse.cx Group"
"The Open-As-In-Gaping-Asshole Group"
* all copyrights, trademarks, service marks, patents, or other IP including but not limited to
Motif, UNIX, and The Open Group are probably property of The Open Group; any others mentioned are property of their respective owners.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
yeah, I felt the blasting of mktg :-)
I don't know if its like this at bigger companies, but marketing pretty much drives major projects where I work.
I'm an engineer but I feel for the mktg people because they have to deal with the crap that comes out of our messed up engineering process, and figure out how to steer the goals to make bucks.
Hopefully people's feelings don't get hurt. That wouldn't be good.
Sorry, I really like the "share and share alike" aspect of the GPL and will continue to promote it.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
That's not how I read the BSD license. As far as I can tell, there is essentially total freedom to relicense, with GPL or proprietary or any license, with only the requirement for attribution in the actual source code.
Interesting. I read it this way:
Do not sue me.
Do not remove my copyright.
Do not claim this code is yours.
You ignored the disclaimer of warranty, thus removing one of the reasons to sue.
And to say "total freedom to relicense" and that is wrong. You can ADD your own code and take the new work and license it how you want. But your statement "total freedom to relicense" is wrong.
Sorry, I really like the "share and share alike" aspect of the GPL and will continue to promote it.
Then do not pretend you support Open Source. You support the vision of the FSF and that is not the same vision as Open Source.
If you want to be a 'leader', lead with accurate info.
the sort of price support you imply leading to more jobs does not lead to more jobs. It leads to more IT going abroad. It leads to underselling. Solved problems evolve toward commodity status because they have to become comodities to become ubiquitous infrastructure.
Programs that are really unique and ahead of their time will remain commercial, can be shrink wrapped it there is a large enough market. However, something like an OS is a solved problem. Basic word processing: solved. To think you can stretch out the number of jobs by fighting this trend is misquided imnsho because there is so much more interesting work to be done.
But also, in general, I would want to see some sort of quantitative argument that this results in lost jobs. It may lead to less stock-option millionaires, and that was nice, but which phenomenon leads to less IT jobs is a matter of debate.
-pyrrho
Comment removed based on user account deletion
yeah, not one forces it, and so it should be avoided, but stop the fibs of calling the FREE it is neither free as in beer or in speech with the gpl on it