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"

Comments

Re:Viral

[wo1verin3]

>> Open Source = Viral.

It's because people have pride in their work and want to share it with others that open source exists.

An added strategy

[mao che minh]

The Open Group needs to add one more major strategy: preparing for and combating frivilous legal claims and the insuing litigations.

This is perhaps the greatest (and one day maybe even the only) threat to Open Source.

Re:My attention span is about 5 minutes

[tomstdenis]

As much as this does sound like a troll put yourself in the place of a PHB...

Re:Viral

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Draft strategy is excellent summary of Open Source

[Thagg]

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

Too complex/too little time?

[G3ckoG33k]

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.

Re:Is Open Source Good for All of Our Members?

[MAXOMENOS]

I don't disagree with you. Chances are that this type of development will shrink as open source software replaces proprietary software. It will shrink, but it won't die away. Companies that make their living off of selling systems (IBM) or hardware (Intel) will continue to fund open-source develeopment.