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.
I won't believe they're serious until they change their name to Gnu/OpenGroup.
Trolling is a art,
As much as this does sound like a troll put yourself in the place of a PHB...
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
"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.
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.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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!
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...
Pointy Haired Boss - as found in Dilbert.
Generally used to indicate the archetypal half-witted middle-management type.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
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.
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?
But I fail to see what attractive women have to do with this.
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++.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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!
i would say that open code that must remain open is less open.
:)
:)
I would say that people who can't enslave and torture their neighbors are less free than people who can.
Freedom is inherently paradoxical -- if you have the freedom to lose your freedom, then you're potentially not free (once you lose your freedom), but if you don't have the freedom to lose your freedom, then that's clearly a freedom you don't have, so you're not absolutely free. Or to put it another way, you can't have both the freedom to swing your fist wherever you like and the freedom to have an unbroken nose. (Unless you're the only one with freedom -- but we usually call that situation "dictatorship").
Anyway, I'm not going to get into the GPL is/isn't "truly" free. I'm just pointing out that absolute freedom is a myth, so any argument that relies on ideals of absolute freedom is flawed. Beyond a certain point (and I think the GPL is well within those bounds), I think it's all good, and I really don't care. I'm able to sympathize with both the BSDL advocates and the GPL advocates without necessarily agreeing with either side. And that's because I have the freedom to form my own opinions, or even reserve judgement, if I want.