Slashdot Mirror
Linux Corporate Influence: Boon or Bane?
Mark Tobenkin writes "Are corporations exploiting the Open Source community? The Linux Public Broadcasting Network has video interviews with Ian Murdock (of Progeny and Debian fame), Martin Roesch (author of Snort), Jeremey White (CEO of CodeWeavers), Bradley Kuhn (FSF), Mike Balma (Linux Business Strategist for HP) and others on the evolving OSS business models. The interviews center around whether integration with proprietary products endangers the Open Source effort or increases consumers' freedom to choose."
Corporations have specific needs. If OSS can fill that need, then they will try to use it. As long as the software's license is not violated then I don't see the problem. If you think this is a problem, change your license to something more restrictive.
I find this interesting in that many of you want to see OSS flourish, compete with major software houses (like Microsoft), and be used by as many people as possible. Now that this is starting to happen, will you claim that the spirit of OSS is being violated by corporations and resist its growth?
> If not, then why worry?
Because a larger userbase translates into greater driver support on part of the hardware manufacturers, which would take a huge burden off the OSS community and allow developers to focus on creating useful applications.
The unofficial
Do you want to be the virus target by virtue of numbers?
:)
The answer is most definitely YES!
If Linux was the de facto virus target (as Windows currently is), then what you'd see is an increased scrutiny in the code, more patches, and an overall better system. What I'm trying to get at here is that increased visibility basically equates to increased quality.
Or, "what doesn't kill me makes me stronger" --> the more we're attacked, the better our systems become.
Bring it on!
It is really amusing how Sun goes on to spread FUD about Linux in enterprise in light of the SCO lawsuit, yet they go on to employ Linux related solutions whenever it cuts the operating costs and overhead. Mad Hatter is a good example of this. Sun is stabbing Linux in a back when releasing press releases by pushing their queer Solaris/Unix in news reports how Linux might be dangerious in terms of IP infringment, yet you see them deploy Gnome and praise it for own gain.
and lets not forget, Linux is Unix, by Sun.
I often wonder if corporations basing their whole infrastructure off of linux (and other free software) is really fair to the open source community. Corporations who have embraced open software (linux specifically) are really saving themselves a lot of money. It'd be nice of those coporations would kick back some of their savings into supporting open source projects and initiatives.
On the other hand, without wide adoption, the rate at which Linux has developed probably wouldn't be any where near what it currently is. The best way to find bugs and feature requests is to get as many people as possible banging on a piece of software until it fails (or seems deficient in one area or another). So maybe the exposure, feature enhancements and bugs found are the proper 'payment' I spoke of.
Commercial programs make for choices. It provides an option instead of "Go write it yourself". Maybe GIMP doesn't do it for you and you need the full Adobe Photoshop. And if you do, you need to go with one of the OSs where Photoshop exists, yes?
It's not like they would be a threat to the free programs - things the mass market wants or needs gets written, it's the more advanced or obscure stuff you get in commercial apps. Not to mention many people have time "invested" in specific apps that they would like to keep.
There's a considerable number of programs for which there are a market, and people are willing to part with the cash, but there's none or too few OSS developers. Sure, a single company could do a "work for hire", but there's no mass-market equivalent. You don't see thousands or even millions of people pitching in a couple dollars to write an OSS piece of software, but the same people would consider paying for a commercial app.
I think commercial applications and OSS programs push eachother forward. The commercial programs need to be better than the free if they want to get any money for it, while the OSS programs see where they are still lacking and could catch up. Not that OSS software can't be innovative itself, but there's no doubt that commercial applications have a great pressure to sell upgrades, while an OSS project can basicly declare itself more or less "done" and just focus on perfecting that.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
You release your code under the GPL, and if a company decides to exploit it in a way that doesn't violate the GPL but pisses you off, then too bad. Suck it up. Deal with it. Either suffer, or write under a different license.
This is exactly the same question that keeps coming up when people look at unpleasant military organisations using open/free code, and has the same answer. If you don't like it, don't release it to them.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Without having listened to the interviews (yeah, yeah, so I didn't RTFA, or LTTFI in this case, so sue me), I'm going to respond to what comment was posted to the ./ front page about them. Here goes.
What's the point of this? Is corporate influence good or bad for Linux? What? From whose perspective are you asking?
I really don't think that the question itself is worth asking. You can't boil a complex set of technologies and interactions down to a simple "it's great!" or "it sucks!".
Based on the list of people interviewed, I'd imagine that more than just the Linux kernel is being addressed -- GNU, distros, free software in general.
Is modifying it all to work with new systems a good thing in general? I'd say yes, as it's always nice to have interested people making sure that code is truly portable. Note that I'm not saying, "more users mean more bugs found!", but that if a company wants to spend time and money fixing portability and compatibility issues, then I don't see how that's a bad thing.
Anyone contributing to a project has a reason for doing so. This is true whether they're paid for it or not -- either they're working to meet their own needs, or the needs of someone else. Code gets implemented for a reason, and I think that saying "Is corporate involvement in Linux a good thing?" is similar to asking "Was DJ Delorie's port of GCC to DOC a good thing?"
Obviously, if someone spends resources making free software into something that is useful to them, then it could be seen as having been a "good thing" for them.
Are corporations exploiting the OSS community? I don't know. Define "exploit". I'd imagine that for every company "exploiting" OSS by using it without contributing there are 1000 people who downloaded and installed OSS without ever having contributed anything back.
Maybe there's something Zen-like to my point of view on the topic. Is widespread adoption of GNU/Linux on the desktop a good thing? Is widespread adoption of computers in general a good thing? Is it better for Linux to improve, or for Microsoft to pull their heads a little further out of their asses with regards to quality control? These are questions you can't answer without context. Good for whom? For the desktop user? For me? For you? For your employer? Your grandmother? Residents of Uganda?
Until context is provided, I suppose the answer to the question, "Boon or Bane?" is simply, mu.
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!