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."

Comments

What's it going to be?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:I'd rather use Photoshop than the Gimp

[Gherald]

> 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.

Freedom != Choice

[Dancin_Santa]

Everyone keeps making the incorrect assumption that Free software is "Free as in Speech". Wrong.

Free Software means "Free as in Freedom". The software itself is Free, unshackled by anything. The outcome of this is that the software would always carry its source around with it, and it couldn't lose its Freedom because it is legally protected from people who would seek to usurp that Freedom. The GPL specifies the rights of the Software, and it does a good job in protecting the Freedom of the Software.

Think of the GPL as a Bill Of Rights (U.S.) or Charter of Rights and Freedoms (CND) for software. It lists the Freedoms that cannot be taken away from the software.

Since the GPL and Free Software (and OSS by association) pertain to the Freedom of Software and not the matter of Choice, there is nothing to talk about except that it is up to the user whether they intend to use UnFree (enslaved) software on their system.

Perhaps one day we will all use unshackled software on our systems, but until then it is imperative that we focus on the ills of software enslavement rather than on welcoming software slave traders into our midst.

2-faced approach is more appropriate

[Renderer of Evil]

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.

Here's another analogy

[Kappelmeister]

I was thinking about how difficult the SCO mess is to explain to a layperson -- it's front page news for nerds, but it doesn't sound very sexy to everyone else.

Here's my idea for a story you can use in case someone asks you at the water cooler. It's not a perfect analogy to OSS, but then, what is?

Imagine that there's a group of amusement park enthusiasts who love scary, innovative rides. The big 6.28 Flags parks around just don't cut it -- they're far away, admission is expensive, and the rides are boring and dangerous. So the fans decide to move to a new town, Penguina, and build their own park.

The Penguinans just love good rides, and they know how to make them. They work together to build a communal park that's scary as hell. Everyone chips in to come up with a new ride design, or build a ride. And each ride is open to everyone around, for no charge.

Eventually, word of the up-and-coming Penguina Park gets around. Lots of new residents move in each year to help build it up. Even more numerous are the tourists who just come to have fun -- more fun than they ever had at 6.28 Flags.

Eventually, the park gets the attention of ride vendors, big companies like UBM2 and startups like Red Beret. These companies can't buy out the park, since the Penguina residents agreed to never let that happen. But they can invest in the park ("this ride was sponsored by UBM2") and sell related merchandise, such as park maps, guided tours and seat cushions. Eventually Penguina Park gets so popular that everyone from government employees to Star Trek helmsmen go there for the biggest thrills they can have with their clothes on.

Then one day, Vomit Unlimited, a fading rollercoaster company with some good rides to its legacy, comes along and says to the Penguina community: "Guys, there's a ride in your park that's based on one of our designs. We didn't say it could be a part of your little hostel."

"Oops," rejoin the Penguina residents. "OK, tell us which ride and we'll take it out."

"I can't tell you that, it's a secret," says the Vomit Unlimited rep. "But I can't let you keep riding it for free, either. I've got no choice but to claim ownership of the whole park. Oh, don't worry, you can still use the rides. You'll just have to pay us $299 each to get in."

Naturally, the Penguina residents find this absurd. So do the corporations -- volunteer work is one thing, but they're not about to surrender their investments. UBM2 dismisses Vomit Unlimited. Vomit Unlimited sues.

"Oh, come on," entreat the Penguinans. "You can't win against UBM2. Just tell us which ride is yours."

"I'm afraid it's not that simple," croaks the rep. "You see, there's actually a whole series of rides that we own across the park. Infrastructure, too, so the park won't run at all if you take out our property. Now, buy your tickets, kids, since we'll be charging $699 soon." Scrawny guards with Vomit Unlimited logos (brown-green puddles with chunks of Chef Boyardee) begin to take positions around the park entrances, threatening to poke the eyes of any trespassers.

The amusement park trade journals laugh at the shop, but the mainstream papers take it seriously, leading people to wonder if there's a serious problem with the communal Penguina system.

Blood vessels breach. UBM2 sues Vomit Unlimited. Red Beret takes aim. But Vomit keeps spewing warnings to everyone who rides, from the government on down.

How will the craziness end?? Stay tuned!

Maybe

[venom600]

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.

The real Ian Murdock interview.

[niko9]

Murdock: You want answers?

LPBN: I think I'm entitled to them.

Murdock: You want answers?

LPBN: I want the truth!

Murdock: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has Linux opertaing systems. And those operating systems have to be guarded by men with compilers. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. McBride? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for BSD and you curse Red Hat. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that BSD's death, while tragic, probably saved desktops. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves desktops...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at LAN parties, you want me on that kernel list. You need me on that weekly Debian update.
We use words like l33t, code, haxor...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a Slashdot punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very apt-get I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a orphaned package and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

LPBN: Did you order the Debian swirl red?

Murdock: (quietly) I did the GNU OS you sent me to do.

LPBN: Did you order that Debian swirley thing to be red?

Murdock: You're goddamn right I did!!

Of course, for clarity, they had to edit it a bit.

What about Apple?

[f-matic]

Didn't see them mentioned yet, but they seem like a perfect example of a proprietary business model drawing from the OSS movement. But I don't think the either/or question really captures what's going on in these situations. Seems to me in Apple's case (which is fairly similar to others discussed in the videos), they're obviously exploiting the OSS movement (albeit in a fairly clever and media-massaged kinda way) -- just look at Safari, which adds value to their operating system and draws extensively from the open source technologies developed in Konqueror -- and makes them more money. But at the same time they're contributing code back to OSS and adding value back to the OSS.

I mean, c'mon, this is America -- aren't exploitation and cooperation the same thing?

Re:I'd rather use Photoshop than the Gimp

[meta-monkey]

Sadly, not much. I'm a Mac user, too, but I used to use dual boot linux and windows. Linux just doesn't have the market share on the desktop to be worth Adobe's time and trouble.

First, I know that photographers are not the only users of Photoshop. However, I'm a professional photographer, but I have a Master's in electrical and computer engineering. You simply have no idea about the level of cluelessness amongst photographers with regards to computers. I go to my local professional photographers guild meetings and I just have to bite my tongue to keep from screaming at their ignorance. These people can barely handle windows. Linux would scare them out of their gourds. I really don't think Adobe would see any more sales by porting their products to Linux. Also, I seem to recall seeing a /. story not too long ago about Disney or somebody getting Photoshop to work through Wine... That may be the better way to go for Linux enthusiasts who want to run Photoshop.