Slashdot Mirror
OpenBRR Launches Closed Open-Source Group
An anonymous reader writes "eWeek is reporting that SpikeSource co-founder and CTO Murugan Pal and the Open Business Readiness rating have launched a new initiative designed to maximize open-source software knowledge across organizations. While they are targeting corporate and Wall Street CIOs and IT directors as members, the current plan is not to open membership of the new OpenBRR Corporate Community to all, but to offer it on an invitation-only basis 'to ensure that only trusted participants are coming into the system,' Pal said. This would allow members to discuss sensitive issues and share information without having to worry that it would be made widely public, he said."
to ensure that only trusted participants are coming into the system
Is this just a more polite way to say they don't want MS to join?
Please stop entering code 2,2,7,6,6,4
But isn't it a bit oxymoronic, and perhaps counter-productive, to do open source work behind closed doors?
So it's only available to the people they want it open to? Isn't that how "proprietary" is also defined?
"Closed Open Source!"
When what really happens is that a set of industries try to meet up to discuss their common interests and how they can get it throug open source projects.
An example would be banks getting together to discuss how they would link up to each other's ATM's securely without having to use closed software.
I don't know what they're trying to accomplish with this, but here's on statement that explains it:
Enterprise and corporate CIOs are faced with many product choices and alternatives, as well as with making decisions about new and legacy solutions, so being able to privately share information on these subjects is important, Pace said.
I do not see how this Pace guy can jump to that conclusion. Wouldn't it make more sense to have as much input as possible about possible software choices? Limiting discussion to an elite "in"-group will only inspire the commercialized corporate culture we are seeing today; exactly the opposite of what open-source is trying to accomplish.
Ok, so they make this point:
The guiding principles of this new community will be trusted, dedicated and self-moderated communities for sharing business-oriented open-source software information.
Okay, so reliable peer review--at least, this is what I think they're trying to say--is important. However, they are basically closing themselves out to everything else. If anyone disagrees, could you please explain why?
And not have the next NYSE killer app downloadable from Source Forge.
when they ban enctryption only criminals wi$21*J *#JF$%!@#$':
Meanwhile, at the OpenBRR secret lair...
Stodgy CEO: "Close that door, Johnson!"
Johnson from Spike: "I'm on it, Sir. Its closed."
Stodgy CEO: "Now pass me those sandals. Do they have that Grateful Dead tie-dye in XXL?"
body massage!
Before people start barking about open source being "closed", lets remember a little book that we all should have read. It was written by a bard named ESR, and is named "The Cathedral and the Bazaar". It tells a story about how many open source projects are, and still are, closed in the development process. These days, many are more transparent, but there is more than one closed one lurking about.
DYWYPI?
The whole idea behind that book is nonsense. Almost all sucessful open source projects are closer to cathedral than bazaar. And ESR is a lunatic.
Conservatives...
"This would allow members to discuss sensitive issues and share information without having to worry that it would be made widely public, he said."
:)
I don't think he's fully grasping the concept of open source.
Signature.
Open-source does not imply or require open development. An entity (compant, group, person) can develop a project behind closed doors, without any outside influence, and release the source code under the GPL, and it works. Others can tinker with the code all they want, but the original creator(s) are not required to accept any outside code into their project. If I decided to take the Linux 2.x kernel and start developing it away from the way Torvalds' team goes, not incorporate any future changes crafted by the present kernel team or anyone else, and create my own operating system based around this new kernel fork, as long as I make the source code available for free, I am within the terms defined by the GPL. Open-Sourcedness (is that a word) does not wrest control of the project away from those who create it. It just allows anyone else to use the code and benefit from someone else's experience and work to make whatever the thing is work better for them, improve upon the work, etc.
Summary: My code can still be my own under the GPL, but you can also make it your own, provided you follow the rules.
Shiny. Let's be bad guys.
Isn't your reply narrow minded in the interpretation of closed == "invitation only"? That is assuming you did read the FA? Microsoft has screwed up HTML, java and a bunch of internet protocols in an attempt to subvert developers into making MICROSOFT COMPATABLE products. Screw the fact that microsoft "extensions" don't work with the rest of the universe, usually add nothing to the feature base and corrupts the expansion of standards already implemented. Microsoft calls the shots. Ya I'M All For That. Cause I'm Living It.
Blah blah blah. Suits make a big deal about keeping secrets when they don't have anything special. People with actual money-making ideas are too busy implementing them to worry about if their "secret" is kept. (Hell, most of them patent it, which is the exact opposite of a secret since the invention is then published in its entirety.)
Geez... can we go back to the 19th-century way where the owners didn't have to pretend they knew the first damn thing about how their company works? Now that they do, they come up with all kinds of ridiculous horseshit like this, which all has to be kept secret from our proletarian ears.
All's true that is mistrusted
'to ensure that only trusted participants are coming into the system'
Sounds like they took a bad clue from the guys of Stanford. There really is no legitimate reason (outside of bragging) - the "trusted participant" part is just a red herring if they intend to be "open". If anything it should advertise to steer clear of this organization and disregard what will be blackbox ratings.
This would allow members to discuss sensitive issues and share information without having to worry that it would be made widely public.
Somehow I dont think they're talking about financials here, and wanting to pull a Sveasoft style act - all the bad parts, none of any relevant or good.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
as mutch as most of us resent the use of closed source in some cases if it was open then it would make the code useless
so there are arguments that the code should be open , but by the same token
would you want say your pasword list to be open and readable in plain text
what should be the descusion is how best to manage this in an open source environment , how do you write software to protect the users data that may include an encription algarithom without letting people know what algarithom is beeing used
this seems to be a good solution to that problem , and in the long term this problem is going to need a solution
not only for pasword encription , but for trusted computing (ether we keep the algarithems closed or we cannot use them) , and as mutch as most of us dislike the idea of drm , it may be the only way that we can develop players to use drm
encoded content
now do we want to totaly not allow the use of anything that will not allow for the code to be opensource ,
but we do need a way that is acceptable to manage this sort of thing within the open source community
i would rather it was done this way that left to a single 3rd party comertial
company to develop , at least here its a group that should be working with the open source communities interests at heart
In one, where they completely fail to grasp the notion of a union, they end up deciding to form a closed open shop. The parallels between this and OpenBRR are unmistakable.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Open source is not the same thing as free software, right? Open source software could even be much like any proprietary software. Remember, we want free software!
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
Oooh look the boys are making a public announcement of their secret clubhouse. Are YOU cool enough to be invited?
Cue the openBBR invitation spoolers and the "oooh if anyone has an invitation hook me up" posts.
We welcome many of your comments listing the positives and negatives of the private mailing list to discuss industry vertical issues. At this moment we are open to both options, and in the process of compiling the feedback from CIO and Enterprise Architect type members of the corporate community. Corporate CIOs want a peer level forum to discuss common issues and leverage open source to solve their business problems. Hence, the proposal from OpenBRR's corporate community. If all the participating members want this to be an open forum we could keep it that way. It is a community driven initiative, more like a social networking group and the policies will be steered by the members. In addition, all the contents will be licensed under creative commons.