Slashdot Mirror
How Open Does Open Source Need to be?
mjhuot writes "Doug MacEachern, CTO of Hyperic and creator of mod_perl, responds to criticism by Tarus Balog, a maintainer of OpenNMS, that his company's recent open source announcement is nothing but a marketing ploy. It is starting the debate on whether or not just releasing some code qualifies an application as 'open source.'"
Open source means you can read the source, much like an "open book exam" means you can read the book. The correct term for software that belongs to the community is Free Software. With Free Software, you are guarenteed to have the four fundamental software freedoms. With "Open Source", there is no such guarentee.
By my definition, even Windows is Open Source. In principle, I can view the source code to Windows. It's difficult and I have to sign a whole bunch of documents but I could do it with sufficient patience. This is why I don't like Open Source as a term; it is far too misleading. In fact, it doesn't actually mean anything other than the fact there is a mechanism by which you can see the source code that doesn't involve getting a court-order.
In contrast, the term Free Software has a very precise meaning and really should be trade-marked by the FSF. Then the FSF could only issue licenses to se the trade-mark where the software is licensed that protects the four freedoms. This way, companies couldn't profit from the name unless they labelled their products correctly.
Simon
There isn't one open source license. Some are more restrictive than others. Some are more open than others. People need to be more cautious in their use of terminology and should not use GPL interchangably with open source.
the more they over-think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the pipe
Once you give it to the community, your say on it need not be honoured. You relinquish 100% of the rights on it and developers should be able to do whatever they want. Build products or SELL services etc without being sued.
but not free. They don't claim that they are free (liberal) either.
If its "Open Source" than I, either a paying or non-paying customer, can get the source and re-compile it on my own.
If its Free -and- Open Source, than some anonymous 12 year old can get the source, and re-compile it, without any licensing fees or issues.
If its BSD/GPL-style-free, than said 12 year old can also re-distribute without sending in signed forms or paying anyone.
Where is the confusion?
Fully open, including bug databases and all docs otherwise it defeats the purpose of "OPEN".
Can anyone give an example of a successful open source project which spent a good chunk of its early years as a completely proprietary software?
It's really easy to know whether "releasing some code" qualifies: read the definition
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
So, two heavyweights(?) in the OSS community are going to start having a little war over what "open source" really means, eh? Must be a slow news day.
Open Source is what it is, and how "open" you want your software to be is your business. You can throw the whole thing open to anyone and let talented people take up the challenge to adapt and improve your code, or you can have one set of "open" code and one set of "closed" code, the former being available to anyone, the latter available for a price. No one is under any obligation, in either case, to use your software. If you want to charge for the "closed" version so you can actually make a living, where's the harm in that?
In an ideal world, there would be no secrets. All software would be open and free to roam the Earth. We are a far cry from an ideal world; commerce dominates and servers and bandwidth cost money. Whether your OSS is "open" or "slightly open" doesn't matter much -- if you can't scrape up the cash to keep the lights on and the servers running, it doesn't much matter how cool your software is. All I can say is, leave it alone.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
If only there had been some sort of definition of open source then maybe we wouldn't have to have to start this debate now.
This is just a marketing ploy. Software companies are releasing small bits of code and claiming its open source for the sake of marketing. This is no different than food companies throwing in some soy and calling it organic food. Actually I think its more like the cereal FrootLoops. Make it sound like it has fruit in it when you name it "Froot"Loops. Maybe if they just say its "The door was slightly opened for a second source" that would be more fitting.
"Anything tastes good if you deep fry it."
"I know! Let's name him Taurus Balrog!!"
..."
.. er .."
:)
"No honey, that's too cruel
"Okay
And there you have it. Taurus Balrog would be a cool name, though
Shareware is a limited or expiring version of an application made available for free with the idea that you should be able to try the software before purchasing it. It doesn't have a thing to do with open source, it's just another way of selling your closed source software.
If he wants to be irritated at software that claims to be open source but charges for advanced features, that's fine. But he doesn't need to get annoyed at shareware.
I believe it used to be called Star Office (and still is), created by a German company and bought by Sun. Someone is sure to correct me.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Done.
After starting http://www.proclanmanager.com/ I wasn't expecting hordes of people to help but I did expect at least a few. I have got a few people that have helped out but in my experience it usually goes down like this:
1) Some guy emails me and says he is interested in the project and would like to help out
2) I email him back with my copy & pasted response welcoming him and telling him about the mailing lists, source code, etc.
3) I never hear from him again.
I've been running my open source project since 2002 and since then no one has contributed much at all.
I feel like I have contributed so much to the project and as the years go by not having anything to show for it just de-motivates me. I quickly found out that even employers are not interested with open source work you have done on your CV.
If the guy wants to sell a better version of his code good for him I don't see what the problem here as in my experience no one is interested in helping they just want stuff for free.
....and do the opposite!
So is beer. (It's not free beer as in free beer, but beer as in Free beer!)
The term "open source" has an official definition right here: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
Whether some software is open source is equivalent to whether it conforms to all points in this definition. There you have it, debate settled.
It is an entirely different issue if this definition can be legally enforced; it cannot, as far as I know. So there is no mechanism preventing companies from making noise by falsely using the term. That is why one shuold always take an "open source" or "free software" claim with a grain of salt, and verify the claim carefully.
Netscape->Mozilla->Firefox
Quake 1,2,3 (although not mantained anymore)
Google's AJAX toolkit
If said software can be embodied into the existing body of open code, without changing it's existing freedoms of use, then said code is open enough!
If strings are attached, then it's not open.
Done, next.
Blogging because I can...
n/t
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
I remember when Open Source meant you could download the source with the binaries, change the source, and recompile the app yourself - if you knew how. You could then redistribute the new binaries (with the changed source)and any additional documentation you wanted.
Ah, childhood.
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
How much open would open source be if open source could be open?
Open source would be as open as open source could be if open source could be open.
Blender is one of the best examples. Read how they raised 100,000 EUR to BUY it from the old company and then turn around and GPL/Open Source it.
Blender History
How Open Does Open Source Need to be?
... ... ...
[Haj] You know... open.
[Pin] But how open? It's not a black and white issue.
[Haj] It should be open, like a door.
[Pin] That makes no sense, Haj.
[Haj] Sure it does. A door is either open or closed. There's no in-between there my color-blind friend.
[Pin] Are you kidding me? Look at this door. It's closed. But if I pull it just a little, is it open?
[Haj] Yes. It is open.
[Pin] How about now, if I pull it some more, is it more open?
[Haj] You can't be more or less open Pin... That's my point.
[Pin] Look at the %^%@#@%# door Haj. Does it look MORE OPEN to you?
[Haj] Well that's a different question isn't it. Does it "look more open"?
[Pin]
[Haj] I mean what if my eyes were closed?
[Pin] Haj...
[Haj] What if I was blind, Pin? Huh, what then?
[Pin]
[Haj] Now you're totally stumped, aren't you buddy? Stumped by my rhetorical questions.
[Pin]
[Haj] [in a girl's voice] What if I was blind?
[Haj] I can't believe you don't have a response dude... Pin? whatcha doing with that ice pick?
[the screen goes black and there is the sound of terrible things being done to someone's eyes]
[Haj] I just want you to know, if you ask "does the door ~feel~ open", I'm not going to answer you man...
[Haj] Pin... Are you still there? Hello? Anybody?
Sticking to an earlier philosophy, sourcecode is just a list of steps to create a certain effect. By sharing this recipe publicly, you invite comment, and can allow for various distrbutions that improve upon your version. The survival of these depends on their applicability to the market - and may find specialization. Conversely, anything that interferes with this process is pushing the market to accept tools that possibly do not fit and may never fit to your problem.
The standard shell tools on Unix are one level where it's easy to see the benefit of this philosophy. Taking this to the level of Linux, we find similar distributions fanning out, then collapsing into specializations (embedded, server, nongeek gui's).
There are merits to holding the source and not. If you purchase OTS non-free, you regard the program as an appliance and if you hold all the source, you are making and maintaining (perhaps with market help) your own tools. Each requires skills and risks, but they will both forever exist.
Regarding sourcecode:
To the skilled (engineer), it is empowering to work with tools.
To the unskilled (executive), it is efficient to work with appliances.
It doesn't matter how open software is. To my clients/managers, I merely explain the risks and rewards of either side. "You get what you pay for" vs "We can build it ourselves" - there are times when each seems advantageous, and both can bite your business.
Being the engineer, I like the $ coming to me instead of a vendor, so I usually stick my neck out to propose an in-house solution first,then line up the OTS solutions. When I land one, it lands big and usually works out well for everyone.
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. I immediately ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!" ... are you religious or atheist?"
"Why shouldn't I?" he said.
I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"
"Like what?"
"Well
"Religious."
"Me too! Are you Christian or Jewish?"
"Christian."
"Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
"Protestant."
"Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
"Baptist."
"Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"
"Baptist Church of God."
"Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"
"Reformed Baptist Church of God."
"Wow! Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"
"Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"
To which I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.
Well, that's fun. Tarus basically gets on a soapbox and starts lecturing about how he & his company have been doing Open Source for, like, years. That young rascal Doug better listen to Tarus!
Tarus is arguing from authority, if you know what that old debate tactic is. And to be honest, I give him some credence.
But then Doug posts right in the comments, and basically explains that he's been doing Open Source for at least a decade -- before the term existed. And he explains that they're going to follow a GPL model, but they're going to do it on their own timetable, not Tarus's.
Fun.
Having said that, they're both getting things wrong, IMHO. Tarus is ascribing way more to Open Source than he should. For example, he says that a community must exist, contributing actively to the code. This is a fallacy on two points. First, that would immediately disqualify 90% of the projects on SourceForge, which are maintained by a lone hacker. But second, that's more of a Free Software, you-must-develop-software-the-RIGHT-way line of thinking. Open Source does not have these burdens -- it's just a flag people raise to say "you can get this source code." No more.
And Doug clearly jumped the gun. If they're going slow & sure toward the goal of GPL, that's great -- just don't say you have something that you don't yet offer.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
Free Software means you don't have to pay for the software, much like "free beer" means you don't have to pay for the beer.. The correct term for software that belongs to the community is Open Source. With Open Source, you are guarenteed to have the four fundamental software freedoms. With "Free Software", there is no such guarentee.
By my definition, even Windows is Free Software. In principle, I can get Windows for free. It's difficult and I have to sign a whole bunch of documents but I could do it with sufficient patience. This is why I don't like Free Software as a term; it is far too misleading. In fact, it doesn't actually mean anything other than the fact there is a mechanism by which you can get the software for free that doesn't involve getting a court-order.
In contrast, the term Open Source has a very precise meaning and really should be trade-marked by ESR. Then ESR could only issue licenses to se the trade-mark where the software is licensed that protects the four freedoms. This way, companies couldn't profit from the name unless they labelled their products correctly.
May the Maths Be with you!
"I would have to say that every software company is based around Intellectual property."
The world is based around a rewards system. Businesses are. Open source is. Even charities. True alturism (no rewards, not even a warm feeling) are as rare as utopias. A simple point quickly forgotten in the push to get what's ones "due".
I have to say I agree with the author a bit about certain projects that are "open-source" but then have more advanced closed-source versions yet champion how open source they are and how great for the community that is. The given example SugarCRM is a perfect example.
SugarCRM does offer an open source version of their software and it seems to be pretty solid. However if you look at it versus even the lowest paid closed source version very important functionality has been removed; namely Outlook support and access restrictions. The Outlook thing may be a licensing issue [though it seems all the projects I find that do Outlook support always seem to charge for it and I can't imagine all of them use some 3rd party library they can't open source.] so I'll let it slide but to be used for almost any serious business there is a base requirement to restrict what certain sales-people can and cannot see within a CRM like that. By removing that functionality they are almost completely making the open source version useful for any business.
This of course is within their rights and if desired anyone could branch SugarCRM and include this stuff. At the same time I wonder what's the point, why not just keep it closed and make your sales? Does open sourcing an intentionally crippled version of the software really help them at all other than the marketing aspect of them having an open source version?
For example Zimbra has no intention of ever releasing an open source version of their Outlook adapter for their product. This smacks of wanting business to pay for the software. My question then is why not just make the bloody license "not free for commercial purposes" like plenty of other software, why make a big deal about it being open-source but then intentionally cripple the open source version?
To me in a way it just seems manipulative.
Open-source is an industry buzzword. It means nothing. They've taken free software, lost our idealogy and the four freedoms, and our now selling it.
Has anyone actually used HQ before bashing their move to open their source. I am continually annoyed about how people will slam a product becasuse they are trying to do something good for the community. Hyperic at the end of the day has to make money, however, they believe in the community that it is built around and are trying to meet the best of both worlds. So before one slams their product, try it. As I have had experience on monitoring software from large installations to very small installations HQ is the best bang for the buck AND is open-sourcing it's code. No other *enterprise* monitoring software currently does that, so my hats off to them on being able to achieve that.
Have a look at vTiger CRM - a truely Free and open fork of the SugarCRM codebase.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
I haven't seen anyone else mention this so far, but wasn't that debate ended some time ago? I thought Bruce Perens' Open Source Definitition was the final word on the matter.
If it conforms to the definition, it's open source. By definition.
If it doesn't, it's something else.
This is not complicated.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
There are more-valid arguments that Windows is not Open Source.
What do you think would happen if Steve Jobs showed up at a Microsoft's Headquarters and said, "I'm here to see the Windows Source Code. I'll fill out whatever forms you like." as you propose anyone can do?
Bill whips out the "All your bases are belong to us" form and Apple is out of business.
> Most of the shareware I used back in the day was much more open and non commercial than it is now. There's a huge movement to bring out
> limited software and leverage its popularity to persuade people to upgrade. Software like Easy CD Creater, Quicktime, Realplayer etc.
> all attempt to recieve extra income by witholding features that are not expensive to implement.
Back in 'the day' there used to be something called the Association of Shareware Professionals who defended the original defination of "Shareware" and discouraged BBSes from allowing Demoware, Crippleware, Time limited trials, etc. from calling itself "Shareware". The ASP disappeared with the death of BBSes (no more enforcement powers, most of the ASPs powers came from freindly relations with Sysops, now an extinct breed)
But in the end, Shareware is usually a combination of the worst aspects of Free Software and Commercial. But there were some outstanding exceptions, I wouldn't have moved to DOS (from a Tandy CoCo3 w/ OS9 Level 2) when I did without someone showing me 4DOS could relieve the crappy existence of living in MS-DOS. But generally Shareware combines the no support of Free with the slow development cycle of Commercial and adds in the dependence on a single person remaining interested lest a program you depend upon becomes orphaned.
Democrat delenda est
Quake code source is not only maintained by separate 3rd party project, as other slashdotter mentionned,
it is also upgraded and new engines are build on top of it, like : Nexuiz witch feature additionnal eye-candy built on top of the Quake Engine.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
credit to Emo Phillips -one of the funniest and strangest comics.
I heard him on a radio station here in SanFran a few weeks ago and he let loose with this gem:
The on air personalities asked him what he looked for in a woman in San Francisco and he replied:
"An adam's apple"
I almost wrecked the car after that
ROFLWMA! (Roll on the floor laughing and wrecked my automobile)
I remember years ago Arsenio Hall had him on for this 'geek' night and he came out wearing one of those traditional Greek dresses because he said he thought Arsenio had said 'greek' night.
Priceless.
I got caught copying one of the other students test -I guess the xerox machine was a bit of a giveaway...so they marched me to the principal and he said Emo, Emo, Emo
I said: I'm the one in the middle you drunken bastard!
http://www.emophillips.com/home
You're right, the german company was StarDivision
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Linux kernel : (unless you beleive Alexis de Tocqueville) it was built as open-source from the start. And is very widely used in embeded hardware. A lot of people (who don't even know what an operating system is) have xDSL modems/routers at home that use an embed Linux.
Samba : MacOS X standart way to interoperate with Windows environnement (OK, bad exemple, maybe not a lot of people use macs, so it fails the "as popular as firefox" test when you take into account all desktop users, and not only macs.).
Apache : when some user type "www."-something in the address bar of his/her browser, there's a very big chance that the server on the other side is running on LAMP.
libJPEG, libPNG, and more recently libVORBIS, and libOGG : were all developped as open-source from their beginning, and are widely used to provide functionnality in software. Nearly any small-scale application today uses jibJPEG and/or libPNG to access images, and recent games (Doom3 Quake4,
Xvid : Half of the ripped videos everyone is downloading from the internet are encoded to MPEG4 using Xvid. Interesting to note : the other half are encoded using DivX, the recent versions of which (unlike the old version 3) are based on the OpenDivX project whitch started as open-source and was baed on the MPEG4 reference (but the Project Mayo team moved to a closed source developpement. This also sparked the forking of Xvid, which is also OpenDivX based, but remained open up to today).
VirtualDub : very popular on windows for video processing. Open-Source from the beggining. (Then again, same problem as the Samba-in-MacOS-X exemple : VirtualDub is popular *among people who process videos* but the larger population of average users are more used to just download pre-compressed Xvid/DivX video from the web, rather than create AVI files them self).
Torrent clients : the original client (quite used) and Azureus (incredibly popular) are both opensource from the beggining.
and hunderts of other small piece of code that help make the day better.
Most of the time, full open-source project are created in the Unix way : they only do a small step, but they do it very well. So most of them aren't full application like the GIMP, but small tools (tool-kits, libraries, etc...) that are easily integrated into bigger project, that people forget their existence (libJPEG are the best exemple of it - almost omnipresent but people never know that their software use it).
In fact your mentionning FireFox as a commercial-gone-open-source project. But a lot of the small component that compose it were open-source project from the begining (the Cairo that accelerate SVG and Canvas, is an exemple).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
We can debate the nature of the term open source all day, but Hypric is releasing their code under the GPL license which has long been approved by OSI as being "open source." In the world of open source, code talks and bull s**t walks. This stuff seems to scratch a technical itch just as Apache scratched a technical itch of web masters years ago. How about instead of debating about what we call it people actually check out the code when it is released and see if they like it. If you do, modify it, add to it, and share it with others. Not sure what you would call that, but I think most people get the idea.
Discussions here about open source software seem to focus on licensing and commercial examples .. That's good but what else?
I think there is not enough focus on the protocols and prerequisite definitions for open source to work on PCs, PPCs and suns/SPARCs. Anyone ever try to build an operating system from scratch? The classic answer is ''you have to know what you are doing'' and is valid. I think the nouveau, modern cool answer is ''give me a translation for what I need ( line-item specifics ) and I can do this or that''.
I am in the pacific northwest. We are working on a game model and are in the design documents stage. We demand transparency and use plain language when possible.
Is it enough to write about 5 lines of code and say that this code snippet has exactly 50 machine-readable ones and zeros? No. Why? This is not enough information. First of all we don't know what the code does, what language it's in or if it's compiled natively.
The " ones and zeros " information about the " 5 lines of code " information is what intrigues coders and hackers. Everything else can be translated to plain language. Licensing models should be drafted to partner with developers' iterative changes to code which occur at periodic and non-predictable frequencies.
To summarize, the Practice is what we interpret of others code and the Ways & Means is what we interpret or/and translate from code an individual or a defined collaboration of people create.
Of course you would omit the fact that Red Hat had to drop the consumer version and concentrate on the enterprise to do that.* And Mozilla gets it's money through ads and some of the coders are employed by Google.* So no open software doesn't make money. Value-adds and other indirect means do.
*And let's not get into how the open-source community has treated both RH and Mozilla.
We'll keep asking for more code and updated code and documentation for free and in open ways but any bit is a start. Complain all you want but also praise them because it's a good start unless it's completely useless code.
I guess I had moved beyond that. Clearly that's just not the case. IMHO, I'm more in line with the GPL version of open because it keeps things open.
BSD is open too, but can be closed again at some point.
Open Code, really doesn't do us that much good if it isn't growing. The whole GPL pool of code appears to be doing that nicely --and it's gonna stay open. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a BSD basher or snob at all. I run it on a server or two and it's top-notch actually.
For me, the GPL open is the better option because it forces those that want to make use of the code pool to respect how it got there in the first place. Additionally, there is a nice incentive for companies wanting to make closed products to recognize the developer. This happened to me recently with a GPL project. A company wanted to incorporate my code in their product --and they had improvements to pass along.
I issued them a license in return for GPL ownership of any code sent to me and a donation to the project. The project grows to it's users mutual benefit, I get some consideration for my efforts (name on box, etc...), and they save a little time and effort.
Anyway, it's more complex than it seems, which is your point well taken.
Blogging because I can...
Got bored and reading Slashdot for the first time in ages.
Open Source doesn't mean you can get the source code. If it did, then Windows, QMail, PocketPC, Pine, etc. would be Open Source. They're not.
Open Source is defined by the Open Source Definition.
Ultimately, it's the ability to fork a project and take it away from its original creators that is responsible for the positive qualities of open source software. If you can't (realistically) fork the software, it isn't "open source" in any useful sense.
One can have a lengthy debate about whether the term "open source" should still apply to such source-available software, but people who are trying to (mis-)apply the term to such software are simply trying to mislead potential users.