Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Open Does Open Source Need to be?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the there's-no-pleasing-some-people dept.

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.'"

4 of 147 comments (clear)

  1. Starting the debate? by ronanbear · · Score: 3, Informative
    I thought that one has been ongoing for years.

    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
  2. Um, use the definition, will ya? by Knuckles · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  3. Re:Example? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ugh? Mozilla (Netscape), OpenOffice.org (Staroffice) ..

  4. Open Office? by jbeaupre · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.