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
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?
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.
"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.
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
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?
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 &
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.
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!