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.'"

6 of 147 comments (clear)

  1. Use Free Software instead by Ckwop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  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. Here we go by Billosaur · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  4. Shareware by Rob_Warwick · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I don't get why he's upset about Shareware.

    Finally we come to the "shareware" model, which is now really starting to draw my ire. Popularized by SugarCRM, it is a "model" where some of the code is open, but to get the full featured version you have to pay, and the full version is not open. Remember shareware? You download a little app for free that does some things, but if you want to unlock all of the features you send the guy ten bucks? If this software was so good, then why hasn't a community sprung up around the free version and made it better?

    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.

  5. 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.
  6. well... by revery · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?