Has Open Source Lost Its Halo?

PetManimal writes "Open-source software development once had a reputation as a grassroots movement, but it is increasingly a mainstream IT profit center, and according to Computerworld, some in the industry are asking whether 'open source' has become a cloak used by IT vendors large and small to disguise ruthless and self-serving behavior. Citing an online opinion piece by Gordon Haff, an analyst at Illuminata Inc., the article notes that HP and IBM have not only profited from open-source at the expense of competitors, but have also boosted their images in the open-source community. The Computerworld article also mentions the efforts by the Microsoft/Windows camp to promote open-source credentials: '[InfoWorld columnist Dave] Rosenberg is more disturbed by the bandwagon jumpers: the companies, mostly startups, belatedly going open-source in order to ride a trend, while paying only lip service to the community and its values. Take Aras Corp., a provider of Windows-based product lifecycle management (PLM) software that in January decided to go open-source. Rosenberg depicted the firm in his blog as an opportunistic Johnny-Come-Lately. "I'm not impressed when a company whose software is totally built on Microsoft technologies goes open-source," said Rosenberg, who even suspects that the company is being promoted by Microsoft as a shill to burnish Redmond's image in open-source circles."'"

Comments

OSS gone commercial is still OSS

[stratjakt]

I know Tivo pisses some people off, while at the same time they are sort of a poster child for "what linux can do".

I mean, they follow the letter of the GPL - I can get the source - but since the kernel must be cryptographically signed to execute on the device, this source is useless.

But the GPL never said anything about me being able to hack my device. Tivo is just like any other corporation in that respect, they don't want me adding functionality, they want me to pay for it.

They've taken from the community, made a good deal of money, and really have given nothing back, and really don't have to.

The GPL, and OSS in general, really isn't about giving back. It's about taking advantage of the altruism of others. I don't mean that in a negative way either. When I set up linux on old hardware as a router, I was doing the same thing. I've never released the firewall scripts I tweaked up, or even told anybody upstream of a couple of bugs I've fixed for myself. Tivo, and for that matter, IBM, HP or Novell all have the same rights that I do.

Re:OSS gone commercial is still OSS

[Kjella]

If you were talking about the BSD license, you'd be right. But you have missed the entire intention of the GPL, which isn't to help the upstream (though that is also usually an effect) but to guarantee that those downstream can continue to modify that code. If you do one very simple search-and-replce you see that is true:

"But the GPL never said anything about me being able to hack my [software]. Tivo is just like any other corporation in that respect, they don't want me adding functionality, they want me to pay for it."

That applies to any software company. If the intention wasn't for me to be able to modify the Tivo's software, why the hell should I bother with anything OSS? Print out the source and frame it?

Linus has way too much faith in the general purpose computer and that "the best technology wins", and that whatever smart thing Tivo does he can just include in his mainstream kernel. For now that's true but the day you computers come with TCPA and his unsigned kernel doesn't get to touch any mainstream media, it's a dead duck as far as the general public is concerned.

Ain't nobody ever happy

[Fortissimo]

OK, help me out here. A few years ago weren't the open source folks crying that no one was taking their clearly-superior products seriously? Now a few large companies are utilizing it and promoting it and taking it seriously, and we're still crying? Hmmmmmm.

Not really

[TheMeuge]

It's not that it's lost its halo, it's just that it has realized its usefulness. The fact that companies make money off open-source technologies doesn't mean that open-source is bad. Anyone who thinks that is doing the entire open-source community a great disservice.

We don't live in a utopian communist state. Progress is driven by self-interest, and I am happy that companies make money using open-source technologies, because it not only affirms the essential role of OSS in the marketplace, but also provides incentive for support and adoption of OSS by those who were previously skeptical.

A bit of terminology shear happening here

[Jooly Rodney]

Recent developments with Novell aside, if software companies open their software (under a real Free license), their reasons for doing so and their relations with the community aren't really that important. That's the whole reason we have Free Software licenses -- so that users and independent developers don't have to worry about the behavior of the companies that put out the software. You can trust the GPL, even if you don't trust SoftwareVendorReleasingGPL'dSoftware.

why it is not predatory.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

From the linked article: IBM released Eclipse for free, and it's killed off all the commercial Java IDEs out there. Sure, the source is available - but why isn't that seen as predatory? The net effect has been the same.

Well, tomorrow if IBM decides to change the fee structure and demand an arm and a leg or it thinks it should change the file formats to keep the competition out or decide to drop support for some API to maintain an advantage... Guess what? There is nothing to stop the customers/competitors to take the ball run circles around IBM. That is why Open source is not all that predatory.

Sometimes some people get a profound insight and that produces a view point that is strikingly different from the crowd. This article mimics the symptom, "being radically different from the rest" but without a cogent underlying argument that is the hallmark of a "profound insight".

Ruthless and self serving behavior???

[leereyno]

Exactly what part of "competitive marketplace" does the author not understand?

Ruthless and self-serving behavior is how businesses compete. No one is in business to help their competitors. No one who has to deal with the realities of the business world gives a rat's ass about the ideologies behind Free/open source software. The only thing anyone cares about is whether open source provides a better solution than the alternatives, or provides a similar solution at a lower price. IBM helps and promotes open source projects because these projects help IBM. This isn't altruism, but quid pro quo.

Re:There was an open source version of Halo?

[digitalunity]

lol. Anybody else tired of stupid journalists trying to stir up trouble or create a conflict where there really isn't one?

I mean really... is anybody truly upset that IBM made a bunch of money cuz they threw a bunch of code and developer time at OSS projects?

I don't care how much money they all make, so long as they abide by the GPL in letter, and spirit. In fact, if I thought Microsoft was capable of playing by the rules, I'd even be happy to see them contribute.

[sarcasm]
zomg! money!!! we're all communists though, this can't be right!?!
[/sarcasm]

Re:There was an open source version of Halo?

[truthsearch]

Anybody else tired of stupid journalists trying to stir up trouble or create a conflict where there really isn't one?

Nope, that's why I still read slashdot. ;)

is anybody truly upset that IBM made a bunch of money cuz they threw a bunch of code and developer time at OSS projects?

That's exactly why I don't mind they profit from open source. They contribute. Not only do they contribute code, but many educational articles on various technical details.

No, no, no

[spun]

You have demonstrated at least a passing familiarity with the slashdot ethos. That's why it's so surprising that you don't recognize the simple truth. Individuals who use open source but do nothing to contribute except yelling loudly and incoherently about it's benefits are supporting open source. Because, you know, they're, uh, rebellious non-conformists sticking it to the man. Companies who invest time and money into open source projects are still evil because, um, they're doing it for mercenary reasons. And mercenaries kill people. Which is evil. QED.

Nice Self Serving Sophistry You've Got There

[spun]

No one ever said you had to switch to GPLv3. If you don't like it, don't use it. If you aren't distributing GPLv3 software, it won't even effect you.

A voluntary agreement can not in any conceivable way restrict freedom. It's voluntary, you are free to not enter the agreement. Funny how many people's definition of "freedom" really means freedom for them, not freedom for the other guy. Your position seems to advocate a kind of software socialism for corporations, where programmers are forced to cede control of their own creations in order to benefit another's bottom line.

Re:Nice Self Serving Sophistry You've Got There

[spun]

People are free to tell you whatever they want to. You are free to listen or not. Speech is not capable of "pounding you into the ground." As far as I can tell, there is still much debate over GPLv3 and the "RMS-is-GOD-and-can-do-no-wrong crowd" are a very small minority of open source supporters. In any case, you can always use the GPLv2 version and update it yourself under v2. Just because someone happens to think RMS is god is no reason for you to steal their work. And if there is one thing I know about the RMSIGACDNW crowd, it is that they don't give a rat's ass if you use their software or not.

What "business" are you giving that crowd, anyway? How much are you paying them? Nothing? You mean you're just a whining leach who doesn't want to contribute but wants to dictate how others contribute? Gotcha.