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

Re:Only in /.

[GiovanniZero]

mod parent down, troll

:p

Re:Those who don't understand UNIX...

[grcumb]

How do you tell a GPL advocate? Well, it's someone who reads the GPL. And how do you tell a GPL opponent? It's someone who understands the GPL.

I have mod points, but there's no moderation for stupid. So I'll do more than this deserves and reply to it.

Haha, have your laugh. Pretend any way you like, but your facile accusation is not just juvenile, it amounts to nothing more than 'I know you are but what am I?' - a school yard taunt.

Let's put the freshman humour away and go back to class for a minute. Enlighten us, if you please: What part of the GPL requires everyone who understands it to oppose it?

I'd really like to know, because Richard Stallman did at one point receive a MacArthur Foundation Genius award. And I suspect he understands perfectly what the GPL does. And last I checked, he doesn't oppose it. Nor, for that matter, does Eben Moglen. Nor do most of the smartest people in computer science and software development today. And nor, for that matter, do I.

So, do tell: What part of understanding the GPL results in such loathing?