Top Ten Open Source Innovators

42istheanswer writes "Open source is so much more than Linux these days. A lot is happening beyond the popular operating system. Open source models are thriving in CRM (SugarCRM), messaging (Scalix), and systems management (Zenoss). Datamation has identified ten leading commercial open-source innovators and the projects they are working on in their article, Ten Leading Open Source Innovators."

Comments

Gnus

[Pikoro]

so Some GNUz, IS good gnuz....

Innovations?

[Anonymous Coward]

SugarCRM, Scalix and Zenoss are hardly innovative. Equivalent technologies have been around on IBM's various mainframe systems for nearly 30 years now! Sure, they didn't have flashy GUIs like they do today, but the core concepts were well-established decades ago.

The big battle is usually getting those core concepts to a level where they're applicable, especially on the relatively limited 1960s and 1970s hardware. That's the hard work. Tossing on a GUI, and running on systems equivalent in computer power to 250 S/370s isn't much of an innovation.

Re:Innovations?

[Rachel Lucid]

And while we're at it, Apple isn't innovative. They just made a slick GUI and called it an iPod.

Re:Innovations?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

And while we're at it, Apple isn't innovative. They just made a slick GUI and called it an iPod.

You're kidding? Apple not innovative?

What about spaces? Noone saw anything like that before,
OS X? Noone put a GUI on Unix before!
Tabbed Browsing? First Javascript debugger? I could go on & on.

Apple are leaders - the rest of the industry follow ;-)

Re:Innovations?

[Anonymous Coward]

Slick GUI? Yeah, the "gui" on an iPod really rocks...
 
Shut the fuck up you fucking moron.

Re:Innovations?

[PWill]

Jeez, calm down. Just give your MacBook Pro a kiss, and you will be fine.

Re:Innovations?

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent was Sarcastic! I soo wish they add '+1 Sarcastic' mod option so clueless fanboy's like you don't get your panties in a knot unnecessarily.

Re:Innovations?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unix has had GUI long before Apple even existed

Re:Innovations?

[livewire98801]

So was your parent. . . you fell into the sarchasm while trying to point it out to someone else. Keep it up and you'll get a show on primetime ;)

Re:Innovations?

[gclef]

That sound you may have heard was the joke flying over your head.

Re:Innovations?

[indiejade]

"Unix has had GUI long before Apple even existed"

True, and what Macintosh (Apple) does well is advertise. Unix and linux are the best of both worlds: I think of the platform something like. . . Microsoft OSes without JavaScript and Macintosh OSes without buggy or slow-loading code. I think one of the main reasons for slow or buggy pages/programs is excessive advertising. This is why I think flash media and popups have always been a no-no in elegant/unbugged code.

huh?

[rs79]

"Open source is so much more than Linux these days"

Maybe I'm just old and cranky but I find this really annoying given that my own involvement with what is now called Open Source predates Linux by 15 years.

If it'd said unix I think it would have been more meaningfull. Linux schminux.

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Back in *my* day we had Multics on a GE-645 mainframe and we_liked_it.

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I'm just old and cranky but I find this really annoying given that my own involvement with what is now called Open Source pre-dates Linux by 15 years.

Is that you, Stallman ?

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cry me a river. Waaaaaaaaaa!

Boo hoo hoo. Sob. Poor pitful me.

Venture Funding == Innovation (?!?)

[Wugger]

What do all these stories of open source "innovation" have in common? They all include prominent mention of how much venture money the companies have raised. I can only assume this publication is Straight Out of Silicon Valley (tm).

Re:Venture Funding == Innovation (?!?)

[Anonymous Coward]

It's no wonder venture funding and AJAX go together so well. Both are built of the same nonsense.

Venture capitalism is mostly just a game for rich Californians to play. They toss a small portion of their money around, just to feel important.

AJAX is much the same. It's a game that some web developers play. All they manage to do is partially duplicate the word processors and spreadsheet software that we had back in 1987. Except that what they produce runs at a fraction of the speed as the 20-year-old products, even though hardware today is several thousand times as powerful.

Both are built on a solid foundation of hype and unwarranted publicity. It's no wonder they'd go together so well.

Re:Venture Funding == Innovation (?!?)

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, many of those firms aren't located in silicon valley...

Re:Venture Funding == Innovation (?!?)

[the_womble]

They mean the business is innovative, not the product. This could mean an unusual business model, first to open source, first to market, first to commercialise, etc.

This is linked to why politicians do silly things like pass software patent laws. They understand this type of innovation and want to encourage, they do not understand the invention of new technologies and assume it is solely a side effect of this.

Ideally we would call one thing invention. I have not got a single word description of the other, which is essentially new or clever business practices or models.

Re:Venture Funding == Innovation (?!?)

[tinkertim]

I agree.

Why does anyone have to be 'the best' or 'most innovative' ? This doesn't make free software authors strive to reach sume inane dumbass lists, it makes them pissed (or some I'd imagine rather happy) that once again their efforts didn't get them the attention others are receiving.

It also makes people want to get involved in OSS for what (some think) and (I think) are the wrong reasons. Crappier code [ could ] be the result.

Funding as everyone knows is a double edged sword. Corporate and investment interests often can and will butt heads with the principals of free software developers. I'd rather live on ramen noodles again than deal with 'suits' saying 'we're giving too much away, we need to save some for a commercial release. Yes yes, we need to bait them into getting the commercial version' Ahem, Qlusters? My god if QRM were any more 'baitware' you could go fishing with it.

For practically every need you could have there is free software to fill it. How can you single out only 10? More importantly, why would you? Doesn't this effectually leave you wearing blinders?

Unless one has downloaded, compiled, installed and used 90% of free software across all platforms .. you would not be in any position to write such a waste of disk space, in my opinion anyway. Why can't the motivation to create things be simply that .. make neat stuff and enjoy the fact that you made life just a little easier for someone else?

Why does *everything* alwas have to boil down to money and its commercial use? I think I'm not ranting about OSS anymore, I think this is turning into the world in general. But the two are getting a little too close for comfort, compared to how it was .. anyway.

Flog me if you like, agree with me if you want, do *anything* but take TFA at face value.

Re:Venture Funding == Innovation (?!?)

[AmberBlackCat]

Maybe one of the measures of how good open source is, is whether people would have paid for it if they had to. Actually getting people to spend money on it is an indication of that.

Re:Venture Funding == Innovation (?!?)

[gclef]

I've got to ask, since I was pondering downloading OpenQRM: what don't you like, and what other projects are there out there that do the same thing?

Another open source project to keep an eye on...

[Anonymous Coward]

We recently discovered an open source project that is easily on the leading edge of its industry.

In my opinion there has been a huge gap in open source software covering the employee payroll and time management industry and TimeTrex seems to have stepped up to the plate in a major way.

Our company used to spend over $30,000 a year outsourcing just our payroll to ADP and another $5000-10,0000 a year on time and attendance software. With TimeTrex we were able to consolidate them into one package and eliminate those costs and integration headaches in one fell swoop.

If payroll is a headache at your company, check this project out.

Not impressed with SCALIX

[tenchiken]

I have been pretty under impressed with SCALIX, which really doesn't do anything that Outlook does. Zimbra I think is breaking new ground, but they really need some serious speed boost to make it competitive with outlook. I do think that if the Zimbra folks get mashups right they will leapfrog Outlook and Exchange, one of the weakest areas out there.

I think people complaining here are missing the fact that Linux has had a bitch of a time breaking into the enterprise messaging market. That market really drives out Linux IT shops, and replaces them with expensive exchange servers. The larger a company grows, the more you have to make the executives happy. And nothing makes executives happy like blackberries, integrated email and calendaring.

Re:Not impressed with SCALIX

[jd]

There are a number of groupware packages for Linux, ranging from the trivial to the fairly comprehensive. True, none of them are "there", I don't know of any that are included on any mainstream distribution, and those that I've seen are trying to copy Exchange rather than go to first principles, identify what is actually needed, and then implement wrappers for compatibility. (You can't win a race by following in someone's footsteps. If they know where they're going, the best you can do is come second. If, as often happens in IT, they haven't a clue as to where to go, the more likely outcome is to get totally lost.)

Re:Not impressed with SCALIX

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you really trying to argue with somebody that blatantly confuses a server side solution (Scalix) with a client side application (Outlook)?

Re:Not impressed with SCALIX

[Shadowlore]

SCALIX, which really doesn't do anything that Outlook does.

Hmmm perhaps because SCALIX is server-side and Outlook is client side?

Re:Not impressed with SCALIX

[tenchiken]

No, because I mistyped that. It should have read that SCALIX only does what Echange and Outlook do. No innovation. Just a different code base.

Re:Not impressed with SCALIX

[jd]

Hmmm. I thought the distinction between client-side and server-side had been declared a violation of the RPC convention.

Re:Not impressed with SCALIX

[NoelProf]

I'm impressed with Scalix: Runs in Linux; CLI; Outlook "corporate mode" support; Outlook looking web client that is all AJAXy ; Google stytle search; Works with a thrid party applications that sycs mail and PIM with all major smartphones (Blackberry, Treos, and Windows Mobile.) Great support, solid product improvement demonstrated year after year.

Where's Bram Cohen?

[TheSHAD0W]

If you're talking leading INNOVATORS, Bram Cohen and BitTorrent are notably absent. BitTorrent is IMO absolutely the most novel and fascinating idea that was released straight to open-source. Their funding also ranks up with the other people mentioned. So why were they omitted?

Re:Where's Bram Cohen?

[Nasarius]

Innovator? Novel? I don't know about that. The BitTorrent protocol is extremely simple (it lacks, for example, the ability to batch multiple torrents into a single tracker request), and so is the concept. A large part of its popularity is due to legal reasons, not technical merits. I dunno about you, but I miss AudioGalaxy.

Re:Where's Bram Cohen?

[TheSHAD0W]

It seems simple, and it is, but there's subtlety involved that prevented earlier attempts at the same idea just wouldn't work right. Bram's P2P economy concepts got it working, and working superbly. Nitpicking about features you believe it lacks is missing the point.

Re:Where's Bram Cohen?

[Rakshasa Taisab]

Sometimes the innovation is not in what features you add, but which you remove.

The BitTorrent protocol was such a huge hit not despite its simplicity, but rather because of it. When everyone and their pet hamster can write a client, then it follows that you get incredible diversity in available software for that protocol.

Re:Where's Bram Cohen?

[VE3MTM]

Exactly. BitTorrent does one thing: co-ordinating clients so they can distribute data. Everything else for creating a complete file-sharing system -- search, accounting (enforcing ratios, etc.), authentication, whatever -- can be layered on top of this, but the hard part is taken care of by BT.

Saying that BT is "incomplete" because it doesn't do stuff like that is like saying that a coffee grinder is incomplete because it doesn't also brew the coffee

Re:Where's Bram Cohen?

[Chapter80]

There was nothing innovative about Bram's protocol, other than that it was well integrated into the browser (so that you just click and it runs).

There were plenty of competitive offerings in the market which pre-date the original release of Bit Torrent. In fact, I have a white paper from early 2001 that lists them all, with the pros and cons of each implementation.

Several cool things that BitTorrent does well were all done by others. Turning the client into a server was done by Gnutella (Gnucleus, Bearshare, etc), Kazaa, eDonkey and others.

Pulling one file from multiple sources was done by others. (referred to as "Swarm" technology in some cases.)

Throttling performance based on how much you upload - that was done by others.

Checksums and uploading partials - all done first by others.

Integration with the browser, and tying all these features into one package - that's really the only innovation, as far as I could see.

Calling SugarCRM "open source" is generous

[kimvette]

http://www.vtiger.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=22

Their original SPL was basically a search and replace of "Mozilla" in the MPL, replacing "Mozilla" with "Sugar"

After another group *gasp* dared exercise their rights provided for in the SPL(MPL), they threatened to sue, pissed and moaned, complained because trademarks were removed (Uh, They HAD to remove trademarks for redistribution of a modifief variant to be compliant with your license!)

Since then SugarCRM has NOT been open source; it has been shared source. Here's why:

You cannot derive a new product from SugarCRM; for all practical purposes, the "license" forbids it.

The license allows you to view and modify the source, and extend to it
If you contribute code to the core project, you give all ownership and credits to SugarCRM. OK, fine, I can buy that you give ownership to them, but you should be able to be credited in your code contribution.

If you ever subscribe to the Pro/Enterprise version of Sugar, you agree to waive your rights to use the "Open Source" edition ever again, and are "forbidden" to take your Pro/Enterprise database and import the data into the "Open Source" edition.

I hardly consider that to be open source, or to be in the spirit of open source.

If you need a CRM, I highly recommend vTiger over SugarCRM.

Re:Calling SugarCRM "open source" is generous

[Anonymous Coward]

"You cannot derive a new product from SugarCRM; for all practical purposes, the "license" forbids it."

Besides having to have the "Powered By SugarCRM" logo on your derived product, can you back up your claims by citing specific sections of their license?

Re:Calling SugarCRM "open source" is generous

[ursuspacificus]

From TFA:

Salesforce.com operates in what could be termed a "mixed-source" environment. According to Illuminata analyst Gordon Haff, the line between open source and proprietary can get pretty blurry. "Many open-source licenses don't require you to fully release your own source code," he said. "How far do you have to go to be considered truly open source?"

The answer isn't clear. Is embracing standards and delivering a solid set of APIs enough, or must you release core source code? It's a debate most end users don't care that much about, but those in the developer community can get downright religious about it. According to market-research firm Ovum, SugarCRM makes about two-thirds of its source code available to the open-source community.

Uh... The answer isn't clear?! I dunno... I've read the Open Source Definition [opensource.org], and it seems pretty clear to me.

Gordon Haff is ignorant and Jeff Vance (TFA's Author) is a parrot, not an investigative journalist.

Re:Calling SugarCRM "open source" is generous

[Anonymous Coward]

You cannot derive a new product from SugarCRM; for all practical purposes, the "license" forbids it.

What's this then?

http://www.infoathand.com/

or this?

http://www.c3crm.com/

They seem to be doing just fine without any objections from the Sugar team. (and without stripping the "Powered by SugarCRM" logos)

The Sugar team has been quite supportive of my modification of their product:
http://www.sugarforge.org/projects/table-sugar/

vTiger, however does not openly acknowledge that they have based their product on Sugar, thus the problem.

I have thoroughly evaluated all of these products, and Sugar is far superior to vTiger. The code in vTiger is a mess, Sugar was bad enough, but vTiger is awful, it will only run on php5, severely limiting its usefulness. It has a number of other deal breaking issues as well. They also make a habit of taking code from new versions of the pro version of Sugar and incorporate it into vTiger, calling it their own.

Granted, the "semi-open source" nature of Sugar is frustrating, but the missing modules will eventually be replaced with community versions, and the division of their product into OS, Pro and enterprise version will be moot. The license is not a problem, the missimg modules in the OS version are.

If you need a CRM, I highly recommend SugarCRM over vTiger.

Re:Calling SugarCRM "open source" is generous

[Anonymous Coward]

No he cannot, this is a case of poor reading comprehension.

In particular the poster above is misinterpreting these sections of the SPL:

6.3. Derivative Works.
If You create or use a modified version of this License (which you may only do
in order to apply it to code which is not already Covered Code governed by this
License), You must (a) rename Your license so that the phrases "SugarCRM",
"SPL" or any confusingly similar phrase do not appear in your license (except
to note that your license differs from this License) and (b) otherwise make it
clear that Your version of the license contains terms which differ from the
SugarCRM Public License. (Filling in the name of the Initial Developer, Original
Code or Contributor in the notice described in Exhibit A shall not of themselves be deemed to be modifications of this License.)

II. SugarCRM and logo.

This License does not grant any rights to use the trademarks "SugarCRM" and the "SugarCRM" logos even if such marks are included in the Original Code or Modifications.

However, in addition to the other notice obligations, all copies of the Covered Code in Executable and Source Code form distributed must, as a form of attribution of the original author, include on each user interface screen (i) the "Powered by SugarCRM" logo and (ii) the copyright notice in the same form as the latest version of the Covered Code distributed by SugarCRM, Inc. at the time of distribution of such copy. In addition, the "Powered by SugarCRM" logo must be visible to all users and be located at the very bottom center of each user interface screen. Notwithstanding the above, the dimensions of the "Powered By SugarCRM" logo must be at least 106 x 23 pixels. When users click on the "Powered by SugarCRM" logo it must direct them back to http://www.sugarforge.org./ In addition, the copyright notice must remain visible to all users at all times at the bottom of the user interface screen. When users click on the copyright notice, it must direct them back to http://www.sugarforge.org/

Re:Calling SugarCRM "open source" is generous

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod Parent UP, mod GP DOWN! The GP is misleading and plain wrong in much of its claims.

Re:Calling SugarCRM "open source" is generous

[Chapter80]

Wow.

We were just about to launch into a SugarCRM implementation at our company. Reading this thread, and conducting the associated research with other forums, I've decided to cancel the SugarCRM installation and install vtiger. No feature comparison necessary. No further research necessary. I have hated SugarCRM's philosophy about kinda-sorta-open-source for years. (I didn't know about vtiger.) Goodbye SugarCRM, Welcome vtiger!

We aren't ones to analyze decisions to death. Pick a market leader and move forward. And it's clear that vtiger is a leader, and in my book, SugarCRM has its priorities mixed up.

Re:Calling SugarCRM "open source" is generous

[Anonymous Coward]

I read your links. The rants from SugarCRM people actually came from their CEO! Talk about unstable!! No way would I go near that product!

Re:Calling SugarCRM "open source" is generous

[Galactic Dominator]

That's basically the decision I reached when evaluating CRM solutions when I started with my company 6 months ago. After quite a bit of struggle(vtiger isn't perfect by any means ex see the php code which generates invoices) we finally got a product that is usable and functional. Now if they just get Postgres support done...

Re:Calling SugarCRM "open source" is generous

[Galactic Dominator]

As a Vtiger user, we are quite aware it is based of off Sugar. Vtiger has more functionality than Sugar(at least in the areas for our small/medium retail business) in addition to being fully open. Vtiger runs on php 4 too. Yet you have throughly evaluated it? I highly recommend doing some research before operating the keyboard.

In what way are these open source?

[doctor.jw]

Isn't open source free (as in beer)? The one that caught my eye was "OpenAir" ... which certainly doesn't appear to be in that category (contact us for pricing!).
j

Re:In what way are these open source?

[peektwice]

Yes. If I understand correctly, if it's released under the GNU GPL, then they must give you the source, and you are free to do with it as you please, provided if you modify and re-release it, you also release your source modifications. They may charge a reasonable and customary fee for recovering the cost of distribution. However, they can also charge for support. There are also wolves in sheep's clothing touting themselves as open source, when they merely run on Linux, but are not open, and not free.

Re:In what way are these open source?

[Donniedarkness]

"Open source" doesn't always mean "free". Open source software is simply software that developers have made the source code viewable for.

Re:In what way are these open source?

[abigor]

No, that is incorrect. Under the GPL, they are only required to provide source if you pay for the binary. If you don't pay for the product, they don't have to give source code to you at all. Of course, once you buy it and have the source, you can redistribute it as you wish.

Many GPL products simply provide the source for download for anyone, but that's not a requirement of the license.

Re:In what way are these open source?

[abigor]

No, open source code is not necessarily free as in beer. Pay for the product, get the source as a form of insurance in case the company goes under, or you want to fix bugs or extend the functionality. Open source/free software is not a charity, unless it's a volunteer project.

Re:In what way are these open source?

[chromatic]

Under the GPL, they are only required to provide source if you pay for the binary.

It's actually if they distribute the binary to you. They can charge or not. The GPL only governs redistribution of copyrighted works. It's up to you how you redistribute a work.

Re:In what way are these open source?

[Richard Steiner]

Open source software also generally allows you to modify the source for your own use, and most will also allow you to distribute the modified version (though sometimes with limitations).

Re:In what way are these open source?

[SEMW]

No, open source code is not necessarily free as in beer As I understand it, whilst "open source" is not necessarily freeasinbeer, "Open Source" is. Like the difference between "champaign" and "Champaign": both are fizzy wine, but only the latter is made by traditional methods in the Champaigne region of France.

But anyway; from the OSI definition of Open Source:

The Open Source Definition

Introduction

Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:

1. Free Redistribution:

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

...[etc]

Re:In what way are these open source?

[abigor]

Right, you are of course correct. I was addressing the specific complaint of payment.

Re:In what way are these open source?

[abigor]

Under the GPL, an Open Source license (note the caps), you are only entitled to the source if they distribute the binary to you. They can sell it if they like. Afterwards, you can go ahead and give away the source if you wish. In your own quoted definition, you can see that there's no restriction on how a party chooses to redistribute the code; however, the party receiving the code is not entitled to zero cost - it's up to the distributor. In other words, the license doesn't REQUIRE a fee, but there can be one.

Right now, for example, I'm contracting for a company who sells their code for tens of thousands of dollars under the GPL.

Re:In what way are these open source?

[SEMW]

Hmmm. On further Googling, you appear to be completely right; I was under a misconception. Apologies.

Re:In what way are these open source?

[dodobh]

No, it is free as in speech. Free beer is optional.

Talking of top OSS projects...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

...do you guys realise that an open source project received an Academy Award this year? I find it weird that it hasn't been reported much in the geek news outlets.

Re:Talking of top OSS projects...

[jd]

OpenEXR is a nice piece of work and I believe it is supported on modern Linux desktops. (Now, if only there were cheap monitors and graphics cards that could support it to its full capacity.... What was that about Linux not supporting modern hardware? What about all the hardware that can't support modern Linux?!)

One of the benefits of OpenEXR over other very high dynamic range formats is that it doesn't seem to have the Intellectual Property burden. JPEG2000 doesn't look nearly as inviting and some of the other HDR formats are totally closed. One of the problems is that until it's being widely used on the web and other high-visibility places, it will be seen as an obscure format only of interest to movie studios.

Being better isn't good enough, these days.

Real OSS = Darwin In Action

[queenb**ch]

Open Source software tends to work on a very darwinian model. Yes, there are "category killers" (who wants to code up a new text editor?) but for the most part, when a new "category" of open source application start taking off, it generates a lot of interest. You see about a zillion projects form up on Source Forge. Those that are able to actually produce usually get weeded through based on the quality and features. With price being removed as a deciding factor, it becomes all about how good the product is. Those that are good, survive. Those that aren't, don't. Occasionally, the old stand-bys get replaced.

What I see a lot of is companies, like Second Life (gaming company) who will "open source" part of their product, but not all of it, hoping to garner free work from the open source community. Devs are the backbone of the OSS community. With out someone to sling the code, nothing gets done. Most devs are wise to these tactics, since they're not nearly as new as the marketing poohbahs think they are. Not only does it not draw as well as they'd hoped, but it has a serious backlash. Most devs, myself included, view companies who engage in such tactics with suspicion and refuse to work on the projects even if they become fully open source later.

The other business model I've seen a lot is that the product is "open source" but some how you can never get the stuff to install or work properly unless you pay for them to host the application. This *always* ticks me off and I usually let everyone I know who might be looking for a simliar package not to waste their time. I love my Tivo, and I don't mind paying for it so don't take this the wrong way. This is what I've dubbed the "Tivo business model". If any of you ever downloaded the Tivo open source project, thinking that you might be able to get a working Tivo out of the deal, you know what I'm talking about. Yes, you could eventually get it working if you hacked away at it long enough or you can just buy the thing and get on with your life.

IMHO, if you don't have a working project that I can download for free, install on my own hardware, and get working without having to hack the source code in a major way, you're not really an open source project.

2 cents,

QueenB.

Re:Real OSS = Darwin In Action

[drsmithy]

IMHO, if you don't have a working project that I can download for free, install on my own hardware, and get working without having to hack the source code in a major way, you're not really an open source project.

Translation: if you're trying to make money off it, it's not Open Source.

Re:Real OSS = Darwin In Action

[dbIII]

The other business model I've seen a lot is that the product is "open source" but some how you can never get the stuff to install or work properly unless you pay for them to host the application.

One of the oldest examples of this is the venerable PBS queueing system from NASA and other government agencies which was handed over to a commercial organisation to host. Theoreticly to get the source code you email a contact on a website. In my case this was replied to within a week by a salesman who attempted to sell me the commercial variant for about two months - this was no good to me becuase I had patches to add to get an expensive commercial product to work with it and the people who had extended PBS had never heard of the application I wanted to use with it. After a couple of months and repeated polite requests I still had nothing - and I was polite because I had got hold of a fork produced by people that hit exactly this problem (which had developers of the software I was using on their mailing list) so after the first two weeks was merely curious as to how different the original was.

I am not a US citizen so there wasn't much point complaining of this blatant misuse of a taxpayer funded project and the company granted the distribution rights not sticking to the distribution agreement. - and after two months I was bored with the whole thing and happy with the fork that actually would work for me. Eventually the vendor of the software I was using referred people to the new project (torque) apparently due to the behaviour of the people with the distribution rights of the open source PBS queueing system and then later because it was a much better solution in every way.

Re:Real OSS = Darwin In Action

[turbidostato]

"Translation: if you're trying to make money off it, it's not Open Source."

Retranslation: if you try to bastardize the expression "open source" so you can use it as a buzzword atracting people to your old privative bussiness model, then no, to my eyes it's not open source no matter the distribution license of the bare source code.

Re:Real OSS = Darwin In Action

[Bert64]

So what we need to do, is take these intentionally broken source code releases, fix them up and produce ready to go packages for other people to use. Complete with good documentation, and easy to install packages for common distributions.
Mozilla used to be a huge pain in the ass to build you know.

Re:Real OSS = Darwin In Action

[radarsat1]

This is very similar, but not identical, to the Cedega model, in which you make something very difficult to compile and install, and in addition, when the community produces tools to make it easier for people to accomplish this monolithic task of installing your software, you very strongly _ask_ them to cease and decist, and have, for example, Gentoo remove their nice ebuild for your source.

Re:Real OSS = Darwin In Action

[jimbojw]

IMHO, if you don't have a working project that I can download for free, install on my own hardware, and get working without having to hack the source code in a major way, you're not really an open source project.

I agree - here are 4 things that can kill your OSS project dead if ignored:

1. Functionality - It has to work! (duh)
2. Packaging - It has to be easy to install and run.
3. Documentation - People need to know what the thing does to use it.
4. API - Other OSS devs must be able to hack it.

A lot of new projects spend too much time early on worrying about how the code looks (Architecture) or whether the UI is pretty. In truth, neither of these matter if people can't at least install the thing.

(The preceding list is a paraphrasing of an article titled "Open Source Software Killers")

Re:Real OSS = Darwin In Action

[XO]

"With price being removed as a deciding factor, it becomes all about how good the product is. Those that are good, survive. Those that aren't, don't. "

  In that case, there wouldn't BE any open source software. Or at least very little of it. Nothing good has come of open source, except for the Linux kernel, since RMS spent all his time writing the GNU utilities.

Re:Real OSS = Darwin In Action

[XO]

...and if you want people that aren't total nerds using your software, then people should spend MORE time designing their UI than anything else that they are doing right now.

Re:Real OSS = Darwin In Action

[XO]

Both comments appear to be saying the exact same thing, there.

QueenB doesn't understand "Open Source" in any way, shape, or form.

Re:Real OSS = Darwin In Action

[Deagol]

Sure he does. More specifically, he knows the spirit of open source licenses, and he gets miffed when companies *just* barely comply to the letter of the licenses to maximize their benefit from using an open source license while at the same time minimizing the benefits the rest of the community get.

Re:Real OSS = Darwin In Action

[michield]

if you don't have a working project that I can download for free, install on my own hardware, and get working without having to hack the source code in a major way, you're not really an open source project. I think that's not entirely fair. I run an open source project and spend many, fun, hours on it. However, I work on my particular Linux system, and I make it work as well as I can for me, and I don't have the funds to buy the entire *nix/apple/ms spectrum of software and hardware, so I can't make sure it works out of the box on all of the other flavours around.

So, if you can't get my project to run on your system, hack away, feed back the diffs and you help out others, apart from yourself. Eventually, on my project, I do my best, but there's a limit into what I can achieve.

Still, I do think my project is an open source project and working fairly ok.

Re:Real OSS = Darwin In Action

[XO]

Open Source is not about everyone getting all the software for free, which is what QueenB believes.

Re:Real OSS = Darwin In Action

[queenb**ch]

I've seen a lot of projects that you couldn't get working on *any* platform. I'll go back to my Tivo example. The Tivo OSS project didn't include a lot of proprietary code which was required in order to get the device to function "as advertised". Now, I'm not knocking Tivo for wanting to keep their proprietary code a secret. I'm knocking them for wanting to keep it a secret and still call themselves "open source".

2 more cents,

QueenB.

Re:Real OSS = Darwin In Action

[indiejade]

Interesting argument. How much of the "work" do you consider to be "end user" vs. "developers" with (for example) pet projects? And what of your consideration about hosting? When hosting is taken into consideration there are almost always a myriad of factors that change in the context of text vs. pictures, vs (for example) "streaming video"; I'm not quite understanding this Tivo analogy.

IMHO, open source is just open source. It's analogous to watching an episode of, say, The Colbert Report and being able to read the transcript, as it was spoken, online. Some of it might be scripted, but the best scripting is just accidential. eek

Re:Real OSS = Darwin In Action

[queenb**ch]

If you don't understand the Tivo analogy, then you never tried to download the Open Source TIVO project and get it work. There were big freaking giant chunks of the application that weren't included in the OSS version that were required in order to get it function. Now, please see my earlier comment. I'm not bashing them for keeping their proprietary code private. I'm bashing them for doing this while insisiting (at the time) that they were an open source project.

If your project deliberately excludes code necessary to make it work in order to get me to purchase something from your company, YOU ARE NOT OPEN SOURCE.

2 more cents,

QueenB.

Re:Real OSS = Darwin In Action

[queenb**ch]

It is entirely fair. If I have to tweak a few things here an there to get it working, that's not a big deal. I did say "hack the source code in a major way". If I have to write whole libs, etc. in order to make it work because you deliberately left them out in order to keep anyone from being able to "do it themselves", you are not an open source project. I'm not looking for an open source project because I want to buy your application as an appliance or as a hosted service.

2 more cents,

QueenB.

Re:Real OSS = Darwin In Action

[indiejade]

I don't necessarily disagree. Probably the missing "chunks" were part of advertisements.

OSS -- the Internet itself will never be free from advertisements, just as public television or radio airwaves are not free from commercial or political interests.

The difference, I think, comes from the idea that there should be or is a monetary difference between importance of the three: free, commercial, or political info -- monetary being the key word. If you want/expect free info/code, you're likely to get what you pay for: essentially nothing.

BUY BUY BUY, now... SELL!

[spoonyfork]

That list reads more like a pump and dump stock tip email. Who's getting paid here?

Re:BUY BUY BUY, now... SELL!

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, but true. You can bet that if we were discussing the 10 most innovative proprietary pieces of software that every reply would be along those same lines.

Another open source project to outsource.

[Anonymous Coward]

"If payroll is a headache at your company, check this project out."

So this package will make me a more effective outsourcer?

Hmmm

[bconway]

I can't seem to find ESR on that list. Maybe I missed it?

Where's P2P?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the fact that P2P file-sharing predates Bram even though it wasn't called that.

Re:Where's P2P?

[TheSHAD0W]

P2P certainly did. Using P2P for swarming download amplification? That's another story. It had been tried before, but it took Bram's genius to make it work.

Re:Where's P2P?

[Nasarius]

Using P2P for swarming download amplification? That's another story. It had been tried before, but it took Bram's genius to make it work.

I was using eDonkey2000 long before BitTorrent showed up. At an abstract level, they work in an almost identical manner: the client gets some metadata, which is used to find multiple peers with the data you want. BitTorrent trades search and some other features in favor of semi-decentralization.

Re:Where's P2P?

[XO]

Actually, it took hardware situations to make that useful.

In days gone by (dialup) the vast majority of people were connecting using a pipe that had a single bi-directional pipeline that went the same speed both ways. This changed with the advent of 56k modems that were 56kbps down, 28kbps up. The earliest file transfer technology just transferred a single file in one direction at a time. Back in the late 80's, possibly early 90's, someone developed a bi-directional file transfer protocol: You could upload a file to a bulletin board, at the same time you were downloading a file from the same bulletin board (or other user). However, just having a differing speed on the up/down pipe was not the only factor. Packetized transmission, allowing multiple uses of the same pipes, which was also invented way before that difference in hardware speeds had to be applied to the equation as well.

The reason why eDonkey, bittorrent, and others works, is because of BOTH of those things: You have one pipe, that can be connected to multiple places simultaneously, AND has wildly differing up/down speeds. I can upload at 384kbps, but I can download at 10.0Mbps. A similar thing could've been done with T1/T3 connections, which were capable of multiple inbound connections at 1Mbps, equalling a total of much higher when you added them together. The only reason that it didn't appear back in the early 80's was because not many people had their own multi-pipe connection that could be hooked up to many sources simultaneously.

Bram didn't do a damn thing but apply the existing software to the new hardware conditions.

Re:Where's P2P?

[burris]

The main reason the BT is fast and ed2k is slow is because BT is not a huge decentralized network with search.

In ed2k and any other similar system like gnutella or kazaa people are searching for old files that don't have many downloaders. That is strike #1. What really kills it is the fact that the distribution of files on such networks follows a power law. Odds are, whatever you want is only on a server that has a crapload of files that lots of other people want, leading to very long queues.

By contrast, BT has no search for old stuff so people tend to join "fresh" torrents. Then, everyone on the torrent is pretty much only transferring that file instead of "sharing" a huge library of stuff. This has been mitigated somewhat by multiple torrent downloading clients but it still holds pretty well.

Finally, BT has become very popular with *publishers* because anyone can setup their own tracker and control their own torrents instead being forced to join some big huge network with lots of other stuff. This has also led to higher quality since the operators of trackers/indexes can patrol the torrents.

Open Source?

[eklitzke]

AFAICT the software is only "free" as in beer.

Re:Open Source?

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

How hard did you look?

http://sourceforge.net/projects/timetrex/

no cigar

[Anonymous Coward]

oh please, the *way* BT does file sharing is simply amazing compared to the earlier competition. It IS innovative, give them some props there

You forgot Digium / Asterisk!

[mikespice]

They forgot Digium, the Asterisk company. Its hard to imagine a list of open source innovations that doesn't include Asterisk!

Not one of them has come close to RMS.

[anwyn]

Not one of these organization has made 1/10th the contribution of RMS.

• RMS created gcc. Without gcc there would be no LINUX or BSD. Most of the utilities in the article would be impossible without gcc. Who was the original author of gcc? RMS.
• RMS created most of the GNU utilities without which most of GNU lINUX and BSD would be worthless.
• RMS was the first to proclaim the need for a free OS platform. He was the first to try to make such a platform a practical reality. (GNU).
• RMS created the GPL.

There is no one who has made contributions to the Free software and/or "open source" software communities equal to that of RMS.

This includes LINUS.

I realize that RMS can be idealogical, stubborn and hard to deal with, but the fact remains that in spite of this, or perhaps because of it, no one has made as great a contribution.

Re:Not one of them has come close to RMS.

[dbIII]

There is starting a project (emacs macros written for another text editor) and finishing a project (emacs written in C to behave like the original macros that were written by RMS). Like it or not things are a team effort and we really don't need to hero worship people - it's even counterproductive sometimes. The GPL was a huge contribution but linux took a lot more effort even if it was dependant on it's existance on a decent licence and the chance to easily collaborate on the net. For various reasons gnu didn't get a lot of collaboration happening and all the gnu projects (like gcc) are really run by other people these days.

Re:Not one of them has come close to RMS.

[Abattoir]

What did RMS *INNOVATE* though?

gcc is a C compiler. There were C compilers around before he wrote gcc.

Most of the GNU utilities have closed source equivalents on other Unix platforms.

Doesn't the BSD license predate the GPL? I fail to see what is innovative about the license itself anyway.

Re:Print version..

[Sorthum]

Open Source may largely be available for free, but the ads do go to show that the bills still have to get paid. I wish like crazy that there were a better way to make money off of open source rather than charging like crazy for support or constant maintenance. Closed source companies provide craptastic support in many cases, but their licensing is more or less a permit to print money...

So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what? Why are there so many millions of "Top Ten" thises and "Top Ten" thats. If for once instead of making a list of "Top Tens" you actually think to make something useful, that would be an accomplishment in its self.

Open Source != Free Software

[DrJimbo]

Do you understand the difference between "open source software" and "free software"?

By your description SugarCRM is not free software but it certainly sounds like it is open source. Likewise, it sounds like SugarCRM is keeping to the spirit of open source but is not keeping to the spirit of free software.

Re:Open Source != Free Software

[AlXtreme]

I'm afraid you are misinformed, and those that moderated you up are misinformed too. SugarCRM certainly doesn't conform to the OSI definition (redistribution of modified versions), and therefore isn't "open source software".

It is a wide misconception that open source != free software. In a sense, they are two movements that both emphasize different sides of the same coin. There is a problem with the term "open source" being used as a marketing tool for products not adhering to the proper definition, but the same could apply for the term "free software".

Re:Open Source != Free Software

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with the SugarCRM license is that it deeply cuts into "Free as in Freedom". You can't fork the project if you decide that the Sugar developers are out to lunch. The SugarCRM equivalent of IceWeasel is impossible because of the way they've mixed their software licensing with their trademark restrictions. Yes, I can modify the source code, and I can distribute patches and modules but if the SugarCRM development team makes a move that wipes out all my work, what I can't do is create a fork of SugarCRM and continue my development. Something like this actually happened about a year ago. There was a prolific developer who put all sorts of cool stuff into the Open Source version of SugarCRM. He eventually gave up in frustration after the SugarCRM development team released a series of "updates", each of which eliminated the ability of his modules to function.

So no, this isn't a "Free as in beer" problem.

Re:Open Source != Free Software

[DrJimbo]

News of my misconception is greatly exaggerated.

You may be correct that I wasn't using the OSI definition of "Open Source". I was using the definition used by the person who is perhaps the most important proponent of Open Source, Linus Torvalds. I believe the definition he uses is aptly described by the Linux Information Project as:

Open source software is software whose source code is freely available (i.e., without any requirement for payment or any other obstacles) for anyone to inspect and study

That page goes on to describe the real world differences that now exist between Free Software (FS) and Open Source Software (OSS). Since you think any such difference is a misconception, I feel obligated to bring you up to speed on the current status of these two very different concepts.

The best way to see the difference between OSS and FS is to look at the ongoing controversy over the anti-tivoisation clauses in the new GPL-v3. The Tivo uses GPL-v2 code (especially the Linux kernel) in a way that complies with the letter of the GPL-v2 but violates the spirit with which that license was written. The problem is that even though owners/users of the device are able to see the source code and are able to send bug fixes and modifications upstream, they are not allowed to run modified versions of the code on their own device unless the modifications are blessed by the Tivo corporation.

Torvalds, the chief architect of the Linux kernel sees no problem with the Tivo. He claims that he is only interested in the Open Source aspects of the GPL and since the source is still visible to users/owners and since they can contribute modifications upstream then from a pragmatic, engineering viewpoint, Tivo is using his code in the spirit of Open Source and that is perfectly okay with him. I don't agree with Torvalds, but that is his position.

But there has always been a difference between OSS and FS even before the advent of the Tivo. The (IMO misguided) inventors and advocates of OSS "movement" claim there is no difference but the FS advocates who predated them have always insisted that Open Source misses the point of Free Software.

In light of all of this evidence that directly contradicts your claim that OSS == FS, I can only conclude that if you are not an anti-Free Software shill you are the one who is badly misinformed. I hope I've made some small step in helping you correct this problem.

Re:Open Source != Free Software

[DrJimbo]

I fully agree with almost everything you said. I even agree with your claim that this is not a "Free as in beer" problem. But I never claimed it was so that seems to be a bit of a red herring. The Free vs. Open Source debate has never been about "free as in beer".

ISTM that SugarCRM could be a poster child for the difference between Free Software and Open Source Software. You seem to agree with me. SugarCRM is Open Source software that is not free.

Re:Open Source != Free Software

[AlXtreme]

Haha, an anti-Free Software shill. That's a good one. There's no point to troll, lets just stick to the facts and maybe you'll get a wider perspective on this topic. Or maybe I'll become informed. Or both, which would be twice as good.

I try to see both sides of the FLOSS-coin. If you want to define Open Source, you'll have to start at the source of that term. ESR, as we know, is the main proponent, with people like Bruce Perens and Linus who hopped on at the start. He is one of the people behind OSI, and the OSI definition is as close as you'll get to a formal definition of "open source". A few lines that Linus once said aren't enough as a formal definition. And by this definition and comparing this with (for example) the DFSG, what is Open Source is Free Software. SugarCRM is neither.

The Linux kernel is licensed under the GPLv2. Linus' opinion on the hoops Tivo has set up for it's users is irrelevant, IMHO. According to the GPLv2, users are allowed to use the Tivo-modified kernel source in exactly the same way as the vanilla source. What Tivo allows its users to do isn't relevant to Linus because Tivo adheres to the GPLv2. The question then becomes: even if he didn't agree with Tivo, does it matter? He wouldn't be able to do anything about it, because the GPLv2 doesn't state anything about the openness (or freeness) of the device the free software is running on. Ergo, even if Linus was a FS-proponent, he wouldn't have been able to do a thing about it.

The point I'm trying to make, is that the statement of OSS ?= FS depends both on what you are comparing and your definition of OSS and FS! If you simply look at the law, the rights in both definitions, then they are equal (if they are not, feel free to put me on track). If you look at the philosophy, they emphasize different rights. Saying OSS != FS is just as misinformed as saying OSS == FS (and note I didn't state the latter). It's a matter of what you are comparing, rights or philosophy.

Now having said this, I find both terms to be vague and ambiguous so I tend to FLOSS myself. But I must admit that I write code to reach a technical goal and not a philosophical one, and am perfectly happy with the GPLv2 license. Once the GPLv3 has been tested in court I'll try to wrap my misinformed head around it. In the mean time, my answer to OSS ?= FS is simple: Mu. The question needs to be unasked.

Re:Open Source != Free Software

[Per Abrahamsen]

> News of my misconception is greatly exaggerated.

No it is not.

> I was using the definition used by the person who is perhaps the most important proponent
> of Open Source, Linus Torvalds. I believe the definition he uses is aptly described by the
> Linux Information Project as:

Never heard of LINFO before, the site seems very amateurish. Did you write it?

You don't argue for why you believe Linus shares your misconceptions, I haven't seen anything from him that indicates that.

[ More deeply confused bladder deleted ]

There are philosophical differences between the FSF and OSI, and occasionally they have disagreed about specific licenses, but since you don't seem to agree on the OSI definition (despite them inventing the term) and instead rely on extrapolating from some page-rank four page, it doesn't really matter.

> I can only conclude that if you are not an anti-Free Software shill you are the one who
> is badly misinformed

Given your basic misconceptions, it doesn't really matter what you conclude.

But it would nice if you stopped spreading them.

--
Per Abrahamsen
FSF associate member since 2003, registered Linux user #367.

Re:Open Source != Free Software

[DrJimbo]

AlXtreme exclaimed:

Haha, an anti-Free Software shill. That's a good one.

The debate over the GPL-v3 has brought a lot of shills out of the wood work who have been using lies and deception to try to prevent the creation of the GPL-v3. I call these people anti-Free Software shills.

AlXtreme further opined:

Linus' opinion on the hoops Tivo has set up for it's users is irrelevant, IMHO [...] even if Linus was a FS-proponent, he wouldn't have been able to do a thing about it.

I very much disagree with you here. I think Torvalds' opinion on the Tivo is extremely important. His main objection to the GPL-v3 is the anti-tivoization clauses it contains. Second, if Torvalds were a FS-proponent, then there is something very simple he could do regarding the Tivo: he could stop fighting the GPL-v3 and work on getting the clearance necessary to start releasing the Linux kernel under the GPL-v3.

AlXtreme asked:

If you simply look at the law, the rights in both definitions, then they are equal (if they are not, feel free to put me on track).

I've already tried to put you on track. I've already told you that the Tivo gives us a pertinent, real world example of open source software that is not free. Much of the debate over the GPL-v3 is centered on the real world differences between FS and OSS.

The loophole that Tivo exploited in the GPL-v2 has reduced that license from being a FOSS license to merely being an OSS license. The Free Software foundation is fixing that loophole in their GPL-v3. One of the most important users of the GPL-v2 objects to the proposed changes in the GPL-v3 because he would prefer for the Linux kernel to be OSS and not FS.

This is a real and relevant debate that will affect the entire FOSS community for decades to come.

Re:Open Source != Free Software

[DrJimbo]

Per Abrahamsen said:

You don't argue for why you believe Linus shares your misconceptions, I haven't seen anything from him that indicates that.

If by my "misconceptions" you mean my statement that FS != OSS, then you must be the only member of the FSF who slept though the entire debate over whether the Linux kernel devs should consider using the GPL-v3.

For example here is an article from Business Week that states:

On one side is Richard Stallman and his Free Software Foundation. When Stallman says "free" he doesn't mean price, he means freedom. He believes all software should be freely available to be modified by the public. And for him, this is nothing short of a moral fight.

On the other is Linus Torvalds, the father of Linux. He and others in his open-source camp believe that freely sharing code simply produces the best software, but if other people want to hide their code, that's fine, too.

Torvalds has repeatedly stated that he is okay with the Tivo using his code. He says the code is available for the user/owners to see and they can contribute changes upstream and this is all that matters to him. He calls this "Open Source" which is different from "Free Software". Free Software forces people who redistribute code to also redistribute the four freedoms.

Here is a page from the FSF which you claim to belong to. In it, Richard Stallman says:

: Linus Torvalds objects, with an irrational kind of stubbornness, to one of our goals. Namely, preventing tivoisation. He wants people to be able to tivoise the products that you use, and thus take away your freedom.

This should not be surprising. Linus Torvalds never supported the Free Software movement. He sort of accidentally drifted into making a contribution to the Free Software community, but not because he ever supported our goals. And so he has actually said that he is against our aims of defending freedom for all users. What can you do?

Well, he doesn't have to use it if he doesn't want to.

Torvalds explains this by claiming he is for Open Source Software, not Free Software. That's fine. He has the right to support whatever kind of license suits his fancy. But my mind boggles to think that a member of the FSF since 2003 is totally oblivious to this well known difference of opinion.

Re:Open Source != Free Software

[AlXtreme]

The debate over the GPL-v3 has brought a lot of shills out of the wood work who have been using lies and deception to try to prevent the creation of the GPL-v3. I call these people anti-Free Software shills.

How could anyone prevent the creation of a software license? Feel free to disagree with me, but please agree with my right to state my opinions (without having to resort to name calling, even if they go against your own opinions).

I very much disagree with you here. I think Torvalds' opinion on the Tivo is extremely important. His main objection to the GPL-v3 is the anti-tivoization clauses it contains. Second, if Torvalds were a FS-proponent, then there is something very simple he could do regarding the Tivo: he could stop fighting the GPL-v3 and work on getting the clearance necessary to start releasing the Linux kernel under the GPL-v3.

The interesting thing about this Tivo/DRM/GPLv3 debate is that it is fairly recent. Was OSS then more equal to FS before the whole GPLv3/Tivo-debate (should I start to call it schism?).

From my point of view however, it is the FSF that is redefining its definition of software freedom: from the freedom to view/modify/distribute software to the controlling the hardware that should run said free software. Isn't it arrogant of the FSF to force compliance outside the realm of software? Shouldn't we rename the Free Software Foundation to the Free Soft- and Hardware Foundation? If a certain company doesn't want to let me run my Free Software on their machine, does my software then cease to be Free? We're going rather off topic here, but I'm trying to follow your lead (SugarCRM isn't open source. Just admit it and we can go grab a beer :)

Also, I don't see Linus fighting the GPLv3, I merely see him disagreeing that the GPLv2 needs fixing, and I do wonder why the FSF doesn't take the moral high-ground and let Linus be. If he doesn't want to be saved, why force him? The FSF wants to alter its license and definition of freedom, not the other way around. Although I see the FSF point to OSS and Linus as 'heretics', is it so strange that certain developers draw the line at the software-level, like the FSF has done in the past?

Re:Open Source != Free Software

[DrJimbo]

Your most recent post has several harsh, unfair mischaracterizations.

I do wonder why the FSF doesn't take the moral high-ground and let Linus be. If he doesn't want to be saved, why force him?

The FSF has consistently taken the high moral ground. They have always said that Torvalds (and everyone one else) has a right to use any license they choose for the software they write. The FSF even helped Tivo develop the loophole that let Tivo adhere the the letter of the GPLv2 while violating its spirit.

The FSF has not tried to force Torvalds to change to the GPLv3. What I object to is the anti-GPLv3 FUD that Torvalds launched. For example, he completely mis-read the anti-DRM provisions of an earlier version of the GPLv3 and claimed that everyone would have have to give up their private signing keys. This led to the "OMG! Linus can't sign his kernels" furore. Torvalds later retracted this outlandish claim but refrained from undoing the damage he had caused.

Torvalds choose to very publicly criticize the GPLv3 without first carefully reading it or sharing his criticism with the FSF (who would have helped him corrected his errors). The FSF did not respond in kind. How can you possibly interpret these events as the FSF relinquishing the high moral ground?

The FSF wants to alter its license and definition of freedom, not the other way around.

It is true that the FSF wants to fix the GPL now that the Tivo exploit is in the wild, but it is not true that the FSF is changing their definition of freedom. Their intent has been to make the GPL the least restrictive license possible that ensures that re-distributors are required to pass on the four freedoms. This has not changed.

Although I see the FSF point to OSS and Linus as 'heretics', ...

This is over the top and unfair. The FSF has not called OSS or Torvalds 'heretics'. Your saying so falsely implies that the FSF is filled with evangelical, religious-like zeal. If you have even a shred of evidence to support your absurd implication, please provide it.

Isn't it arrogant of the FSF to force compliance outside the realm of software?

I disagree with your premise that the FSF is trying to force compliance outside the realm of software. [We stopped beating our wives years ago.] The anti-tivoization clauses of the GPLv3 prevent re-distributors from using a combination of hardware and software to thwart the intent of the GPL by not passing on the freedoms they enjoyed when they received the software.

As I have said many times elsewhere, even the Tivo is hardware compatible with the GPLv3. In an ACM article, Jim Barton, the Tivo CTO says:

Each TiVo DVR includes a secure microprocessor to which are delegated all public-key-based operations. This secure microprocessor contains a unique public/private key pair for each DVR, so that there are no global secrets for DVR authentication.

Therefore, all Tivo need do to become GPLv3 compatible is to share the private key that belongs to each Tivo device with the owner of that device. No hardware changes would be required. Nor would this compromise their security model unless you insist that the Tivo owners are a security risk to their own machines (and no one else's).

How could anyone prevent the creation of a software license?

I would accomplish the task by spreading alarmist lies and misunderstandings about the license (many of which you, AlXtreme, have repeated in your most recent post). Then I would get a group of prominent and influential members of the FOSS community to sign a position paper outlining the "Dangers and Problems" with the new license, concluding with:

Re:Open Source != Free Software

[AlXtreme]

This is over the top and unfair. The FSF has not called OSS or Torvalds 'heretics'. Your saying so falsely implies that the FSF is filled with evangelical, religious-like zeal. If you have even a shred of evidence to support your absurd implication, please provide it.

Having met Stallman and his evangelical method of presenting Free Software first hand, I don't have a doubt that he sees what he's doing as a near-religious crusade. He might make jokes about his saint-hood, but I sometimes wonder if he's started to believe in them. I sometimes wonder if Open Source would exist at all, if it weren't for his preaching.

I don't see anyone prevent anyone else from making a license, but I do see people like yourself unwilling to deal with criticism ("All Lies! We are the true religion! Our God of Freedom will bring salvation!"). The zeal of certain individuals does more harm than good, in my opinion. I don't have a doubt that the GPLv3 will someday be finished, I see the reasons the FSF is making it and I agree with some of them. I might even consider using it myself. But until that time, I stand by my opinion that FS ?= OSS depends on what you are comparing in both camps.

And SugarCRM still is neither :)

Not one of them has come close to the RMS field.

[Anonymous Coward]

"RMS created gcc. Without gcc there would be no LINUX or BSD."

That may apply to Linux, but not BSD. There were also 'C' compilers before GCC.

We don't need no stinking badges!

[scarolan]

I have an installation of SugarCRM "Open Source" on my laptop that I am using for evaluation purposes. I attempted to install a plugin created by a developer, and somehow it modified the code that displays the SugarCRM logo image on every page. All of a sudden, I was completely locked out of the system. I could no longer log in, even to disable the plugin that I had installed. The error message "Please replace the SugarCRM logos" kept popping up every time. So I Googled around a bit and found this article about "Badgeware":

http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=867

Apparently this "feature" was added into the code to try and prevent companies like vTiger from doing exactly what the parent poster said - exercise their rights under the "Sugar Public License". You can't even post the word "vTiger" on their forums without it being censored:

http://sugarcrm.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20207

There are lots of companies trying to jump on the open source bandwagon, but not many that actually stick with a "real" open source license like the GPL.

Re:We don't need no stinking badges!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an installation of SugarCRM "Open Source" on my laptop that I am using for evaluation purposes. I attempted to install a plugin created by a developer, and somehow it modified the code that displays the SugarCRM logo image on every page. All of a sudden, I was completely locked out of the system. I could no longer log in, even to disable the plugin that I had installed. The error message "Please replace the SugarCRM logos" kept popping up every time. So I Googled around a bit and found this article about "Badgeware":

http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=867

Apparently this "feature" was added into the code to try and prevent companies like vTiger from doing exactly what the parent poster said - exercise their rights under the "Sugar Public License". You can't even post the word "vTiger" on their forums without it being censored:

http://sugarcrm.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20207

There are lots of companies trying to jump on the open source bandwagon, but not many that actually stick with a "real" open source license like the GPL.

This is quite common in open-source php projects and is not at all unreasonable:

http://www.simplemachines.org/about/license.php

http://www.phpbb.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=518524

(there are plenty more common examples)

It is generally frowned upon to to use someone else's code without acknowledging it. I think it is perfectly reasonable.

At a minimum one should at least get the original author's poermission to modify or remove any copyright notices, regardless of license. It is a case of common courtesy.

Re:We don't need no stinking badges!

[T0mWil5on]

Thanks for posting those links.

We use SugarCRM in a light-to-medium-duty manner at the office and were considering recommending it to certain customers.

That will not happen.

Their logo protection locking legitimate customers out screams ineptitude and the word-filtering of "vTiger" in their blogs is both petty and childish.

Open Source Business Intelligence

[alxtoth]

Some may call "Business Intelligence" an oxymoron, the open source project Mondrian is nicely packaged under http://www.pentaho.com/ (added ETL, scheduler, portal, and presentations are written in a language the audience would expect it). The open-source analytic engine called Mondrian is quite good, can serve XMLA (hint: MS Analytic Services). With little time and luck, it might become worthy competitor to Cognos & Business Objects & MSAS.

This is crap

[Aaron Isotton]

TFA is total crap. Out of the 10 projects I've heard of 2 (KVM and MontaVista), and I'd hardly call any of them (except maybe KVM) even remotely "innovative". They just happen to be what venture capitalists think is profitable - virtualization and enterprise "management" software. Actually most of them aren't even real products but "platforms" or "frameworks" which can only be described in buzzwords. Quote:

[bla bla] software helps project-based organizations quantify the nature of each engagement in terms of the resources needed to complete the project and the final value to the organization's bottom line.

What the hell is that supposed to mean anyway?

The real strength of open source is its technological superiority in some fields (e.g. LAMP, Mozilla, some open source kernels), new approaches in development (the "distributed development" model) and some technological innovations (BitTorrent etc), but definitely not in "enterprise software".

Re:Print version..

[Bert64]

At least you can get support if you want it, or you can use it for free if you dont want/need support... You can also buy support from multiple places in many cases.
With most commercial software as you said, you pay for it whether you like it or not, and if the one vendor provides poor or no support than you have no alternative.

'Innovation'

[kahei]

The word 'innovation' has a funny meaning in OS, doesn't it? Zenoss is a Tivoli clone that now "claims it provides 80% of the functionality of the big offerings". rPath is another virtualizer. Sugar CRM is another CFM system. Linux is a copy of Unix. Even Frozen Bubble is a copy of Puzzle Bobble! They couldn't come up with their own puzzle game??

COM, Java, Civilization -- those were innovative. .NET, Emacs, Populous -- those I'd call incrementally innovative, not big paradigm shifts but definitely 'new content'. The OSS clone that currently seems to have to exist behind (usually about 2-3 versions behind) every successful piece of large scale commercial software -- not innovative. Useful, sure. Worth working on, sure. But innovation is where you do something _new_.

Yeah, blah blah blah, linux has more innovation in its little finger that Microsoft has in its whole bloated body, I'm a troll, etc etc.

Re:'Innovation'

[superangrybrit]

I agree. There's nothing innovative about any of these startups.

Re:'Innovation'

[gosand]

The OSS clone that currently seems to have to exist behind (usually about 2-3 versions behind) every successful piece of large scale commercial software -- not innovative. Useful, sure. Worth working on, sure. But innovation is where you do something _new_.

Bittorrent. But not on this list, because this list was more about "10 startup companies someone hopes will succeed". There are truly innovative products out there, but in essence, you are right - most are just incremental improvements on an existing product. You could argue the Ferrari Enzo is just an incremental improvement on the first automobile.

Re:'Innovation'

[Pantero Blanco]

Linux is a copy of Unix. Even Frozen Bubble is a copy of Puzzle Bobble! They couldn't come up with their own puzzle game??

Most commercial products are clones, too, even the successful ones. Every Unix-based operating system around is a "copy of Unix". Linux and BSD are more scalable than any other Unix that I know of; they can run on a huge number of architectures, they can be embedded, and they're the best OSes for webservers that I know of (Solaris is great too, but hey, it's now open source as well). Complaining about Frozen Bubble being a clone is ridiculous, considering it's just a timewaster included for entertainment; that's like complaining that Microsoft didn't make up their own card game instead of using Solitaire.

COM, Java, Civilization -- those were innovative. .NET, Emacs, Populous -- those I'd call incrementally innovative, not big paradigm shifts but definitely 'new content'. The OSS clone that currently seems to have to exist behind (usually about 2-3 versions behind) every successful piece of large scale commercial software -- not innovative. Useful, sure. Worth working on, sure. But innovation is where you do something _new_.

I see you managed not to mention Apache and Firefox, which doesn't surprise me. Apache was the first webserver that I really consider "usable", and still holds the majority of that market. Firefox innovated after MS declared IE "mature" and stopped updating it, finally forcing them to work on it again.

Yeah, blah blah blah, linux has more innovation in its little finger that Microsoft has in its whole bloated body, I'm a troll, etc etc.

I don't think you're a troll, but you seem to be ignoring whatever doesn't fit your view.

Re:'Innovation'

[XO]

I think Populous was the first God-game. Populous is from 1989, Civ 1 is from 1991.

Re:'Innovation'

[dodobh]

There was oh, Perl. And this little thing called IP. And a few other protocols, like, say, SMTP and HTTP. COM is merely the Windows version of RPC. cfengine, Puppet, config, BCFG2 ...

What you see referred to often is because "enterprises" want the fancy software (and need it in some cases).

Re:'Innovation'

[higuita]

Even Frozen Bubble is a copy of Puzzle Bobble! They couldn't come up with their own puzzle game??

check liquid wars... its a game not copied from anyone, its very fun to play... it just have 2 complains about it... its background graphics and maps resolutions could be ALOT better and the "target" isnt controled by the mouse

Re:'Innovation'

[roine]

That's because OpenSource is really about commodity software.

Linux is the commodity Unix kernel; Mozilla is the commodity HTML renderer. Each of these has reached a commodity stage where there is no innovation anymore.

My professional product constantly get chased by the OpenSource competitors. This keeps me on my toes and keeps me innovating. My customers buy my product because of this innovation.

It's really a win-win situation: I get paid because I provide new and innovative stuff, my customers gets innovations nobody would have bothered with without getting paid, and whenever the features reach a commodity stage I happily contribute them back to the OpenSouce community. This OpenSource body of code is then used by all vendors as a way of sharing a stable bugfixed commodity codebase. People who don't want bleeding edge can have an all-free 'gratis' version. The OSS version is stable, gray and a little boring and if it breaks they get to keep both pieces.

My primary desktop OS, Mac OS X, is a prime example. It's an OpenSource (commodity) kernel with lots of excellent innovative apps and libraries built on-top. I happily pay Apple for that. Some people think Ubuntu is good enough - their choice.

In common:

[Anonymous Coward]

1. All projects have received venture of several millions of dollars (Northern Venture Partners)
2. All projects have a CEO.
3. It is hard to understand what each project actually does.
4. The source is available. In the basement. Near the sign "beware of the leopard".

So the conclusion is obvious:
There are already commercial applications that do this sort of thing.
These Open Source Innovations are here just to discourage an Open Source implementation of it, under the rationale "it's done already, and with high funding".
So it's just the commercial apps funding their own OSS subproject to ensure at least 2/3rd of the market.

Oh, and whenever you see Northern Venture Partenrs giving millions to a project, you can be sure it is there to block another real OSS project.

Scalix community edition, open souce?

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of open source is that:

""If You wish to resell Scalix Community Edition, or otherwise offer Scalix Community Edition to others or for others' use for a fee of any sort, please contact Scalix Sales. You must contact Scalix and receive our approval prior to offering Scalix Community Edition to others for a fee.
You agree that You will not reverse engineer, translate, disassemble, decompile, modify, or otherwise derive the source code of Scalix Community Edition, nor will You attempt to do so or permit others to do so.
You agree that you will not "hack" or otherwise attempt to modify the behavior of Scalix Community Edition for any reason.""

I can't use it to sell a service?
I can't hack the code?

Oh my.

free software, not open source

[CarpetShark]

Free Software might predate linux by that long. And it's worth noting that Linux IS Free Software (GPLv2), NOT Open Source.

Re:free software, not open source

[maxume]

Don't assume that he doesn't understand what he said just because you don't.

Re:free software, not open source

[CarpetShark]

Don't assume he said something sensible, just because you might have used similar words to mean something sensible. Free Software is not open source, and it is not now "known as" open source. They're different things.

Re:free software, not open source

[maxume]

Linux: circa 1991

GNU+Free Software: circa 1984

1991-15 = 1976

I guess if you want to label the general tendency to distribute source at that point in history as the Free Software movement, but given that there was nobody moderating the definition of the words and that open source is inclusive of more activity...

Re:free software, not open source

[CarpetShark]

Well, yes, but Stallman has said that he created the Free Software movement because of existing de-facto practices in Unix etc., which began to be supplanted. I believe Unix started in the '60s.

eZ Publish

[Anonymous Coward]

The other business model I've seen a lot is that the product is "open source" but some how you can never get the stuff to install or work properly unless you pay for them to host the application. This *always* ticks me off and I usually let everyone I know who might be looking for a simliar package not to waste their time. Talkin' about eZ Publish, eh? Me, too, brother. Documentation is years old. There's almost no sense of supporting the community at all. Forum questions go largely unanswered, certainly very rarely by knowledgeable staff. The IRC channel has a handful of empathetic users who encourage you to keep trying, but lacks any noticeable company presence.

And, most of the time, including the installation stage, the answers to your questions are: Are you hosting that with us? Did you buy the support package? Just pay for a few hours of phone time (at $200 per hour). Why are you trying to use the system by yourself? Hire a partner firm.

Even the veterans admit it's unnecessarily complicated, buggy, undocumented, and takes a long time to learn the mechanical details (not concepts). They grimace with empathy and steer you to understand it'll take you years to figure it all out.

It's, essentially, only open source in a nominal way. Joke!

Same here!

[pestie]

That's about what I got out of it, too. I'm reading one description after another and thinking, "OK, now tell me what this company's software does." Because some marketspeak babble about leveraging synergies doesn't mean a fucking thing to me. Chalk it up to the fact that I've (by choice!) never spent any time in a big corporate environment, I guess.

Of the products/companies on that list, I'd heard of KVM and SugarCRM.

Re:Why not sue?

[crimperman]

um - this has already been mod'ed as OT but if anyone is interested I think they meant to post that one here

Truth in advertising

[shadowspar]

Best part of the whole article: the Microsoft Visual Studio ad at the bottom of the first page links to the URL

http://bs.serving-sys.com/...

Now if that's not truth in advertising, I don't know what is.

The list

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Zenoss
2. Qumranet
3. rPath
4. Simula Lab
5. MontaVista Software
6. SugarCRM
7. OpenAir
8. Themis Computer
9. Scalix
10. Incumbents and Dealmakers (non-entry)

Real OSS = Line Items in Action.

[Anonymous Coward]

The "private business model" is a red herring because it implies that there's some other viable business model. But in the case of open source it's not. Make a note that all the suggestions that people have made about how to make money with open source don't really have anything to do with the open part. Any model that depends exclusively on an easily duplicated component eventually fails (just ask the RIAA/MPAA). Services aren't. Closed-value-add as well. e.g. books, training, etc. The "open" in open-source may give many benefits, but making money isn't one of them. And that's by design.

Re:Real OSS = Line Items in Action.

[turbidostato]

"The "private business model" is a red herring because it implies that there's some other viable business model. But in the case of open source it's not"

And then, old cute Diogene after carefully listening why indeed there's no movement in Universe, put himself on his feet and slowly went away.

Change Diogene by Novell, or Red Hat, or MySQL AB, or...

"Make a note that all the suggestions that people have made about how to make money with open source don't really have anything to do with the open part."

So there's no money on sellings since money always comes from what you sell, not on the selling fact.

"The "open" in open-source may give many benefits, but making money isn't one of them. And that's by design."

Even clever Bill Gates thougth there were no bussiness-case in the "Internet thingie"... till the facts showed him his mistake. You better say *you* don't know how to make money out of producing open source software. I myself have earned a life out of it for the last ten years, go figure.

There's one thing that's true: open source is by no means a basis for a bussiness as profitable as one based upon closed source can be. But that's no wonder: there's no other bussiness -in the whole world, in the whole History, with a profitability potential as the privative software one. Intellectual Property-based bussiness are the most profitable ever, and closed source-software based ones are the more profitable among them. Of course, the problem with such a bussiness is that is terribly unethical and diminishing for society as a whole.

boiling down to money

[Anonymous Coward]

I think its called putting food on the table. And it gets pretty cold during the winter in a cardboard house.

There is no denying the fact that the most widely used open source software (Linux, OpenOffice, FireFox, etc.) are the products that receive the most benefit from corporate investment.

Agghr, matey!

[Anonymous Coward]

Great news!! So, if I go and simply copy some company's software and rename it, I can be "innovative" too? Awesome!!

Re:Agghr, matey!

[chris.evans]

If your going to do that then atleast disassemble/relink it so you can claim you did something innovative atleast.

The real challenge: Service-Provider vs F/OSS

[Khopesh]

I work at a company with an Open Source product whose license was modeled after SugarCRM (modified MPL). We just made some key decisions on the direction of the company with respect to this product (not sure if it's kosher for me to mention its name, so I'll keep you guessing). There were two arguments in this decision-making:

1. Go full-out ASP (Application Service Provider) and close the doors on the source release (becoming like SalesForce.com or Google's services)
2. De-emphasize the ASP and merge the closed-source enterprise components of the program with the opened source as one product and instead charge for support.

Happily, we went for the latter.

My point is that this is the big challenge for F/OSS in the future. There is HEAVY incentive to close the source and go into the service industry, specifically from the developers' perspective as code maintenance and support is reduced to one managed block of machines that the company has full control over. ASP also appeals to executives that don't fully understand the advantages of F/OSS, due to a fear of a competetor using the same software.

Slashdotters: please post *your* top ten

[walterbyrd]

Or whatever you can think of:

For example:

Knoppix - msft doesn't have anything like it.

maybe Zimbra . .

parody of english

[cinnamon colbert]

from the article
" Qumranet
Location: Santa Clara, CA and Netanya, Israel
Product or Service: Although still in stealth-mode, Qumranet has generated enough buzz in the open-source community that its future product offering is already coming into focus. The company will deliver virtualization solutions developed around a kernel-based approach that allows the software to be smaller and more efficient than competing solutions. "

This reads like a parody of bad buzzword english
I think one can safely ignore anything the author of this article has to say, and probably anything on a website that would allow this to appear.

Innovation or investment rounds? What about Zimbra

[phobonetik]

I'd only heard of SugarCRM, but I guess that doesn't preclude these apps from being innovative.

This article was more pushing companies who are financially successful. Actually, on second thought, perhaps more to do with successful investment rounds (the funding section only talked about the fact they wowed Investors, so we should assume not all of them have wowed enough customers to make profit)

If the article was actually about innovation (And had to concentrate on recent, so sorry, RMS doesn't count) then it should look at more diverse areas. Sure, have some enterprise app. Have some collaboration app. But there is a one heck of a lot of interesting stuff going on the web, and while SugarCRM is a great CRM (we use it for our work/open source project), and I don't necesssarily think it should be removed from the list, it seems to be missing some peers.

I haven't scoured for what lives in the open source world, but we have sites and companies like delcious, digg, flickr, google maps/spreadsheets and all of that. An interesting article about innovation would brougt to light at least one open source offering of that sort of style, i.e. interesting technology to DO something cool and innovative on the web. (e.g. Zimbra, but my point would be I want NEWs, stuff I don't know yet...? :)

RMS innovations

[Per Abrahamsen]

The FSF is not a research organization, so in principle they don't innovate anything.

GCC, GDB and BISON were all based on academic research papers by other people.

Emacs, predating FSF, was pretty innovative for its time, and has been a source of inspiration for other text editors and IDE's for decades. RMS even wrote one of his few academic papers on it.

The copyleft is a major innovation, RMS used copyleft licences before the GPL, the GPL was also innovative as the first generic copyleft license. The copyleft fill an important niche between the older "just don't sue us!" licenses (such as BSDL, but many earlier such licenses existed) and the "not for commercial use" license (popular at the time). The copyleft creates a level playing fields that allows competing companies to cooperate, something neither of the two other (older) classes manage.

Bottom Ten Open Source Innovator

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Linux video card driver teams. Not only their technologies are lightyears behind competitions, they receive ZERO support from hardware vendors, and put their drivers under MIT licence, which allows proprietary interests to hijack these volunteers' hard work to implement DRM in Windows Vista to trample user rights.