How Open is Open Source Really?

jg21 writes to tell us that several industry leaders have chimed in with a response to Nat Torkington's recent piece "Is 'Open Source' Now Completely Meaningless". In the original piece Torkington raised the question of whether the term "open source" had lost any meaning because of companies that use the label yet largly restrict user interaction. Sun's Simon Phpps chimed in by stating: "I see open source as a term relevant to the way communities function and I'd support the reunification of the terms 'Free' and 'open source' around the concept of Free software being developed in open source communities. On that basis it's not dead."

Comments

Open Source means you get the code, that's it

[El Cubano]

I see open source as a term relevant to the communities function ...

Except that you don't get to define what open source means. The Open Source Initiative has that luxury. IIRC, they went to great lengths to differentiate Open Source and Free Software as two distinct entities. Open Source means you get the code and nothing more. No guarantee that you can redistribute, no guarantee that the vendor pays attention to you. The list goes on. You can have closed source with an open process (I think the Java Community Process is a good example of this), open source with open process (Python and their Python Enhancement Proposals) and open source with a closed process (XFree86, the reason we have X.org today and the old gcc before it was replaced by egcs. Even free software doesn't guarantee the openness in the process that you might want, as the case with the old gcc clearly illustrates. If community is important to you, that should be part of your selection criteria, not something that you let surprise you after you have picked.

Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it

[morgan_greywolf]

Except that you don't get to define what open source means. The Open Source Initiative has that luxury. IIRC, they went to great lengths to differentiate Open Source and Free Software as two distinct entities. Open Source means you get the code and nothing more. No guarantee that you can redistribute... You just contradicted yourself. You might want to go and read the Open Source Definition, which does state that if a license is to be OSI certified, it must allow modification and redistribution under the same license.

Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it

[liliafan]

I used to work for a web development company that advertised themselves as "the opensource web company".

Their idea of how they were an opensource company was because they used php to develop code, and, because when a site was written they gave the client ownership of the code.

No matter how much we employees tried to explain that didn't make us an opensource company the powers that be refused to listen. It was made worse by the fact that the president of the company was invited to DC to testify on the benefits of opensource.

Our contracts even stated that code developed in our own time was the property of the company, and the company policy was that no code developed could be released to the opensource community at large.

It can be really frustrating to have such a loose term as 'opensource' where a company can choose to interpret it in such a way as to benefit them and no one else, or companies that simply fail to understand the concept.

Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it

[LionKimbro]

Blatantly false; Read the OSI definition yourself.

The top three points are: Free Redistribution, Source Code, and Derived Wroks.

This research took all of 30 seconds.

Vendors don't have to listen to you, but you definitely have to be allowed to redistribute.

The segregation of Free Software and OpenSource software was a strategic decision: Free Software and rms argue from a moral standpoint (software should be free, proprietary software is wrong,) Open Source argues from an economic&quality standpoint (this is a better & cheaper way to do things.)

Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it

[CastrTroy]

This comes down to the question of just how open do you have to be. Some people say GPL isn't enough, because it restricts how you can redistribute the code, and only think that BSD like licenses are really open source. Seems to me like your employer was trying to do the right thing, but giving the source code to the people who bought the program, but didn't want to have the code available to everyone, just those who had paid for the product. It's just another level of open source. It may not be as open as GPL or BSD, but it's way more open than MS Windows, where you don't get any option to view or change the source at all. Even MS has stuff they tout as open source, called shared source, but that's about as least open as you get, while still getting to look at the code.

Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it

[drinkypoo]

Our contracts even stated that code developed in our own time was the property of the company, and the company policy was that no code developed could be released to the opensource community at large.

Congratulations on not understanding the difference between Open Source and Free Software.

Here's a hint: If you give the source to the customer, it's Open Source.

If you're giving the source to everyone, it's probably Free Software. But that depends on the terms under which you distribute it.

Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it

[OurNewOverloard]

The term Open Source was created to appeal to the corporate types - to hide the ideals of freedom put forward by the Free Sofwtare Movement. I am not shocked to see the corporates use it as some form of marketing term - that's all it ever was. It's a safe meaningless slogan of the form "whiter whites".

Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it

[timster]

Nonsense. The GPL doesn't give any rights to persons who do not obtain the software. So if you do work for a customer and distribute it only to them, including the source and redistribution rights, it meets the definition of Free Software. This has NEVER meant that you are obligated to send the code to anyone who asks.

Sure, your customer has the right to distribute the code if they wish, but even if they do, they are only obligated to provide source code to the parties that they distribute the software to directly.

Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it

[Otter]

That said, neither "open source" nor "free" requires the publically accessible development repositories the author is demanding.

Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it

[wootest]

Not really, since there are plenty of actual open source developers - like yours truly - that don't want to subscribe to the militia-style enforced 'freedom' preservation, but who do want the pragmatic benefits of making source available and helping others. As many people have commented, open source has its own definition - that it was ever simply a 'mispronouncement' of Free Software and doesn't thrive on its own merit is bullshit. (Yes, even if some people will write 'open source' when you tell them to write 'Free Software'.)

That's not to say that there aren't people that misrepresent the concept of "open source" to gain benefits or goodwill. If this surprises you, welcome to the free market as driven by humans.

Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it

[morgan_greywolf]

So? You have the source. You can do what you want with it right? Who needs the repositories? Just make your own. If you have to fork off the development, that's what it takes.

Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it

[drinkypoo]

Nonsense. The GPL doesn't give any rights to persons who do not obtain the software.

No, but it does give you the right to distribute the code to third parties if you wish, so long as the license is retained (along with the copyright info to give it meaning.) The author is simply not obligated to do so. This is the primary difference between Free Software and Open Source; in the latter case the code can be encumbered with a license that prohibits redistribution. In the former case, it cannot.

Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it

[Otter]

So?

So, the article we're discussing is nonsensical, that's what's "so".

Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it

[atamido]

Open Source Definition, which does state that if a license is to be OSI certified, it must allow modification and redistribution under the same license.

I've met a number of people that make the distinction between "open source" and "source available". "Source available" simply means that you can view the source code, but not redistribute it, or not compile and distribute the binaries.

Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it

[the_womble]

Except that you don't get to define what open source means. The Open Source Initiative has that luxury. IIRC, they went to great lengths to differentiate Open Source and Free Software as two distinct entities. Open Source means you get the code and nothing more. No guarantee that you can redistribute

Completely and utterly wrong - and you still get modded +5 insightful!

Read the introduction to the Open Source Initiative's definition of open source - it says "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code"

Then read the first clause. See the title "Free Redistribution"? Guess what that means. While you are about it take a look at clause 3 "Derived Works".

Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it

[liliafan]

Congratulations on not understanding the difference between Open Source and Free Software.

Here's a hint: If you give the source to the customer, it's Open Source.

If you're giving the source to everyone, it's probably Free Software. But that depends on the terms under which you distribute it.

If you contract a person to develop a website for you in php how it is possible to give them the site without it being visible sourcecode? When the small print in the clients contract specifically denies them the right to redistribute the code (which I failed to mention originally) you could not be a lot further from open source.

Yes I will concede the point that on a technicality providing the source code (which is unavoidable in their situation) means you are giving them 'open source code', however, you are just highlighting my point that the company is interpreting the term 'open source' to technically be able to get away with it whilst totally sidestepping the spirit of what open source means to the community at large.

Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it

[HiThere]

That sounds like the original meaning of open source. (Notice that I didn't capitalize it?)

OSI redefined the term Open Source to be something different, but the term existed before they did, and they just redefined it. Open source originally just meant that if you bought the product you could see the code. I think the concept goes back to IBM mainframes in the 1950's, but it might go back further. At that time people didn't automatically get copyright, and most code wasn't copyrighted. If the company shared it's source code with you, you could legally do whatever you wanted, but all it generally promissed was that the code was available. Sometimes it was copyrighted, and if it was available, it still qualified.

I'm about to introduce a few new acronyms. Pardon me, but in this discussion more precision seems necessary:

Things have gotten a lot more complex with the extension of copyrights to longer terms, and of copyright laws into more areas, and, of course, lets not forget patents. Just wanting them to go away won't make them do so. The BSD license is the license most equivalent to the early "open source" licenses. It was against this historic background that Stallman got irritated because he couldn't get a printer driver, and created F(L)&OSS. (Parse that as Free (Libre) *and* Open Software Source. The & is a logical conjuction implying BOTH.) The Open Source people were a reaction against F(L)&OSS, because they didn't like the requirements that the software be Free (Libre), just as F(L)&OSS was a reaction against increasingly closed software. They didn't mind showing the code...in fact some of them depended on it, but they wanted to maintain control over how it was used. This is roughly analogous to how back before it bacame an anti-virus company Symantec code used to come with libraries that could only be used with Symantec IDEs. (MS copied and improved on that trick.) Symantec'd give you the source code to the libraries, but you would need to rewrite them to use them with another company's IDE...and Symantec held the copyrights, so you would need to REALLY do a rewrite if you wanted to make legally redistributable code. (Symantec granted you the right to distribute the code if you built it with their tools.) This was clearly Open Source, even though OSI hadn't yet been formed, and the term hadn't been given "Official Sanction And Blessing". (?? What makes a company any more "official" than a citizen? Still, that seems to be the usage.)

Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it

[trifish]

Open Source means you get the code and nothing more. No guarantee that you can redistribute

You are wrong. Find some time to read the OSI definition of Open Source:

"The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software."

Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really, since there are plenty of actual open source developers - like yours truly - that don't want to subscribe to the militia-style enforced 'freedom' preservation, but who do want the pragmatic benefits of making source available and helping others.

MIT makes a wonderfull Free Software license, be asured that we enjoy the practical benefits of freedom, one of wich is the ability to help others, imensly.

That's not to say that there aren't people that misrepresent the concept of "open source" to gain benefits or goodwill. If this surprises you, welcome to the free market as driven by humans.

Not really, a free market is impossible without free infomation, welcome to the profit market wherew profit maximization is the holy grail, not mutual benefit.

Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it

[init100]

Seems to me like your employer was trying to do the right thing, but giving the source code to the people who bought the program, but didn't want to have the code available to everyone, just those who had paid for the product. It's just another level of open source. It may not be as open as GPL or BSD

Actually, the GPL allows distributing the source to your customers (i.e. recipients of your software) only, and does not require distribution to anyone else. Of course, the GPL requires that your customers can redistribute to anyone they like, which may not have been the case here.

Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it

[dpilgrim]

Except that you don't get to define what open source means. The Open Source Initiative has that luxury. IIRC, they went to great lengths to differentiate Open Source and Free Software as two distinct entities. Open Source means you get the code and nothing more. No guarantee that you can redistribute

Please RTFM. If you're going to have an opinion, make it an informed one. From the OSI's website, this is taken from Clause 2 of the Open Source Definition:

"The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form."

Note that the Open Source Definition also requires that distribution of modifications in source form must be allowed.

No, the real difference between Open Source advocates and Free Software advocates is on a philosophical level. Open Source advocates proclaim that as a software development methodology, open source offers advantages in certain contexts. No overarching moral claim is made about the software, its developers, or its consumers. Free Software advocates tend to agree with the methodological point, but go further in pronouncing that there is some sort of basic right to source code that people have. This is a moral claim, and hence not something that can be resolved as a matter of fact. You either subscribe to that moral view of the world, or you don't. Most businesses do not subscribe to that view of the world, and most open source advocates remain agnostic. Thus Open Source tends to be a more business-friendly view of the world than Free Software.

Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it

[CDarklock]

> you don't get to define what open source means.
> The Open Source Initiative has that luxury

Excuse me, but no, they don't.

OSI doesn't get to tell me what "open" means. We agree on what "source" means, but that word "open" is sort of like that word "free". I think "open" means "you can get the source whether you pay or not". (PHPFox doesn't meet this definition, and I take issue with their use of the term "open source".) If I say my project is "open source", that means you get to look at the source even if you never pay me a dime or even agree to any license. If you need a license to see the source, it's not open.

It's that easy. It's that simple. It's that basic.

Now, the open source licenses we have are not really about seeing the source. They're about CHANGING the source and DISTRIBUTING the source. That's not part of what I think "open" means. I think those are a whole different question. So an "open source" project, in my opinion, might still not be something you're explicitly allowed to change and redistribute. It might require a license to change and redistribute, just like OSI says - that's what the existing open source licenses cover.

But it's NOT what makes them open. And OSI doesn't get to say it is, no matter how much they stomp and whine.

Besides, Russ Nelson rocks, and anyone who would oust him as president for politically incorrect views is just retarded. Sure, he "resigned", but only under pressure from the dipshits who were more worried about his political credentials than his skill and insight as an open source philosopher.

Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I think the Free Software Movement does a pretty good job of obfuscating what they're up to on their own. "Free" software gets the attention of corporate types because they think "Free as in beer". If "free" software wasn't essentially 0$ to acquire, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it

[ricree]

Some people say GPL isn't enough, because it restricts how you can redistribute the code, and only think that BSD like licenses are really open source.

Which is, to my mind, a completely nonsensical idea. When it comes to offering the most freedom, no license can possibly beat simply releasing the code into public domain. The GPL, on the other hand, puts emphasis on building an open and free community over just making the "most free license".

Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it

[CastrTroy]

I think the GPL is better because it ensures that the code stays free. With BSD, someone could just take your code, use it in a closed app, and profit from your code, without the product being open source.

Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it

[drinkypoo]

If you contract a person to develop a website for you in php how it is possible to give them the site without it being visible sourcecode?

It isn't.

When the small print in the clients contract specifically denies them the right to redistribute the code (which I failed to mention originally) you could not be a lot further from open source.

Again, this is a demonstration of ignorance. You could not be a lot further from Free Software. But that is Open Source. Period.

Yes I will concede the point that on a technicality providing the source code (which is unavoidable in their situation) means you are giving them 'open source code'

Then why do we even have to discuss this?

however, you are just highlighting my point that the company is interpreting the term 'open source' to technically be able to get away with it whilst totally sidestepping the spirit of what open source means to the community at large.

Just because the community at large is too stupid to understand the quite elemental differences between Open Source and Free Software, it doesn't mean I'm abusing the term "Open Source" if I give someone the source code.

A lack of clue on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.

Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it

[liliafan]

Just because the community at large is too stupid to understand the quite elemental differences between Open Source and Free Software, it doesn't mean I'm abusing the term "Open Source" if I give someone the source code.

A lack of clue on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.

There reaches a point when you look at everyone else and think they are stupid you have to ask yourself the question, perhaps it is me that is stupid, or failing that just so arrogant that the idea of considering the point of view of another person or in this case a large community is repulsive to you.

So perhaps you don't agree with my views on open source, but in this instance as I have tried to explain, perhaps not as clearly as you require, the company I was working for was trying to give the impression that they embraced open source and GPL, because they believed by using open source and allowing the client to have the code they paid for made them an opensource company. Once again as I have tried to explain and as you have choosen to ignore, the company was in this instance incorrect, they were a company that provided the source code to their clients with heavy restrictions, they were not an open source company because 99% of the code developed by them was not in any way, shape or form released to anyone.

Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it

[mdfst13]

This has NEVER meant that you are obligated to send the code to anyone who asks. Please read section 3b of the GPL:

Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;

Note that this doesn't apply in this case (which is about PHP scripts), because 3a is satisfied. However, you made the global claim that the GPL "NEVER" obligates people to provide the source to third parties who have not already obtained the software. "Any third party" is exactly that.

Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it

[wootest]

Yes, I rarely consider using anything else than BSD, MIT or public domain for my projects if I can help it, and I know that I "enjoy the practical benefits of freedom" and can help others. That was my point. My point was that I wasn't *forced* to do so by the terms of my license.

If you had to accurately represent the concept of open source every time you said something involving it, you wouldn't be in a free market, you'd be in a controlled market. In a controlled market, there's less of a chance that people could be assholes, but there's also less freedom. I don't think it's awesome that there are people who misrepresent it, but I do think it's great that there's people pushing for poetic justice and calling those people on their bluffs.

Amen!

[drinkypoo]

I'm utterly tired of people not involved with a movement trying to redefine it. Open Source has been around for a lot longer than Free Software. In fact, it used to be the norm in a lot of areas.

Re:Amen!

[squiggleslash]

Actually, SCO (back when it was called Caldera) invented Open Source back in 1996. Yes, that's before the OSI thing, though after the foundation of the FSF.

Scary, huh?

Re:Amen!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just utterly tired of people who are involved with a movement. Any movement.

Re:Amen!

[torpor]

I'm utterly tired of people not involved with a movement trying to redefine it.

Why? This is normal. It happens with everything. The outside-observers, looking at a particular realm, feel that they are the ones who are best suited to define it.. while those within a particular realm, by definition, have moved on from the 'definition' stage and are actively participating.

Its the nature of the beast, yo. Participate, or spectate. From both positions, you can define something. Its up to each individual realm - of spectatorship, or participatorship - to become the more 'dominant' reality among the broader public.

A clever individual, observing some new realm, can most definitely differentiate between spectatorship and participatorship on the basis of their own desires. Either you join in and use and participate, or you stick to the outside and just bitch and moan, or congratulate and praise ..

My advice: get over it. As many wise men have said, apropos Open Source, "those who wrote the code, get to say what happens with the code", while many others say, "those who use the code, own the code.."

Re:Amen!

[drinkypoo]

People were distributing code to customers with their programs before SCO even existed. Even if they had coined the term, which they did not (they called the product Open, but then, they did the same thing with SCO Open Deathtrap. Now where did I put my Open Deathtrap Shower Phone?)

Re:Amen!

[digitalunity]

A perfect example of the dichotomy you describe would be real industry participators in the standards process versus Microsoft's vision of the standards process. Most companies form panels, or working groups to develop standards. As the standards and technologies change, a consensus is reached and a standard revision is created, approved, and published. This keeps the standard relevant while making it available to all industry participants.

For MS, this involves building a product, calling it a de facto standard and then trying to get it approved formally by a standards body. This is irregardless of the fact that MS allows basically *ZERO* industry participation in developing their 'standards' before they are submitted for approval.

Re:Amen!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and the interesting fact about the whale is that it's not really a fish.... it's an insect, and it lives on bananas.

Re:Amen!

[bonefry]

The "open source" label came out of a strategy session[3] held at Palo Alto, California, in reaction to Netscape's January 1998 announcement of a source code release for Navigator. The group of individuals at the session included Christine Peterson who suggested "open source" and also included Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall, Sam Ockman, and Eric S. Raymond.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source#History

Re:Amen!

[redcane]

Look, I know this is a nitpick. I hate to be the grammar/spelling nazi. But there is one (made-up) word that I really hate. Irregardless is *not* a word. Even if it was the opposite of regardless, it's not what you want. You can consider something "with regard to" a fact or situation, or "without regard"/"regardless" of that situation. At this point I'm not sure if you mean to say "This is in light of the fact that MS allows basically zero industry participation" or "This is regardless of the fact that MS allows basically zero industry participation". But I think it's more logical to say "This is compounded/exacerbated by the fact that MS allows basically zero industry participation". Now I really must apologise for my outburst, but I can't stand that "word".

Re:Amen!

[rtb61]

Language, get over it, if you understood then intent, then it is a word.

How many acordys hast thou in grammer? Foure: on by twene the nominatyf case and the verbe, the secunde by twene the adiectyf and the substantyf, the thrydde by twene the relatyf and the antecedent, the fourthe by twene the noune partytyf, the noune dystributyf, the noune of superlatyf degre and the genityf case that folweth.

You didn't understand it all, it's proper english, you uncouth lout.

Re:Amen!

[digitalunity]

I'll use short, simple words then.

If you can understand the content of my message by the context of my writing, then shut the fuck up.

Take your grammar books and be useless elsewhere.

Why is this hard?

[sottitron]

If you say you are 'Open Source', then it seems to me you have to have sources that are open and not closed. So if you can't download it (or the recipe for for it as in Open Source Beer), then its not open. Period. End of story.

Re:Why is this hard?

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of how open is open source, the title should have been how closed is closed source?

Verbiage

[dosius]

I'm strange, but I prefer to call it "free and open software" - that way there is no doubt in people's minds wtf I'm talking about.

-uso.

Re:Verbiage

[sleepykit]

I'll go with that. I get this feeling that all these definitions are just ways of keeping people from what they want (the software itself and sometimes the ability to modify it, for themselves and for others). Arguing definitions seems pointless when it's all say-so. Any site can call itself open source and claim a definition but that doesn't change/influence anything. I think instead of defining these vague terms that mean nothing to most people, just state what you want and do not want done with your specific code. That way if you say something of yours is free, then everyone else can look at what you allow and don't allow and decide for themselves. *sigh* Sounds simple, means it will never work.

Diff between OSS and FL/OSS

[tomstdenis]

Just because you can see the code doesn't mean you can contribute.

Not only that, but just because the code is open doesn't mean it's accessible [re: properly written/designed]. Shitty code, even though it's open, can disuade newcomers to develop.

For OSS or libre software to be truly effective it has to target key problems and stay on focus. It also has to be written/documented to encourage new developers to learn from it and add to it. I suspect on projects like the Kernel and GCC there are many "old farts" who lead most of the significant development. In 20-30 years who will replace them if nobody can learn from what they have done?

Tom

Re:Diff between OSS and FL/OSS

[Anonymous Coward]

> I suspect on projects like the Kernel and GCC there are many "old farts" who lead most of the significant development. In > 20-30 years who will replace them if nobody can learn from what they have done?

Youre absolutely right.

This is one of the myths of "open source", the statement that people are welcome to contribute. First of all, coding in the kernel(or any very elaborate project) involves a steep learning curve yet you have very little support from the so-called community.

The "establishment" of a given project is very self-involved and one requires a lot of self-teaching(and will) before actually knowing WHERE/HOW one could contribute

personnally, I find this counter-productive for community developed software as most proprietary software companies will do exactly that(allow you in a large project and help you along) AND they will pay you for it...

Re:Diff between OSS and FL/OSS

[Anonymous Coward]

Not so sure... Just see the most popular PHP projects, they do have a lot of newcomer developers and their code is pretty shitty....

Re:Diff between OSS and FL/OSS

[Peter Amstutz]

This is one of the myths of "open source", the statement that people are welcome to contribute. First of all, coding in the kernel(or any very elaborate project) involves a steep learning curve yet you have very little support from the so-called community.

Well, to look at it from the other side, in my experience project developers often try to be very helpful of people who seem to be genuinely interested/qualified to contribute to something. But at the same time you also don't want to waste time explaining something to someone that might vanish tomorrow. Most contributers are little more than an email address, and often are unresponsive or go missing, and since you arn't paying them, it's much harder to trust someone enough to delegate working on a major (or even minor) feature that might never get done.

That said, ideally good documentation avoids this problem, since you can point to it and tell people to RTFM, and the investment in explaining something well once is usually less than having to write a partial explanation five times to five different people. Documentation is unsexy, but often makes a big difference in the level of accessability and retention of new users to an open source project.

Extreme open source

[Weaselmancer]

In the original piece Torkington raised the question of whether the term "open source" had lost any meaning because of companies that use the label yet largly restrict user interaction.

Just because some people disagree with or don't understand the term "open source" doesn't mean it becomes worthless. All it means is that some people don't quite get it yet.

It's like the word "extreme", which marketing has over the last few years beaten to death. Extreme doesn't mean anything anymore to most people - the mind simply edits it out. But that doesn't mean that the word is suddenly broken. It still means what it means, it's just that we're desensitized to the word through repeated misuse.

It's much the same way with open source. When you repeatedly misuse the term, it loses meaning. A good example is everybody's favorite, Microsoft. They use the term as a negative. Then turn around and use it as a positive, albeit in a somewhat misunderstood way.

dead? maybe just diluted

[myurr]

Open source is not dead, maybe just a little diluted thanks to some corporates claiming to be "open source" whilst never getting (or deliberately ignoring) the community based principle.

Don't be confused!

[SpaceLifeForm]

Open source != Free Software

GPL software is Free, as in libre.

Open source is not necessarily Free, as in libre.

Re:Don't be confused!

[Anonymous Coward]

Libre? Don't the French drink beer?

Re:Don't be confused!

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, it's all BS. People want to make money - simple.

OSS is meaningless therefore Microsoft should

[RotateLeftByte]

Buy Linux

http://www.cooltechzone.com/Departments/Columns/Wh y_Microsoft_Should_Acquire_Linux_200702262810/

This is not a joke but it seems to fit the general thrust of this article.
There are a number of questions the need answering
  1) Why would Microsoft really want to buy Linux?
  2) If OSS is meaningless what would Microsoft get from buying it
  3) Could they acquite RH, NOVELL, Mandriva, Debian, Ubuntu etc etc?
  4) Could they acquire the rights to the software contained in a typical distro?
  5) Why would they want to buy something that is free?

My albeit simple take on this is Patents!
The FUD eminating from Redmond and these articles all aim to discredit Linux and FOSS in general.
If Microsoft is violating patents held by OSS companies then buying them would quietly make the issue go away.

Re:OSS is meaningless therefore Microsoft should

[Anonymous Coward]

"Microsoft can just solve their competition problems by buying Linux!" sounds just as naive a point of reasoning as "The government could cure poverty by just printing more money!" Thanks for the link; I forgot people that stupid had jobs.

Re:OSS is meaningless therefore Microsoft should

[ragefan]

For the Linux enthusiasts reading this, don't be offended. Just because I'm suggesting Linux to become a division of Microsoft, it doesn't mean I'm condoning a closed source environment for Linux.

This statement alone proves the author's ignorance concerning "Linux". It would be impossible for Microsoft to own Linux by buying up the top 5 or top 50 linux distros or even every distribution ever. The distro entities (be they companies like Red Hat, organizations like Debian or just Joe Blow rolling his own distro) do not own the software themselves (they might own portions, installers, clustering software, etc), but they do not own the kernel, X.org, KDE, Gnome, or the 1000's of pieces of software available to use and therefore neither would Microsoft. At best, Microsoft could influence the direction those particular distro's went. If any of the the distro entities sold to Microsoft there would be fork to "free versions" of the distro, such as Red Hat EL to CentOS or White Box.

So what would Microsoft gain from buying any of the Linux distros available that they couldn't just start doing themselves? They could simply follow what Oracle did and fork Red Hat (or Novell, etc).

reunification

[forsetti]

How about "free" + "open" = "frepen"? (FREH-pen)

Have you tried that new frepen software?

That's the best frepen software I've ever used!

That frepen software frepped my freppy frep, and now I'm frepping frepped!

Re:reunification

[flynt]

Read The Frepen Manual.

Re:reunification

[biscon]

relax dude, you're like totally freppin' out

Re:reunification

[Stormx2]

You should be working for Microsoft, my good man.

"Welcome to the social" pfft.

Re:reunification

[Marsala]

Oh, great.

I already have enough of a challenge convincing upper management that I'm not some sort of martian for simply suggesting that we use free software to solve a problem, now you want me to sound like a Farscape nutjob, too.

Frak that.

Re:reunification

[noidentity]

I'd probably keep misspelling it as "freopen". Also, does it come with a free Frogurt?

Not much to say

[T.E.D.]

For those who don't wanna bother to RTFA, he starts off by complaining about a specific company claiming to use OSS when its software isn't downloadable, only to have to post this correction:

(update: Vyatta source is in git, though in my defense you can't find this out from their downloads page only the wiki. Their entire product is GPL, so they're as open source as they come. I apologize for misfiring)

This is in paragraph one of a 6 paragraph article. Not a good start.

There is one genuine arguing point, where someone named "Tim" tries to claim that certain software is cool because it embraces and extends Postgres to make it Oracle compatible. Its a silly claim though. If you ditch Oracle for someone else's proprietary Oracle look-alike, what exactly are you gaining? Certainly nothing an Open Source or Free Software advocate cares about.

Re:Not much to say

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI Tim would be gnat's boss Tim O'Reilly. Who runs a little publisher that has some influence in the technology world.

Re:Not much to say

[init100]

where someone named "Tim"

I think that this someone may be Tim O'Reilly, as the article discusses the OSCON conference, which is organized by O'Reilly Media.

Re:Not much to say

[mandelbr0t]

The usefulness is that the spirit and letter of the Postgres license are maintained to produce a (presumably) cheaper Oracle clone. If there was an Open Source database to compete with Oracle, Postgres is certainly it. As long as the Postgres people are happy, and the people who migrate away from Oracle don't get screwed, then the EnterpriseDB project is profitable while continuing to contribute to the community that started the project.

Re:Not much to say

[Tim C]

If you ditch Oracle for someone else's proprietary Oracle look-alike, what exactly are you gaining?

Having worked with Oracle's DB for a number of years, this one is easy - you're almost certainly gaining a shit-load of money. (or at least, not spending it on Oracle...)

Open Source != GPL

[moore.dustin]

Creating something in an open source community/environment does not necessarily mean it will be released under the GNU/GPL license. It sounds like the OP seems to think that all open source projects either should be, or are made with release under the GPL being the end result of the program. That is not how it works. Open source projects can and often do yield a marketable product for sale in one for or another. Now other groups start out with the intent of designing a program and releasing it under a GPL - these groups then adopt the open source model in order to gain support, insight, and contributions from interested parties.

Open Source = Development Model, not a release model/plan

GPL(free) and open source can be mutually exclusive.

How open it is??!??

[posterlogo]

How open it is??!?? I wanna know how SOURCE it is!!

Fuck this ambiguity ...

[CrackedButter]

I'm going back to proprietary software, at least I know where I can touch my ankles.

Re:Fuck this ambiguity ...

[SpaceLifeForm]

You can touch your ankles anywhere.

Where do you want to go today?

Re:dead? maybe just diluted

[VJ42]

Open source is not dead, maybe just a little diluted So, in other words, it's pining for the fjords?

How the Internet killed the meaning of words

[beerdini]

Sadly I see "open source" as a phrase going the way of the dinosaur as well. Add this to the other words and phrases that the internet has also made meaningless...

"free"-there is always a cost...spyware, some sort of database or mailing list, or the ones that I love that say free then ask for some sort of payment anyway
"no credit card required"- a couple of screens later there is a screen asking for your credit card number for the next one...
"age verification"- click here to verify your age, or use an older friend/family's credit card and their info
"you have won"-click here to get your new laptop, PS3, iPod, etc...then fill out a bunch of forms, sign up for a bunch of email lists or overpriced crap you don't want, valuing 3 times the amount of the item that you "won"
"hot" and "sexy"- I'm sorry, when you describe yourself like this you're either too full of yourself, or more often than not you need a reality check on what hot and/or sexy really mean.
"single female looking"- along the same lines of the last one, this usually ends up being an overweight middle aged guy living in his parent's basement with nothing better to do while he is waiting for a response on to his posting on the WOW message boards
"click [here] for more"- this one is like playing Russian roulette, you might get another page of information you want, you might be taken to an ad site, you might be taken to a subscription page, you just can't predict what will happen whenever you click on those words.

I know there are many more that I missed, feel free to add your own that you've come across

Re:How the Internet killed the meaning of words

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

I'm afraid in posting all those terms you've told us all a little too much about your surfing habits. Please put your pants on, help is on the way.

Re:How the Internet killed the meaning of words

[beerdini]

LOL...It also doesn't hurt that I'm the guy at the pub that all the drunk friends buy me drinks to clean up their computers so their wives won't get PO'ed at them for what they've been looking at. Too bad I don't document what I actually remove from who. I'd really have some good dirt that I don't think I'd ever have to buy a drink again.

Non-open Open Source (NOOS)

[WED Fan]

I keep running into projects that claim to be open-source, but the only way to get the source is to "join" the team. In other words, register, provide reasons why they should admit you, wait for approval, then you can download the project source.

These aren't company sites

Now, I really hate the idea of the "Release Unfinished Code to the Wild" and call it "released" when all you have is a few methods and a lot of place-holders describing what could go there and the code still does nothing. But calling something open when you require registration, membership approval, etc. is not really open, its just less closed.

A fundamental misunderstanding in terminology.

[apathy maybe]

Something can be free software, something can be open source software, something can be both. That doesn't mean you get the source code though.

It simply means, that if you get the binary, you also have the option to get the source and to change it and redistribute it.

The original developer can make as much stuff as they want, and not have any of it freely available to download. That is legitimate. But, if it is free or open, then once the original developer sells you a binary, they also offer you the source.

Now, you have the source and can change it, and redistribute it if you want. But you can also not share that source with anyone else, and make changes and keep them "in house". That is also allowed.

Just because it is free (as in speech) or open, doesn't mean you can download it for free (as in beer).

Example of qualified Open Source

[Outland Traveller]

I've experienced something of a culture shock recently, attempting to use and deploy the "DotNetNuke" web framework. Its an IIS+ASP.NET+MSSQL stack, which integrated well with an in-house application. The software has some good press and is open source under a BSD-style license.

There were a number of odd differences in the developer community, as compared to similar types of open source projects I have worked with. Here's some non-comprehensive highlights.

- There wasn't good, free web-based documentation. There was some limited web-based documentation that often repeated the same information readily available on the page you were trying to research. The serious documentation for the project is primarily distributed electronically in finished, non-editable PDF form (which amusingly ship with a license that forbids you from downloading them without written permission) or in video tutorials from other sites with heavy advertisements on their pages. The purpose of putting the documentation in these awkward formats, at least the video tutorials, appeared designed to drive ad revenue or paid subscriptions.

- Every level of add-on was heavily commercialized. Most of the skins available were commercial, even if they were very simple. Most of the modules were commercial, even if they were as basic as modules that allow the site to be backed up. I got the feeling that the hyper-commercialization of add-ons was actually retarding the growth of the core software, because people were protecting the revenue of their simplistic modules, instead of integrating that functionality back into the core.

- To be fair, the software does do what it says it does. The commercial ad-ons do what they say they do. If you shell out for them, you can create a reasonably capable web site quickly, for not too much money.

This kind of "open source" solution exemplifies some of ways that open source software projects can fail to live up to expectations implied by the buzzword. In this case, the core software was under an open source license, but the "complete" solution for most users was not, and there was a culture in place that made it difficult to make the open-source part of the software into a complete solution.

I did not see the difference so clearly before, because most of the BSD-licensed products in the Linux community have more of sharing culture, and perhaps do not feel as strongly the need to recoup the costs of their development tools :D

What it means to me

[guruevi]

The meaning of the word... nothing else:

You have free (software), which means I can own (the program) and don't have to pay (for a fully working version). Whether that be a closed source or open source piece of software, doesn't matter. Before or after compilation, they give it to me for nothing (public domain, freeware)

You have free, open source, which means that I (personally) can only own the source code and don't have to pay for the fully finished version. Whether the binary blob and/or support during or after compilation becomes paid software or a service is none of my business, I own the source code now and can modify it to whatever I want to do with it, rip out the license number requirement for example. This is usually source code in public domain (like )

Licenses on the other hand is another beasty. A license is a contract (whether or not that can be implied by just reading/accepting it is something I rather leave to the lawyers) between you and another entity (be that a programmer or a company) which says what you get (a binary blob, an installer, the source code), what you can do with it (modify it, debug it) and what the constraints are in using/modifying the program (commercial, notify me). I don't know how far those contracts are legitimate in different countries (like EULA's in Europe or the GPL on the Cayman's)

GPL licensed software is indeed open source, since you can get the open source, but you are constrained by the license, so it is not truly free software. But then again, nothing is free in this world, everything comes with a certain cost (even breathing 'costs' you brain-time and energy), if you are willing to pay the price (be that the bandwidth, time, constraints ...) then you have obtained something that you think is of value. The seller (whether that be the programmer) also thinks he got his value out of it (whether it is on his resume, or just feeling good, or needing somebody (the community) to fix problems).

Whatever people do, they always do it to get something out of it, there is nothing that you will do if it wouldn't have a certain value to you. All people are thus egoistic and you can't contend THAT.

Free Software has nothing to do with communities

[vivaoporto]

Free Software has nothing to do with communities, except for a certain correlation between success, popularity and Free (as in speech) development philosophy. Don't get the concepts mixed.

They don't own the expression more than you or I, but as they are its original coiner, I will bring the GNU definition of Free Software, as seen in their The Free Software Definition page:

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Nothing there mentions that the software *must* (or either should) be "developed in open source communities" (being the operative word there "developed").

I'm not disputing the benefits of a community-laden development, but only pointing that the concepts of Free Software, Open Source and community-based development are three different sets that share an intersection that, although very good for the whole "cause", cannot summarize adequately the entire concept.

No kidding!

[CasperIV]

It's just outside forces wanting to push an agenda... It just doesn't work as well in the computer industry due to an overall higher intelligence level then the political arena.

Re:No kidding!

[maxume]

It probably isn't a good idea to combine such a statement with basic word usage errors.

Re:No kidding!

[neomunk]

No, just because someone doesn't use the Queen's English doesn't mean they aren't intelligent.

In fact, I think the more a person can deviate from standard usage while still successfully conveying the concept they are trying to communicate shows high creativity. Not the same as intelligence, but highly related, especially considering the specific type of intelligence we're talking about.

Re:No kidding!

[maxume]

The sentiment of the comment probably isn't true. People are resoundingly average, but don't like to admit it. Politicians seem out of touch because they are forced to talk about things that they don't care about whatsoever. Lots of people involved with computers think they are smarter than other people because their arcane interest intersects with something that people 'who just want it to work' have to use.

Using 'then' where 'than' should have been used is none of successful, creative, or intelligent.

Both Free Software and OSS are Bad Terms

[Eloquence]

Free Software was a bad choice to begin with, because of the obvious freeware ambiguity. This is why Open Source gained traction so quickly -- people found it difficult to communicate about "Free Software" without constantly being misunderstood (and then having to resort to the "free as in freedom" spiel which isn't exactly what you want to do when you want to convince your manager to switch to a different software solution). But Open Source completely neglects to mention the notion of "freedom" and, hence, has become diluted. "Open Source" is a nice wishy-washy term that can mean anything to anyone. The OSI's attempts to avoid this with a clear definition are laudable, but have failed outside the context of well-defined open source communities.

The adoption of the word Libre into the English language may represent a way out. Simply speaking about "Libre Software" makes it clear that this is not about freedom of price, but doesn't make it necessary to become any more explicit if one does not want to in a particular context. But I don't think such adoption is likely to happen on a large scale unless both OSI and the FSF throw their weight behind it.

Free Software, not "open source"

[Tom]

Which is why "Free Software" is the important concept, and shouldn't have been abandoned. "open source" was only ever a marketing term, and many people (myself including) had warned from its invention that corporations with no interest in freedom would find ways to abuse and ultimately destroy it.

You can not be "somewhat free". You might not like the GPL, but it is ten times more resilient to abuse than most of the open-source-but-not-free-software licenses.

Re:Free Software, not "open source"

[Bacon Bits]

Yes, because the word "free" is a completely unambiguous word. "Free Software" isn't popular because it was ambiguous from the first day it was coined.

Re:Free Software, not "open source"

[upside]

You've got to be kidding. "Free software" is even more useless than "open source".

It's only the geek crowd, and specifically in the software context, that thinks of free as freedom. For most people "free" connotes free as in beer (zero cost), even in the software context. A little test to put yourself in Joe Average's shoes: imagine yourself outside a bookstore. A sign above a shelf in the window says "free books". Now, do you think "cool, freebies", or do you REALLY think "cool, books that I can copy, modify and sell"?

The simple truth is that people just have to learn about the nuances. You can't create a cover-all term and expect everyone to agree on the meaning and trust everyone not to abuse it.

Aspects such as cost, availability of source and restrictions on use and redistribution are not necessarily tied together at all. I can devise a libre-but-not-zero-cost license that allows people to modify and resell the software, but forbids them from giving it away for free. Or an "zero-cost-redistributable-modifiable-only-for-pri vate-use" license stipulating that the source may be viewed and modified for private use, but the modified versions may not be resold. Ad infinitum.

Re:Free Software, not "open source"

[Tom]

One, that's only true for english. Other languages have two different words for freedom and free beer. French "libre", for example is very clear.

Two, it doesn't matter. We don't see subversion by Joe Doe. We see subversion by corporations. They know the difference very well, no matter the wording.

Its is ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Open to Open Source is as Closed is to Closed Source

You're not strange in that

[Jasper__unique_dammi]

I agree, "Open source" is to vague a term. Its better to refer to your licencing, if one says it has the GPL-licence, it is for instance perfectly clear. (for less well-known licences, some short description is a good idea) Another thing that people seem to associate with "Open source" is that the community developing it is open to people joining/contributing. Maybe they should call that "Open development" instead. (as suggested in article, hadnt read that part yet :) )

Pine, Cedega

[physicsnick]

Exactly. There are plenty of examples of open source projects that are proprietary, and that may not be redistributed; e.g. Pine, Cedega. You can view the source, in some cases you can modify it and compile your own version, but you may NOT redistribute your changes (not even for free).

"Open source" has absolutely nothing to do with the development process or the rights you have with that source. It simply means the source is open for viewing and for educational use and that's it.

Re:Pine, Cedega

[ray-auch]

Exactly. There are plenty of examples of open source projects that are proprietary, and that may not be redistributed; e.g. Pine, Cedega.

then they are not Open Source, since they don't meet the open source community's definition. They are other things (by our definition) calling themselves open source.

Does this mean that Open Source is only about viewing the code ?

No it does not. Plenty of free-as-in-beer software calls itself "free software" - does this mean that "free software" is only about free-as-in-beer ? No.

Re:Pine, Cedega

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because Cedega repackages some parts of Wine does not make it open source. Actually, there are significant parts of the source code to Cedega that are not available to the public. You better think harder about what open source really means.

Re:Pine, Cedega

[TheRaven64]

A significant problem is people using legal terms they don't understand. The Equation Service for OS X, for example, says under licensing that 'It is distributed as freeware under the GPL license,' however no source download is available and the author does not respond to emails requesting the source.

Wikipedia, which ought to know better, is also guilty of this. It has a banner allowing people to claim that they are 'dual licensing' their content as public domain and GFDL, in spite of the fact that placing it in the public domain means they no longer own the copyright and so are not able to release it under the GFDL (although Wikipedia may include public domain contributions but be GFDL as a complete work).

People here will flame you if you use words like 'class,' 'object,' and 'variable' interchangeably but the same sort of abuse of legal terminology rarely draws comment.

Re:tsirf

[CyberLord Seven]

TSOP? The Sound Of Philadelphia? Gamble & Huff, is that you?

Why this is GOOD for "open source"

[Anonymous Coward]

To continue to grow I believe "open source" needs companies and of course companies require profit to keep running. Why does "open source" need companies? Because without them none of the menial tasks get done. The pretty interfaces, the user friendly installers, the extensive documentation, friendly support avenues, etc...

The problem however is of course how do you make money on something you give away for free? Offering support is one way, but that it can be VERY difficult, because your primary market is usually "geeks". How many geeks do you know call a support help line? The very nature of being a geek is to try to find answers on your own, they go to Google for help, not a 1-800 number. This model rarely works well, and by well I mean it rarely supports a full blown company beyond some programmer and his buddy in his basement.

It would be nice if companies actually supported open source software by donating a fraction of the cost that they are saving by using that software, but that will never happen. A company could save $100,000 by switching from Oracle to PostgreSQL, yet they would never contribute a cent to PostgreSQL, simply because they are not required to.

So how do you make money beyond offering support? Simple, you offer value added services or products (ie: SugarCRM). You give away a free version as the hook and offer services/enhancements which cost money. This doesn't make the company or product any LESS open source. You still get a entire product for FREE, you still get the source code, you can still modify the source code, it usually just comes with a basic limitation:

DON'T TAKE ALL OUR HARD WORK AND TRY TO PUT US OUT OF BUSINESS.

Seems pretty reasonable to me, doesn't it?

If people and companies were ethical they wouldn't need to further restrict their licenses, but people are always looking to make a quick buck, so it forces these companies to take measures to prevent this. It would be nice to see a "standard" license that tries to be as open source as possible while still protecting companies initial investments.

Unless you actually plan on taking their hard work and trying to profit from it specifically, why do you care if the license restricts this or not? You can still create and distribute add-on modules, you can still make modifications to the code for your own use, what else do you need?

Quit arguing over definitions of words, or phrases that will always mean different things to different people. Support the companies that offer something that is useful to you and be done with it.

Term "open" has been meaningless for a long time

[walterbyrd]

For example, what's "open" about OpenVMS? In the 80's companies found that they could increase sales 14% by calling their software products "open" - or something like that, I guess.

Anyway, once a term has been exploited by management and marketing types, forget it, the term becomes meaningless.

OSI? Libre!

[AlXtreme]

Remember kids, claiming that something which doesn't confirm to the OSI definition is "Open Source" is making the same mistake as claiming that Free Software is freeware.

Now if we just renamed both to "Freedom Software"... English does have a translation of Libre.

So to answer the question: Mu.

Re:OSI? Libre!

[gold23]

> Now if we just renamed both to "Freedom Software"...

But that's my name for what used to be "French Software".

Re:Free Software has nothing to do with communitie

[Anonymous Coward]

You're absolutely right. Personally, I think that working with other programmers is just work and not fun. I'm only willing to do it for a paycheck at the end of the month, so I stay away from the community projects.

But that doesn't mean I won't release my stuff as open source. The benefits of the freedoms you mention are important to the end user and don't need to have an impact on the development process. Besides most 'community' projects are really the work of a very small group of dedicated people for the most part.

a wide continuum

[davidwr]

Open source runs the gamut from the public domain with no restrictions to "look but don't use" licenses that let you copy the source code, inspect it, but not compile it or use it in any format other than plain-text.

BSD, GPL, and other public licenses usually fall somewhere in between.

BTW, the latter have some utility, but are not necessarily any better than closed-source. By inspecting the code, you can spot security holes, but so can the Black Hats. They will exploit the holes, and you aren't free to fix them.

who invented open source?

[falconwolf]

Actually, SCO [slashdot.org] (back when it was called Caldera) invented Open Source back in 1996 [google.com]. Yes, that's before the OSI thing, though after the foundation of the FSF.

The Tech Model Railroad Club of MIT had open source software as early as the 1960s and early 1970s beating out SCO by a long shot. The first computer game, Spacewar, came out in 1962 as a result of many programmers' contributions in an open manner. They used to compeat to see who could come up with a nifty hack, something that was considered impossible, never thought of, or was able to shave a few lines out of a program. Those programmer were amoung the first computer hackers and followed the Hacker ethic.

Falcon

Re:who invented open source?

[mackyrae]

Isn't the way they worked very close to Free Software, though? They would show their code to anyone, and anyone who could improve it was allowed to, etc. Open Source doesn't necessarily mean you're allowed to improve it.

Re:who invented open source?

[falconwolf]

Isn't the way they worked very close to Free Software, though? They would show their code to anyone, and anyone who could improve it was allowed to, etc. Open Source doesn't necessarily mean you're allowed to improve it.

It was both free and open. Many would leave a copy of the code near the terminals so anyone else could look at and try to make improvements to the code. They were then expected to do the same thing. Steven Levy wrote a good book, Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution , on this. It goes into both the software and hardware hackers.

Falcon

Re:who invented open source?

[mackyrae]

I know. I'm reading that book right now :)

Libre in the English language

[alexandreracine]

Probably that English should add libre to the dictionary.

Re:Free Software has nothing to do with communitie

[ray-auch]

In fact, it would appear that RMS didn't believe community-based development was possible, at least in some areas:

The kernel will require closer communication and will be worked on by a small, tight group

That was the Hurd cathedral (with the modular micro-kernel, which you would have thought would be more amenable to distributed development).

The Linux bazaar proved him wrong - kernels, even old-fashioned big monolithic ones, _can_ be developed by loose, widespread communities, and a lot faster.

Liberated Software

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom movements have dealt with the terminology for centuries. So we could have unambiguously: "liberated software", "Software Liberation Front", "League for Software Freedom".

You might protest and say that software that is free from the start doesn't require liberation, but because of copyright legislation, all software is in bondage until the active act of liberation by the owner.

Re:Liberated Software

[ray-auch]

Freedom movements have dealt with the terminology for centuries.

And they've also had a habit of getting overly hung up on it and of having it cause infighting and splintering.

So we could have unambiguously: "liberated software", "Software Liberation Front", "League for Software Freedom".

I think you mean "People's Front of Software Liberation", as in:

    "The People's Front of Software Liberation. Splitters!"

    "We're the People's Front of Software Liberation"

    "Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front."

    "People's Front !"

    "Whatever happened to the Popular Front?"

    "He's over there"

    "SPLITTER"

Open Source and BSD license

[falconwolf]

most of the BSD-licensed products in the Linux community have more of sharing culture, and perhaps do not feel as strongly the need to recoup the costs of their development tools :D

I may be wrong but what I understand of the BSD license is that it is less open than the GPL and because of this it's easier to make money from BSD licensed software. A person could take open source code from a project and modify it then sale the new package without opening the code, all that's required is that those who contributed code to what you use you give them credit for.

At least that's my understanding of the BSD license, however I may be wrong. So if someone knows I am wrong I welcome their corrections. Actually I've thought of working a BSD licensed graphics, photoeditting, program. I'm a photographer and GIMP doesn't have many of the capabilities of Photoshop (PS) so unless you make a lot of money the price of PS isn't easily justifiable. Because of this I've thought of working with a BSD licensed app I could program more capabilities into then turn around and make money selling it to other photographers and not have to give the source away, at least not until I've made enough for it to be finacially worth the tyme I spent programming.

Falcon

Not quite

[einhverfr]

Last I checked, the Qmail license was OSI certified. You cannot under that licence distribute modified versions under the same license. You can distribute patches to the software under the same license however. This may seem to be quibbling with definitions but....

Re:Not quite

[morgan_greywolf]

1. There is no "Qmail license." Qmail is license-free. There is just a permission to distribute. 2. The qmail permission is not OSI-approved.

Re:Not quite

[einhverfr]

I figured that the Qmail license is at:
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html

How does permission differ from license? (IANAL, but is there a difference?)

You are right that the license is not certified by OSI, but it does meet their definition due to paragraph 4 (which seems like it was written specifically for Qmail).

Re:Not quite

[morgan_greywolf]

If you want to be technical about it, a license is a permission. It's just that licenses spell out specific requirements for granting a permission. You could view the QMail permission as a 'license', but I think the author prefers to refer to it as a permission, rather than a license so he can say that Qmail is 'license free'.

But, yeah, the bottom line is that Qmail's 'license/permission' doesn't meet the official Open Source Definition, so it's not really an Open Source application. As far as patches go, IANAL, but I don't believe that a copyright holder can prevent you from distributing patches because patches typically don't contain any of the copyrighted work (or at least not enough of it to matter).

I think there is another distinction too

[einhverfr]

between open source and community development. For example, MySQL is open source, but community development is limited by licensing restrictions. In fact MySQL uses the GPL to force people to buy proprietary licenses from them (not very Free).

SQL-Ledger is open source, but again, there is only one guy doing any real development work and he does not seem to like too many contributions (except in limited areas such as translation). Again, open source, but not community-developed.

There are many other cases of people trying to do open source without community development. I don't think the result is ever very good.

Re:I think there is another distinction too

[chromatic]

MySQL is open source, but community development is limited by licensing restrictions.

How?

MySQL uses the GPL to force people to buy proprietary licenses from them (not very Free).

Again, how? I've written a fair amount of code that uses MySQL (and people at MySQL AB use that code occasionally) and I've never had to buy a proprietary license.

Your point about community is well taken

[einhverfr]

We forked LedgerSMB because we were unable to get the maintainer of SQL-Ledger to take seriously any real contributions from others. Certainly documentation and code quality are major aspects in attracting a developer base.

However, I think the bigger issue is that one needs to run a project so that it is open to a community of developers. This means encouraging and offering personal assistance to developers, it means respecting other community members, and it means valuing contribution. If these things are missing, the project will never really have open development.

Source available, but licensing for commercial use

[MarkWatson]

I have been writing open source stuff for over a decade, and I will continue with occasional GPL projects. That said, without corporate sponsorship it is rough financially to spend too much time on open source projects. I am in the process of switching to a plan where for my three current non-consulting development projects (text mining, visualization, and document web portal) I always have a source code drop available with a free for non-commercial use license. Commercial licenses are available for a small (tiny compared to the development costs) fee. This seems like a reasonable approach to me, and potential commercial customers have access to full source code before they commit to spending money. Wil I sometimes get ripped off? Sure, but I prefer to take my chances and trust people.

I don't think that any company should use any important infrastructure software that they do not have source for. Open source like Linux, OpenOffice.org, Apache, etc. are best, but for some more niche infrastructure components that are not commercially sponsored, an approach like the one I am starting to use make sense: consumers are protected by having source code, and developers of niche projects have some chance of making money to support future development.

Not necessarily

[einhverfr]

Certianly all software released under GPL, LGPL, BSD, and similar licenses meets the FSF's definition of Free Software. However, I would argue that there is also a component to that distinction which is softer-- whether a company goes out of their way to unnecessarily limit the freedom of the users of the software.

I do not consider MySQL to be free enough, for example, becuase they use the GPL licensing of client libs to try to force people to pay them money for more rights. I do not see SQL-Ledger as free enough because the main developer actually tends to oppose those trying to contribute.

In short, I don't think that the license is the only consideration when deciding whether software is truly Free. The intentions and actions of those at the center of the community need to be considered as well.

Re:Not necessarily

[Rakishi]

I do not consider MySQL to be free enough, for example, becuase they use the GPL licensing of client libs to try to force people to pay them money for more rights.

So? They allow more options for people who want them, yet a company that only has a GPL license and thus limits options is more free?

In short, I don't think that the license is the only consideration when deciding whether software is truly Free. The intentions and actions of those at the center of the community need to be considered as well.

Why? You can fork the project and make a new community if the current developers(s) aren't playing along and you can use their code in your own project. The developer could reply "fuck you bitch" to every email and contribution attempt but if they have the proper license it's still free software.

You are also missing the point that the community isn't the people working on a single project but all projects with compatible licenses, you can use code freely between projects or analyze other code for methods of doing things. Hell, I'd venture to say that is the whole point of free software not the creation of many discrete independent communities (which imho is rather counterproductive especially if incompatible licenses force such divisions and the projects in question address simialr problems).

Re:Not necessarily

[einhverfr]

Why would I want to fork MySQL when there are two better alternatives (PostgreSQL and Firebird) on the market without this problem? And those alternatives are technically better also. Also, in order to be able to relicense the client libraries under the LGPL, you would need to strip them of any and all code owned by MySQL AB.

When necessary, I have no problem forking. That was one reason behind the LedgerSMB fork.

Re:Term "open" has been meaningless for a long tim

[Anonymous Coward]

"For example, what's "open" about OpenVMS?"

The standards they followed.

"In the 80's companies found that they could increase sales 14% by calling their software products "open" - or something like that, I guess."

You are right. And, as always, if you knew the story, it would make perfect sense. Those were the days of the big IBM. IBM did things on his way (much like Microsoft nowadays and for the exact same reasons). They were closed since you were forced to be a IBM-only company or no IBM at all. But the other companies were "open": you could have Bull and HP and Sun at the same time integrating on a whole structure, hence open: open to colaborate.

Steven Levy's book on hackers

[falconwolf]

I know. I'm reading that book right now :)

I loved the book and read it when it first came out, in the '80s if I recall right. Damn, my memory is bad, so it might of been in the '90s.

Falcon

If you can't use it it's not open.

[argent]

Open source runs the gamut from the public domain with no restrictions to "look but don't use" licenses that let you copy the source code, inspect it, but not compile it or use it in any format other than plain-text.

If you can't use it, it's not open source. You could get VMS source code from DEC on fiche, and this was useful, but it's not "open source".

If you can't redistribute it, it's not open source. Many control systems companies have traditionally sold their software in source code format, particularly where that software is heavily customized, but it's not redistributable, it's not "open source".

The more restrictions there are attached to a package, the less open it is, and it doesn't take all that much to take it out of the realm where "open source" is an appropriate term.

Heck, some interpretations of the GPL are already skirting the edge of what it's meaningful to call "open" as it is. Some of the proposals for GPLv3 have crossed the line for me... though last I checked none of them were actually sticking to the drafts.

Re:Free Software has nothing to do with communitie

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the Linux kernel is more than just a kernel in the strictest sense. It's also a huge collection of drivers, filesystems, support for different architectures and other modules. So it's particularly well suited for distributed development. However, if you consider just the kernel core, only a few people are in charge as it just wouldn't work if too many people made changes that would affect the entire kernel.

Another example: The Gimp. The core of the program was written mostly by two guys. The community added or improved support for file formats, tools, filter effects and that kind of stuff.

Small teams are necessary to create and maintain a modular architecture that can then be used by a larger community.

What is open source?

[davidwr]

I think you made the same point I did - there is a continuum of open-ness.

The difference is your definition sets the bar pretty high and mine sets the bar pretty low.

Either way, using the term "open source" absent the particular restrictions of the particular license isn't very meaningful.

Available source

[giminy]

I prefer my housemate's term for not-really-open source, and it is Available Source. The code is there, but there are some restrictions on how to use it (no commercial use, but free for education/personal use). We should probably all start using this term to describe restricted-use source code licenses.

As long as one can compile...

[Anonymous Coward]

Open source means the code can be inspected by everybody and, hopefully, that you can compile that code. I'd put way more trust in such a system rather than in a closed source, binary only, one. Sure, there have been attempt to place backdoor in source code, but it's not anywhere the level of backdoors/spyware/nastyness that are all way too common in binary-only software (do we really need to start the enumeration?).

For this reason alone, even if I can't submit patches, I'd always choose a product whose code is open.

Just 4 fun

[Anonymous Coward]

> How Open is Open Source Really? As much as you can open it! :-D

I think you misunderstood me

[einhverfr]

I think you misunderstand me.

If you want to contribute to the MySQL codebase or the InnoDB codebase, you must sign over copyright to a commercial entity so that they can sell licenses off that. There are many disincentives to contribute code back to MySQL or InnoDB.

Re:I think you misunderstood me

[chromatic]

I have no trouble doing so. That may be my particular position, however. Most likely, any code I contribute will be a small bugfix. It's possible that I might write something more substantial, such as Parrot bindings or improved Perl bindings, but I have no direct commercial interest in such code, and I expect to get other substantial benefits from it.

On any major F/OSS project I expect to sign over some degree of copyright control when I submit a patch. That doesn't bother me.

lets define a moving target

[3seas]

There are so many endless comments about open source and what ever othr label you want to call it today, be the fact of the matter is that all those involved see it in their own light, and even those not involved.

The bottom is that its source code that you can access and modify without any restriction other than not taking that same right away from others.

But those who do not like it continue to come up with distortions of that and claim that are not consistant with it in the hope that what they want will happen.

But it just doesn't work that way and it should reall say something about the party saying such things.

Re:dead? maybe just diluted

[Anonymous Coward]

A good example of a company pushing the limits is CentricCRM
Their philosophy seems to be get patches from the users but make it as hard as possible for someone to set it up without help

Open Source = You can get the Source Code

[ghostbar38]

Easy as that, you can get the source code and you own the system :) And the rest depends on the license

Movements lead to crap ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just utterly tired of people who are involved with a movement. Any movement.

I tend to take the perspective that movements lead to crap.

GPL, open source translation.. "PROFIT!!"

[LingNoi]

Motorola for example has completely missed the point with their Motorola A1200 Ming phone. I bought one because I thought I would be able to change the code (It said it uses the Linux kernel so it didn't seem unreasonable).

Yes you can download the code but you can not use it at all. They've locked down the phone so tight that you can't even boot up the phone without THEIR kernel.

This number one reason we need the GPL 3 License on the Linux kernel so I can upgrade / change my damn phone!

Re:Open Source and BSD license

[Rakishi]

Not really, if you're the solve developer (or copyright owner) you can release things with any license or combination of them. It's somewhat popular to have a GPL version that can't be easily used in commercial products but also have a version that companies can pay for to bypass that restriction (but have other restrictions as a result). As long as contributors assign you copyright or license their additions under all the licenses you're using then you can even "sell" their code. If you're releasing just binaries it doesn't much matter what license you're using as you can simply assign any one you want when releasing the source (you own the copyright after all).

In your example, with a BSD license once you release the source code its open for any one else to add to their commercial products. With GPL they'd have to pay you assuming you have such a system in place even if you release the source.

Q. How Open is Open Source Really?

[giafly]

A. Depends on the ethics of each author. Nothing prevents you taking a GPL'd product and making your own proprietary changes. Then when you distribute your product you strip comments and obfuscate the code before compiling the final release version and publishing the incomprehensible source. In theory it's still Open Source, in practice it's not. I've used an AJAX framework which looks like this has happened.

Re:Q. How Open is Open Source Really?

[Gregory Cox]

From the GPL version 2: "The source code for a work means the preferred version for modifying it." If you obfuscate, it's no longer in the preferred form, so it doesn't meet the GPL's requirements.

Obfuscating as you suggest would destroy the meaning of opening up the source code, so no-one writing an open source license would want to allow it. If any licenses do allow it, it must be by accident.

"Source code" vs "open source".

[argent]

I think you made the same point I did - there is a continuum of open-ness.

No. My point is that a product can include source code without in any way, shape, or form being "open source".

Back when "selling software" was a new thing, and even well into the '70s, it was rare to *not* get source to a system you bought, if you spent any significant amount on software, because there weren't any other mechanisms available to ship a highly configurable software package. In some parts of the industry, it's still a bit controversial for a customized system not to include source. This doesn't, in any sense, mean that you get any more rights with the software... in fact the contracts for delivery of such software may well be extremely restrictive.

If distributing source code was all there was, there wouldn't be a term "open source". There wouldn't be any need for a new term to distinguish "open source" distribution of software from any other source code distribution. Applying "open source" to things like VMS is the kind of cynical debating tactic DEC-heads used to use back in the Ken Olsen days to put down UNIX. It's an attempt to muddy the waters... and even Microsoft has given up on that kind of word game. They call their restricted source code distributions "shared source".

If that's not ebnough to convince you, let's look at wher the terms come from.

Even before the term "open source" was devised there was a strong distinction between source code you could redistribute, like the DECUS tapes, and licensed software that happened to be distributed with some kind of source code, like VMS.

If you can't redistribute it, it's a closed source-code distribution.

UNIX illustrates this prefectly. Academic-licensed UNIX was distributed through source code licenses, but it wasn't open source. It was an "open system"... in fact it became the archetypical "open system", but it was an open system whether it included source or not. The copy of Xenix you got from Microsoft in binary form was open in the same sense that the copy of 32V on your CS department's VAX was, even though one was binary-only and the other included source. A system can be "open" or "closed" completely independantly of whether source code was part of the distribution.

These terms, "open source" and "open system", don't exist in a vacuum. They exist in the context of "non-open source" and "non-open systems". Closed source and open source distributions already existed before the term "open source" was devised to describe systems where the source code was open in the same kind of sense that "open systems" were open, and so the term wasn't created out of nothing by Eric Raymond... it was simply a description of a real distinction that already existed.

To argue that "all source is open source" makes "open source" meaningless, yes, but not because "open source" is meaningless, but because "all source is open source" is a fallacy.

Yes, distribution is key

[davidwr]

"If you can't redistribute it, it's a closed source-code distribution."

On that, we agree. I'm sorry I wasn't clear in my original post.

The difference in licenses is what you can do with it once you get it.

Some licenses ONLY allow you to read the source and pass it on unmodified and uncompiled.

Others let you compile and run it, and distribute generated binaries, under certain conditions.

Public domain code is so liberal that it even lets you make non-trivial alterations and distribute the resulting binary as a non-open-source project, without source, under a newly-granted copyright. It also lets you distribute the binary without source, even without changes. Heck, it would violate the spirit of copyright law but you can probably claim copyright on the resulting binary and nobody will notice, especially if your compiler remixes the code to confuse decompilers.

Not so - see line 1 of introduction!

[midgley]

"Open Source means you get the code and nothing more. No guarantee that you can redistribute,"

"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:"

http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php

Mod parent way down.

Then there shouldn't be much controversy.

[argent]

OK, what I was objecting to was this: "Open source runs the gamut from the public domain with no restrictions to "look but don't use" licenses that let you copy the source code, inspect it, but not compile it or use it in any format other than plain-text."

The term "open source" can't be stretched that far. It doesn't include "look but don't use" licenses. It doesn't include the old UNIX academic licenses. It doesn't include custom contract programming. It doesn't even include the old Prentice-Hall license on Minix.

The gray area isn't between GPL and "look but don't use", it's somewhere around DJB's license on qmail, and there's really not much in it. It's not anywhere near broad enough to question the meaningfulness of the term, and people who are calling software with restrictions on redistribution "open source" are simply prevaricating.

even the GPL restricts redistribution

[davidwr]

"... people who are calling software with restrictions on redistribution "open source" are simply prevaricating."

I hate to quibble but I must. The GPL2 does restrict redistribution in two important ways, both for the common good as seen by its proponents:

* It prohibits redistributing binaries without providing access to the source.
* It prohibits redistributing modified binaries without access to enough source to modify the GPL2'd sections of the code. Some argue this clause is viral, that prohibits calling non-GPL2 code without releasing that code under the GPL2.

The question is not "do non-public-domain licenses restrict redistrubition" but under what conditions do they restrict redistribution. The only thing I can think of that absolutely distinguishes "open" from "closed" source is that any open-source license must allow, but not necessarily require, anyone who receives the original, unmodified licensed compiled code released under the open-source license to obtain the original, unmodified, uncompiled source and distribute this original, unmodified, uncompiled source to anyone and everyone under identical terms. From this point on, what you have is varying degrees of openness - from "minimally open but not really useful except to auditors" to "in the public domain."

It's all about the source.

[argent]

Picky, picky. OK, "... people who are calling software with restrictions on redistribution of the source code "open source" are simply prevaricating." The point is that you can fix the source improve the source and pass on the source. What restrictions the license may place on distribution of compiled code are a separate issue.

It's not just "varying degrees of openness". The border between "open source" and "not open source" is quite clear. If it's open source, and if you have the source, you're allowed to give me the source - with or without your modifications. If it's open source, there's presumably some place you can get the source (or there's some place you could have gotten the source at some time - there's no open-source library-of-congress style repository), but if there isn't there should be nothing stopping you from setting up your own repository with the copy you have. Qmail is the only actively supported project I know of that really pushes the envelope here, in that you can pass on the modifications but the recipient has to get the unmodified source and re-assemble the thing himself... I would be hard pressed to argue that it's really "open source" because of that.

Binaries are not source. Restrictions on the distribution of binaries are important, sure, but they're a separate issue from whether the thing they're derived from is "open source" or not.