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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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!

[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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.