Slashdot Mirror


Management 'Scared' by Open Source

A discussion panel at EclipseCon exposed how managers are freaking out over open source. Apparently a disconnect exists between managers who set corporate open source policies and developers supposed to follow them, but who end up covering their tracks to make it seem like they are not using open source. Developers, though, end up using open source because of its ubiquity and not using it 'puts them at a competitive disadvantage because their competitors are.' And the Lawyers are in a panic.

5 of 373 comments (clear)

  1. The main reason is lack of clear knowledge by freedom_india · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1) Managers are under the mistaken impression that if i just use spring or Jakarta Commons, the company MUST open up the whole project in which it is used (like a proprietrary trading system) to Open Source.
    Many managers don't realize that just "using" Spring does NOT force you to open up your systems.
    You only need to open up if and when you modify Spring framework with your own code.

    2) Open source hacks is another fear they have: the fear that somehow using open source tools will make their client sue them.

    3) Leak Back: Managers fear developers, in their zeal to promote open source, will incorporate company's code into open source for 'benefitting' others. Much like SCO claimed. Developers are not fools.

    It requires a maturity level beyond that exists today and i don't blame them since these managers were brought up an era where you pay good money for good things.

    --
    "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    1. Re:The main reason is lack of clear knowledge by rlauzon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The main reason is the lack of knowledge. Period. (At least for the companies that I've worked for.)

      The people who makes these decisions are frequently ex-techies who don't realize that they have no useful knowledge anymore, simply because they've been living in management-land for so long. So they make decision based on simple rules. Back in the '80's, the rule was "no one got fired for going with IBM." Now, it's "no one got fired for going Microsoft."

      Time and time again, they choose to pay for overpriced Microsoft products instead of going with an open source alternative. For example: when we "upgraded" to Windows XP, we also "upgraded" to Office XP. No one could give me a clear reason why we chose to pay $75 per license for Office XP instead of going to OpenOffice for free.

      The only time non-Microsoft products enter the enterprise is when these people aren't part of the decision process. For example: our new PBX system runs Asterix and the "print servers" that we put in the remote locations are all appliances that run Red Hat.

    2. Re:The main reason is lack of clear knowledge by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know much about Spring in particular, but depending on the license it's perfectly legal to download it, learn how to build it, and make someone pay you to install it. Charge whatever you can get; try to keep a lid on how easy it is. Attributing it to yourself would break the license, but it would be *your breach, not the client's.

      "If you use any open source code in your company's software, your failure to comply with the legal conditions for doing so (such as the GPL) can and will put you in close communication with your lawyers if the original coder ever finds out you've ripped his code in secret."

      The good news is that policy from the highest levels at the free software foundation is "never let a request for damages interfere with a settlement for compliance." So if a manager finds that they are noncompliant, they will get guidance (from Moglen) about how to get back into compliance, rather than a lawsuit.

      On the whole, it seems like a much friendlier proposition that having a team of attorneys crawl over every vendor's EULA with a microscope.

      --
      My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
    3. Re:The main reason is lack of clear knowledge by multipartmixed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What the hell is wrong with using Excel to do graphing?

      I regularly generate reasonably complex CSV files with *nix tools, usually out of prof, truss, dtrace or syslog output. A couple of quick clicks in excel, up pops a graph which contains useful visual information. Why, just the other day I solved a multi-process race condition with a floating bar chart derived from a log file...

      Excel is really great for that sort of stuff, lots of built-in graph types you can quickly try, it understands things like dates and floats, and if you wind up with something really cool you can take a few more minutes to add some labels and colours and bang it into a PDF.

      Compared to what.. What other tool allow that? Hmm. I'm thinking here. Whatever tool that might be, it sure as hell isn't installed on my desktop and I don't know how to use it.

      So, in your magic neverland where Excel is not the right solution.. What is? And why should I spend time+money on it, when Excel already does what I want it to?

      (And, for the record, I use Excel '97...)

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  2. The license issues by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And the Lawyers are in panic

    And for good reason. Just listening to all the talk on whether or not Novell is violating GPL (perhaps by simply partnering with another vendor - Microsoft) should make a lawyer's skin crawl...

    If more code was released under BSD-type license, we would've seen wider adoption.

    So, GPL was used to wrestle a few vendors into releasing their own code. And what? Who has looked into that code or used it for anything else? And how many other vendors have (foolishly) decided to avoid "open source" and come up with their own (usually inferior) re-inventions of the wheel, because of that?

    It is hard enough to use an outside solution because of the NIH syndrome. Restrictive licenses exacerbate the problem...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.