Slashdot Mirror
Think Tank Report On the State of Open Source
AlexGr writes to recommend an account of a meeting a couple of months back of representatives from more than 100 software companies discussing the state of open source software. The outcome is outlined in a 16-page report, 2007 Open Source Think Tank: The Future of Commercial Open Source (PDF). Among the surprising conclusions: participants noted a growing similarity in methods between open source and proprietary software development. They predicted some kind of convergence, where the best of both approaches gets adopted in each camp.
For instance, at last year's Open Source Think Tank meeting, participants were expecting open-source software to achieve greater predominance. However, licensing and support issues have slowed the adoption of open-source solutions at the enterprise level.
Licensing and Support issues with 'Closed Source' software is precisely what drove enterprises to Open Source! Enterprise care a hoot about GPL v2 and GPL v3 wars.. they aren't interested in redistribution.. just that the Damn Thing Works (TM) !
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Who declared these people a "think tank"? Most of the people on slashdot think about Open Source/Free Software sometimes. Bill Gates does as well. Is HE an "Open Source Think Tank"?
Am I the only one that thinks "Think Tanks" are payed shills and can never be trusted with _any_ report they produce?
"(...)
Microsoft was represented by Sam Ramji, Director of Open Source Technical Strategy, while Novell was represented by Justin Steinman, Director of Marketing Linux and Open Platforms.(...)
(...)
From Microsoft's perspective, the deal it struck with Novell was driven mainly by customer demand. Sam described how its Interoperability Executive Council, which includes 30 top CIOs demanded interoperability between Windows and Linux, as both must coexist in the enterprise and neither will completely displace the other."(...)
(...)
From Novell's perspective, its motivation for the deal was primarily the need to differentiate itself in a meaningful way to gain share versus Red Hat. As number two in the market, Novell recognized that it simply could not gain significant share without a "game-changing" event. (...)"
How about meeting the needs of users? Any vendor is free to adopt any licence they want, it's up to the market, i.e. the buyers, to decide if that licence is acceptable or not.
All in all, the whole article seems like an intent to spread FUD against the GPL.
This year's "platinum sponsors" were Microsoft and Novell.
. pdf
Source: http://thinktank.olliancegroup.com/ostt2007report
Nuff said.
2. IM is the preferred method of communication (with friends) for those under 25 by a wide margin and email is the preferred communication method for those over 25 by a significant percentage. This represents a major generation gap in communication modes.
3. User generated content is vastly increasing in both supply and demand, driven by such popular online properties as MySpace, FaceBook, YouTube, blogs
o Written content: 55M blogs today, up 800% in past year
o Visual content: homemade videos, mashups
4. Traditional media is losing authority with the younger generation, who are increasingly turning to "open" media for advice about music, products and services.
5. Companies are following these trends
o Adopting corporate blogs, especially by CEOs
o "Always-connected" management
o Rise of SaaS
o Virtualization of workforce
o Outsourcing
o Mobility solutions
How is this all related to Open source and its effects? I don't seem to get the point here.Is it just me or ridiculously off agenda?
What a waste of time ?... my time offcourse :-)
-- "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration" - TAE --
The concern corporations have over licensing of open source has very much to do with licensing and support.
1) They do not want to be compelled to release their own software, and GPL does not make clear what constitutes distribution. They send their internally-developed software to company divisions all over the world, which may or may not be sold in the future, and to vendors and suppliers. Sometimes they make licensing agreements with third-parties to support or even take over internally-developed applications. Does that constitute distribution?
So, they play it safe and forbid the use of GPL code for development.
2) Who do you call for support?
It isn't rare for an Open Source project to be entirely developed behind closed doors before its first appearance on the 'market'. This approach is typical of larger companies, like RH and IBM (which can afford an extensive internal testing roadmap) and doesn't at all imply that the software is closed source in itself.
Once finished such software is released under an open license after which point it is continued to be developed in collaboration with the community; particularly in areas relating to bug-squashing and building interoperability with applications not considered important at the time it went to market.
Is the development of such software then considered 'open' or 'closed'? I think it's hard to generalise.
I read the report, and I believe the word think tank is misleading. It was a just seminar or workshop, where people in the industry exchanged experiences for their mutual inspiration and benefit.
A think tank is more of a permanent or at least longer term organization, where similar minded people tries to build a rational justification for their already existing viewpoints.
Both are actually quite useful. The seminars / workshops are a fine place to learn from others mistakes, so you can make your own new and exciting mistakes instead of merely repeating the old and boring mistakes made by others.
The think thanks are just about the only thing today that even attempts to raise political discourse above the level of sound bites. I'm very glad they exists, even those think thanks that support the opposing side.
I'm just a beginner, but you don't need the "safety word" in cases of self-flagellation. You just stop.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Sure they disclaim liability, but Redhat is pretty much in the business of saying "You're better off with us than you are without us" (which is fine, but that's their business in a nutshell). Big contracts are all about support, not licensing details.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Platinum sponsors: Microsoft, Novell
.. negotiate license terms (such as indemnification) .. adequate internal compliance policies and procedures to manage risks .. GPL'
..
,in an address from the Vatican, that Devil worship is not viewed as positive or negative but Religions must focus on solutions that deliver believers needs.
.. :)
. pdf
What the f**k is Microsoft doing on an Open Source conference. Oh, I forgot, Novell gave them a complimentary pass in exchange for some paper.
[ indemnification FUD ]
'While customers
One of the 'sponsers' of this report having spent years and a whole heap of money on promoting IP and patent FUD now gets to contribute to a report on the indemnification dangers of the GPL, how f*****g ironic.
[ Lack of support FUD ]
'The lack of commercially available support for some open source solutions continues to be a big barrier to adoption'
[ not compatible FUD]
''Another significant barrier to adoption by customers is integration and interoperability'
[ Open source standards not standard FUD ]
''Open source lacks compliance with many standards when compared with proprietary solutions'
[ Open source is only ever used to bargan down proprietary vendors ]
'canny CIOs are using open source's reduced acquisition costs as leverage in negotiations with proprietary vendors'
[ Open Source vendors lack the personal touch FUD ] ( a new one on me ? )
''The CIOs agreed that some level of personal touch by commercial open source vendors is needed'
[ Open Source has no known positive attributes ] ( another new one on me ? )
'The fact that a product is open source is not viewed as positive or negative'
Conclusion: If Open Source has no added value as compared to proprietary code then we might as well stick with the lawyer proofed fully supported touchie feely version
In related news, the Pope said today
Money well 'sponcered' on this 'report' methtinks
http://thinktank.olliancegroup.com/ostt2007report
davecb5620@gmail.com
The mistake these people are making is that they are still thinking in terms of "vendors" and "customers". The point of open source software is that the users are the developers.
As soon as you have vendors in the mix, companies that expect to make money from the software, you have conflicting interests: vendors want to make money, and that money has to come out of the pockets of users. It doesn't matter whether the software is nominally open source, these companies are going to find a way to get at the money somehow.
Often, a "hybrid (open source/commercial) model" translates into simply "we're going to let people do a lot of development and bug fixing for us for free, and then we're going to sell the stuff commercially.
A simple rule of thumb is: don't use software under a "hybrid" or "dual license" model; somehow, you are going to be paying for it sooner or later.
is that there usually is not much thinking involved.
Why, yes! I AM new here.