Slashdot Mirror
How To Kill an Open Source Project With New Funding
mir42 writes "The OpenSource multimedia authorware project Sophie, formerly hosted by USC Los Angeles, may just have been killed by new funding. The original funding organization, Mellon Foundation, approved a grant to redevelop the four year project from scratch in Java. The grant was awarded to a Bulgarian company based on their proposal, which is simply an exact description, including the UI and the artwork, of the current Sophie. Being an OpenSource project, this isn't strictly illegal, but let's say, not nice and definitely not innovative, coming from a former sub-sub-contractor on the project. Some of the original, now laid-off developers started OpenSophie.org trying to salvage the project. As the current version is still somewhat buggy and slow, it might just be enough to alienate all potential users of Sophie to the point that nobody will even try to use the next version. Have others faced similar situations? How would you deal with a situation like this?"
Is this a legit question being asked at the end of the story? Or is this whole article a thinly veiled attempt to editorialize about an event the author disagrees with in an effort to drum up community support for his/her project?
It seems like Slashdot is being used as a hammer here, instead of just the normal server-blasting time waster we all signed up for. I don't like being used.
What exactly is the problem here? The old devs don't like something about the new project(the summary isn't clear what, and there's no article with more information), so they've forked it. Who exactly killed what?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I'm not even sure what the question is. So the project is being taken closed source? Or it's still open source but the original developers aren't included in the new plan?
From the description, it sounds like a fork is getting all the monetary attention - not unheard of.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
I dunno what the deal is... sounds completely legit to me. There's nothing in the GPL, or in F/OSS in general, that says that if you write something, someone else cannot come along with a better story, more money, more developers, etc. and take your code or even forking it out from under you and taking control of the project. They can also start selling support for it and making money off of it (even without additional development... just support it).
...might be "How To Kill an Open Source Project With A Crappy Web Site".
I took a look at OpenSophie.org, and there's nary a specific description of what the project is, no screenshot graphics, and the only documentation and examples seem to be embedded in downloadable .zip files.
I'm not saying that the project's good, or bad, or bogus, but from the website, there's nothing that makes me want to litter my hard drive with zips from an unknown, untrusted source, just to find out more.
It sounds like a hostile takeover where the community had no power and their duties were simply outsourced by the player holding all the cards.
For any given open source project, there's some kind of answer to the question of "who owns this thing?". When choosing a particular FOSS product as a key component of a project, you have to be aware of not only the quality of the software but the issues of its community politics.
There is baggage with commercial products also, but it's a different set of equations. (Like, if I rely on the product will they jack up the licensing fee, and is this company too small or too big to give my account the attention it needs, etc.)
Let's subsitute another better known entity as an example.
"The OpenSource office project OpenOffice, may just have been killed by new funding. The original funding organization Sun approved a grant to redevelop the four year project from scratch. The grant was awarded to a Bulgarian company based on their proposal which is simply an exact description, including the UI and the artwork, of the current Open Office. (Having contributed nothing new.) Being an OpenSource project this isn't strictly illegal, but let's say, not nice and definitely not innovative, coming from a former sub-sub contractor on the project. Some of the original, now laid off, developers started FreedomOffice.info trying to salvage the project. As the current version is still somewhat buggy and slow, it might just be enough to alienate all potential users of Sophie to the point that nobody will even try to use the next version."
Clearer? When you submit a proposal for new funding as a replacement for the original Dev team, screenshotting the existing features is a bit slimy.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Wait, I know how to solve the problem! The original authors should have claimed exclusive copyrights to the source code and distributed only binaries. Maybe they could even file for a patent on some of their methods.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
hi,
:) jahshaka (http://jahshaka.org/) was a open source digital content creation tool for film/video released at the start of the online video revolution. We had great hopes and we were pretty hot with 40-50k downloads a month and a active community. we won a few awards (best graphics software of the year) and intel contacted us saying they wanted to help out.
i feel your pain! funding killed my project... and herein lies my story
One thing led to another and with intels help we got £4 million from a tier-1 vc in the UK, under the terms that i move to the UK to be cheif evangleist (?). Sounds great right? Well for the first year 75% the funding went into the hands of upper management and their consultants (since upper management were clueless to open source).
Then they close-sourced the project, so with the communities help we tried to wage a war against management to 'open their eyes' and i ended up getting sacked for it - and left stuck in london with my family, wife and kids. And london aint cheap.
After the 2nd year (with no progress at-all, no new releases, and a failed attempt at build a CMS which was nothing to do with our project) eventually i was hired back as a consultant.
I immediatly directed as much of the budget as possible (turned out to be around 2 mil us) into building a fork of the underlying engine in the original project, called the openlibraries, under the LGPL. i took a back seat and directed this while i watched another CEO proceed to build a online video distribution system with the rest of our cash (also nothing to do with our project but whatever) with a goal of eventually getting my stuff back.
In the end i was able to use my consulting fees to buy it all back... for around £50k... only to find out that i had wasted 4 years of my life and was back to where i was when i got the funding. I got some cool tech out of the deal and some cool domains (http://plugin.com/) but it has then taken me the better half of this year to figure out how to get the project back off the ground.
so, if nothing at all, you can learn from mmy experiences. open source is not about money its about the people. if you want to build a comercial business then you need to make up your mind from the start.
hope this helps,
Jah Shaka http://www.jahshaka.org/
As Dean of the USC School of Cinematic Arts and the Principal Investigator on the original Sophie grant, I'd like to share my own perspectives on what's happening with Sophie.
Sophie 1.0 was and is a collaboration between our School and the Institute for the Future of the Book (IF:Book). Sophie is intended to make it easier for anyone who is interested in authoring rich-media ebooks to be able to produce professional quality output with minimal training. Bob Stein, head of IF:Book and before that the founder of the Voyager multimedia company, is Sophie's visionary, and a longtime colleague and friend. Bob and I approached Mellon (note: The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation's Program in Research in Information Technology, not Carnegie Mellon, as someone suggested) for funding because Sophie's core constituency is also their core constituency: people in higher education institutions, libraries, museums, arts organizations, and wildlife organizations who want to author interactive content that makes extensive use of text, images, audio, and video. Mellon supported the project on the same terms as all software projects it supports; namely, that the software must be offered under an open source license, and that we must work to develop a sustaining, open source community for Sophie as part of our responsibilities.
Sophie 1.0 is written in Squeak, a Smalltalk variant. It implements Bob's vision, does what was promised to Mellon, and does it well. As a 1.0 product, there is still plenty of room for enhancement, and we had always intended to approach Mellon for additional funding for version 2.0. Unfortunately, despite a lot of interest among individual faculty and a few small programs, the widespread institutional adoption necessary to form a viable Sophie 1.0 sustaining community was not happening - due in large part, our inquiries suggested, to lack of interest in supporting an enterprise software application written in Squeak. In the community whose support was most essential to Sophie's survival, everyone wanted a language that was more widely known and used; the largest single group of potential adopters wanted Java
There's a long story about how it happened, but the short version is that IF:Book and USC asked one of the contractors that had helped write Sophie 1.0 - a Bulgarian firm called Axa Solutions - to write Sophie 2.0 in Java, so that it could be adopted widely enough to become a self-sustaining, community-supported open source project. Sharing our concerns about adoption, and continuing to believe in the project, Mellon enthusiastically supported our decision by making a grant for version 2.0 in Java. Sophie 2.0 is not just a Java rewrite of version 1.0: it is a true version 2, containing all the lessons learned in version 1 and substantially extending the functionality, which merely happens to be written in a different programming language.
Let me correct some inaccuracies in the comments I have read so far. No, I don't consider what we're doing to be forking the project, any more than any version 2 is a fork of version 1: Sophie 2.0 will even feature backward compatibility with Sophie 1.0 books (as well as an improved file-format, one of the lessons learned from Sophie 1.0). Yes, our solution uses a Bulgarian firm, Axa Solutions, as a contractor, but that is not as much of a change as it has been made to sound; as I mentioned, the Bulgarians were part of 1.0 development as well. No, the Bulgarian firm is not closing the code: they don't own the IP, we do, and we have signed a contract with Mellon to make Sophie available under an approved open source license. No, this is not a commercial undertaking in any sense: this is two not-for-profit organizations developing open source software with the help of a charitable foundation, to be sustained by an open source community of not-for-profit user-institutions like colleges, museums, and theaters. Apart from Axa Solutions, which is a contractor to us in the same way the rest of the original Squeak coders were contractors to us (including, I assume