Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Can You Be Denied the Right To Support OSS?

Posted by Soulskill on from the oss-enterprise dept.

jerico.dev writes "I am currently selecting a CM tool for a project. Important condition: the software must be OSI compliant. I considered Alfresco, since they call themselves 'open source.' Then I heard from several of Alfresco's partners that they are not allowed to do projects based on Alfresco's GPL edition because their partnership contract denied them the right to do so. They only can support Alfresco's enterprise edition. But Alfresco's VP of business development Matt Asay told me that their enterprise edition is not OSI compliant. Does anyone in the Slashdot crowd have experience with partner contracts of other OSS vendors? Is it normal that Sun, Red Hat, etc. force their partners to decline projects based on their open source editions? It's probably legal to do so, but do you think it is legitimate and fair?"

5 of 212 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Yep. by mrboyd · · Score: 5, Informative

    open source != free

  2. Re:Yep. by jerico.dev · · Score: 5, Informative

    LostCluster, you are right, if you want to make money with it, it's ok to pay for it. Open source != free. Agreed!

    Why do you want an OSI compliant product: In our case principally to avoid vendor lock-in. No company is forced put the "open source" label to their product.

    So if you get an OSI compliant product that you have to pay for and that's supported, then as a customer, you're happy to pay for it. (I think that's Red Hats case.)

    In this case you're forced to buy a proprietary product from an "open source" company if you want support...

  3. They hold the copyright by BoneFlower · · Score: 3, Informative

    And can set the terms for use of their software, and provision of their support, as they see fit. They can set terms in their partnership contracts restricting what those partners can do with the software, that would take precedence over the license of the software itself. This does, of course, assume that they themselves hold copyright on all code covered by their commercial license and partnership contracts, or have secured permission from the copyright holders for distribution under these terms.

    That said, if you simply download the GPL version and then have nothing to do with them or their partners, you are still free to do anything with it that the GPL normally permits, provided their GPL version does not use an altered GPL.

  4. Re:Common Misunderstanding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
    All the talk out there regarding the "viral" nature of GPL code has confused a lot of otherwise very smart people. What happens is that they miss the dividing line between "the development" and "the use" of the programs.

    Huh? Please elaborate on that. I thought the whole point of the GPL was that there is no such dividing line: if you're a user, you have the right to hack it too.

    Elementary: As a user, you are free to use the software as much as you please. As a developer, you are free to hack it for your own use with no restrictions. But if you distribute it, you are bound to distribute it under the GPL, which includes distributing the source too.

  5. Re:Yep. by eclectus · · Score: 5, Informative

    disclaimer: I work for Sun.

    Sun does not have 'free' versions and 'for fee' versions of software. Most of Sun's software is offered free for download & commercial use, you just pay if you want support. Our CEO has stated publicly that it is his goal to eventually have ALL of our software open sourced and free for use, but some of our software has licensing (between Sun and other companies) keep that from happening right now.

    --
    This signature is a waste of 42 characters