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?"

9 of 212 comments (clear)

  1. Yep. by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why do you want an open source customer management system anyway? You clearly want to make money using it, so why are you surprised that the people who are going to help you do so want money too?

    It's simple... the writers of the open source system wanted to make money so they made a commerical enterprise varient, then told all of the consultants hanging off of them that if they still wanted access to official support, they'd have to agree to only support the enterprise edition. No law violated for that. Either learn how to run the open version yourself, or pay for enterpise. Your choice.

    1. Re:Yep. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To answer another question of yours...

      Sun has open sourced just about everything they have right now including Cluster and SAMFS. They just charge for support using the old pricing model. You can use it, but if you have a question or a problem then you need to pay.

      It's a fair trade. Open Source is not free of charge. Cluster and SAMFS are damn complex software and you had better not go it alone unless you really know your stuff. And experts always pay for backline help.

      Sun's goal is to get lots of people interested in using their good code (a lot of it really is great). If you use it for your own purposes and go it alone, fine. But when you have a paying customer requiring enterprise support...you'll use the code you know and funnel the support dollars back. None of our clients would ever consider not paying.

      This is not evil. If you ask me, it's fair trade and probably the only model that will keep OSS going into the enterprise.

      My advice: you get what you pay for. Don't get fooled by the GPL tag...people gotta pay the bills.

    2. Re:Yep. by fruitbane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It kinda sounds like the OP is willing to pay for project work, which is therefore not free. The OP appears to simply want work done with, or rather on, software that's OSI compliant.

      In this case the open source software is free, but the work is not. And isn't that how open source software is supposed to be profitable?

  2. Fair? by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's business. Business is war. Everything is legal, until and unless of course it isn't. They only ethical considerations businesses have is to their shareholders and owners to keep profit coming in. And in this case, denying "shelter and comfort" from their enemies, those other evil open source projects, they're protecting those profits.

    The better question is; Why are you working for them if you have an ethical objection to this?

    This leads to the old rhetoric of -- well, if enough people turned down the job offer they'd be forced to raise the going price to find a software engineer who'd be willing to "sell out", and if there were enough people this price would be so high that it wouldn't be practical to engage in this business practice. Of course, in truth... Most free agents in the system also subscribe to the theory of "I need to eat." A pity... If only ideals were edible we wouldn't have this problem.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Fair? by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The better question is; Why are you working for them if you have an ethical objection to this?

      These days, with official unemployment figures pushing 7%, and real figures (including people who are ineligible for or have exhausted their unemployment benefits) probably twice that, I'm quite sure that many people are thankful just to have a job, without the luxury of being able to resign for idealistic reasons.

    2. Re:Fair? by MarkvW · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Idealism is a luxury for the rich" = Slave Logic

  3. Re:Quick note... by spazdor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Notice where the OP makes exactly this distinction in the last setntence?

    --
    DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
  4. Welcome to contract law by DraconPern · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Welcome to contract law. If you sign a contract that says you are not going to do something, you better not do it unless you just want an ass raping.

  5. Common Misunderstanding by maz2331 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    This seems to be, in my experience, more likely among lawyers than in other groups.

    It just proves the old saying the stupidity and hydrogen are the universal elements of the universe.

    And, professionally, I'd run from a client like that. They strike me as paranoid enough to end up suing for a trivial reason down the road or cherry-pick advice in a manner that ensures failure of any project you would engage in for them.