Slashdot Mirror
Can You Be Denied the Right To Support OSS?
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?"
open source != free
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.
Notice where the OP makes exactly this distinction in the last setntence?
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
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...
"railroad you like a municipal court?" Heh. I like that. Very astute!
But yes, I recently lost a job due to OSS. I feel sad that I'm happy about losing that job. (Surely the Germans must have a word for that.)
Anyways, this was a new job. These folks talked a good game. They knew all the right things to say during the interviews. It sounded promising...
They hired me to develop C++ applications under Linux. I showed up for work only to discover I'd be restricted to using Outlook/IE. Installing, let alone using, Firefox was forbidden. I asked the obvious question. (How to use Outlook/IE under Linux?) Turns out their programmers get a Windows box on their desktop with Hummingbird X-Windows software installed, and need to share a common Linux machine with other developers. We were cautioned against using too many resources on that machine, because after all it is SHARED...
Moving on to the NDA. It's a little overly broad, perhaps unintentionally giving them rights to whatever I develop during my off-hours. Without compensation, of course. I dabble in open-source, so this is a small matter of concern. I tried to negotiate more reasonable terms. (I'm happy to give them rights to anything they pay for.) They seemed to feel that, since they use [purchase] open-source software, my developing open-source software in my off-hours constituted a conflict of interest and promptly rescinded their offer of employment.
I'm a lucky man. Somebody up above was watching out for me that day!
I've since learned that they're on a death-march. I'm now hearing rumors that their coding standards, which I did not get to see, prohibit casting between base and derived classes, amongst other atrocities. But thankfully I can't confirm that.
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