Slashdot Mirror
Open Source causes more Harm than Good?
Gryphon
sent us a link to a Linux Power article on
Open Source causing more
harm than good. Talks about OSI, ESR, the recent
proliferation of "Open Source" and more things that are
also being discussed fairly passionately in the
article on ESR wanting to retire that
we posted earlier. Update: 03/29 11:45 by S : In other reactions to the ESR
story, AbiSource's Eric Sink
argues replacing ESR is the wrong goal, and Bruce Perens
says we need
speakers not leaders. Thanks to LT
and rokhed.
Some people want access to the code so the programs that they like and use will work better. Licenses like the APSL are no problem in this case.
Some people want access to the code so they can learn coding techniques from "the big boys". Again, the APSL is perfectly serviceable.
Some people want access so they can use the code in their own projects. Of those, some want it to avoid duplication of work. Some want it to avoid doing work. In these cases, the APSL can be a real problem. But then again, so can the GPL, depending on what your goals are. It's all a matter of perspective.
This is slightly complicated by the fact that someone has tried to put a strict definition on the words 'open source'. And that term now has some cachet. So you're going to see companies trying to cash in on that by giving as little as they possibly can. Noone should be surprised at this. It's the nature of business. Let's face facts, people. If you were one of Apple's major shareholders, you would be the first at Jobs' door with a pitchfork if he GPL'd OS X.
I think what is happening here is not a disaster in the making. It's the future in the making. Mistakes will be made along the way. Maybe trying to define 'Open Source' was a mistake. We'll see. But none of this is going to happen overnight. It has to grow in fits and starts, just like everything else. It's just that in this case, we all get to see it happening and in whatever way, participate. You may think it's a disaster waiting to happen, and it may be from your perspective. Personally, I'm kind of enjoying watching it evolve.
- This guy is way too cynical and condescending. ESR deserves a little better than this flaming.
- His comments about Apple and Troll Tech are rather extreme. Apple's licence has problems - they can and probably will be fixed. Troll's licence does NOT have any "non-free" problems according to RMS. I don't see what the debate is over.
- I thought FUD was a Microsoft tactic. Now I'm hearing FUD about Apple, ESR, Troll Tech, OSI, etc. Isn't it lovely how human nature has turned a community based on sharing into a community based on cynicism and flaming?
- Let's try to be constructive! The world is not going to beat a path to our doorstep forever. We have to stand on our own merits, and cynicism like this is not going to help matters. We have to work *together* with companies if we want to see open source spread further. The name of the game is *increasing personal freedom*, not living in an insular community that fears outsiders.
Let's debate what's wrong with these new licenses, but let's not persecute these companies for dipping their toes in the ocean.
Furthermore, while it conflicts with the free software ideal, it's worthwhile to watch these companies experiment with direct-revenue model licenses that aren't "quite" open source. Sun's "pay if you play" licence is a good example of something that 'might' work. While it doesn't benefit *THIS* community, there might be a whole other community (I.e. commercial Java developers) who will benefit from increased access to Sun's source code. If THAT community wants to accept Sun's restrictions, so be it - it still increases their personal freedom, which is a step in the right direction.
-Stu
How dare Christian Schaller tell me what is right for me! If I want to use Netscape with what he considers to be a bad licence that's my business.
And I quote,
"I heard many people saying we should be grateful to these companies for allowing us to see the sourcecode and even fix their bugs. Many even said that it would be very unkind of us to try to make competing products to be released under true free software licenses, when these companies had been so gracious towards us."
How come I have never met anyone like this? I have not once heard anyone take such a pathetic groveling position. Why should I, who isn't as picky about my apps as my OS(no I don't use Mac OS), be grouped in with such a shortsighted person.
If the term "Open Source", comes to mean garbage then people won't use software that brandishes it. They will just ignore it.
Learn from Gorbechev's revolution, if he had said, "I am going to end communism in the USSR.", at the begining of his term he would have been dead by morning! This moderate approach is what ESR is good at. A little finesse, and moderation please.
In case you are wondering where I stand I insist on GPL and LGPL for libraries, for my kernel, shared libraries, common tools, and desktop. I do this to prevent companies from holding me hostage.
I can then in turn use common file types, network standards, and OS malibility to protect myself from unruly apps. I prefer more open licences for apps but if a closed app does a better job, so be it.
Don't try to group me in with a bunch of shortsighted morons who want to do someone else's work with no protection for their efforts, I don't believe in, or approve of your "My way or the high way" approach.
Let people know everyone has a choices. We have enough big brothers.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
I guess it boils down to the fundamental difference between RMS and ESR. RMS wants to be able to do whatever he wants with software. ESR wants the source to be visible so that people can see the source, learn from it, and fix bugs. But it doesn't seem that the ability to reuse code in other applications is as important to him.
The article makes a good point in describing a lot of the new open-source programs as very project-oriented. The recent licenses encourage fixes, reading the source, etc, but make certain that it's all directed towards a single project, the project the company is sponsoring. Patch-only releases are great, for instance, if you're working on (eg) a mail application. But you won't be able to use the mail handling code if you'd like to add a "Mail document to" to your word processor.
These licenses will satisfy ESR's pragmatic motivations (making software better), but won't help the common good as much as freer licenses. For example, if Linux and BSD were licensed in a patch-only form, for instance, I don't think there would be as much driver cross-pollination, and both systems would be less for it.
Customers do not want to buy a static peice of software which performs some job, they want to have software which does exactly what they need for their business or hobby or whatever. If you change your business model so that your revenue is made on the customization of the software environment to the user's needs, you no longer need the artificial restriction on use of the software which proprietary licenses are about. In fact, free software is beneficial to your work because you can get into it's guts easily, and you can mix and match peices of code and customize it with ease.
In my experience you will find customers balking at the 5k dollar license fee, but not even thinking twice about the 10k dollar custom development and installation costs. They want a solution which does exactly what they need, no more, no less. Shrink wrap proprietary software simply cannot provide this in a maintanable and cost-effective way.
I agree that presently and in the near future there will be a mix of proprietary and free software, any transition takes time. I also agree that there will always be markets which will have some proprietary elements, usually ones tied to other patented or otherwise secretive business process or technology. But do not under-estimate the force with which proprietary software will be pushed out of popular markets, in particular markets for commodity software services.
craig
A year ago, I was thoroughly amazed at what was happening. With Netscape going open source, I thought, we had some really great things to look forward to.
Funny, but that's about how that fellow began his article--and it's honestly the way I felt, too. It felt almost like the dawn of a new era. Sadly, I'm not so optimistic now, but the reason is diametrically opposed to the article's diatribe.
Whatever happened to the days when "Free" and "Open Source" were used interchangeably to mean the same thing? Whatever happened to the days when, if a piece of software was to be open source, it went without saying that it would be either BSDL or GPL, not something somebody took out of a "Software License Mad-Libs" book and filled in some blanks their own way? Everybody has his own license...are they compatible? And which is compatible with which?
Aiiigh. People have been worried about Linux fragmenting into myriad distributions...but what I think we should fret about more is the Linux community fragmenting into different little sects. The sad thing is that it's already happened, and I can't see any way to reverse it. The spotlight has been shown on people who, heretofore, behaved like perfectly rational (if eccentric) human beings, and all their prejudices, beliefs, failings have all been amplified and heightened as they've begun to play to that spotlight. Stallman, Perens, Raymond...who can honestly accuse Raymond of playing more to the media than they? Stallman with his loud and boisterous "GNU/Linux" assertions (correcting every reporter at a press conference, for crying out loud!), Perens with his split from OSI and his Open Letters sent this way and that... While I think all three (and the others who've been doing similar things) honestly believe they're doing what's best for the community, they're pulling their respective fragments of the community in different directions, and we'll end up, by the time it's over, with several much-smaller communities, who can't even agree on something as basic as what the operating system they advocate should be called!
And who will protect our {free|open source} software interests from Big Business then? If we can't present a unified front, they'll roll right over us like a steamroller with the Microsoft logo emblazoned on the side.
Sadly, achieving unity is not so easy as simply calling for it. I fear it may already be too late. When it's all over, I'll mourn the loss of a once-great movement to many little not-so-great movements, and continue on with my life.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
The problem with these new OSS licenses is that they aren't truly free...an indisputable point except to the raging-hormone-infested teeny boppers among us. These companies have only bitten on half of the OSS/FSF argument: software should be free because it is more reliable that way. The ugly part (and the part RMS gets chewed on for) is that software should be free because it is good for users.
The problem is that we have presented no alternative economic model for companies who truly want the advantages of the bazaar--but still have bills to pay. Unfortunately, I see no panacea for the problem, although there are certainly options.
Selling expertise is the most viable. Yes, it is far more costly than simply selling software, because expertise comes from people (us). On the other hand, we are fairly rare in the grand scheme of things, so we become more valuable to companies, and to the software industry as a whole in this scenario--a Very Good Thing IMO, and certainly worth relinquishing this antiquated and dubious concept of "intellectual rights" on software.
This model is generally how the business software industry works right now. Yes, there are license fees and maintenance costs at the moment, but the vast majority of revenue is in consulting services to clients. Source code often comes with the licensing fee (sometimes without additional cost) to allow the client to make modifications on site. In other cases, source code is placed on site to increase responsiveness to problems, as the software company can make quick fixes right on site. This is almost a necessity for production systems and the argument holds completely true for the operating systems these production environments run on. I can't even count the number of times that an OS bug brought down a production server and the answer was a "workaround". How much cleaner (and better for the customer) if the fix could be applied directly and the workaround avoided.
The end result? Companies selling software as their main business model would make a lot less money and possibly go under (the Symantec's of the world). Others would change their business model and move toward the consulting model--possibly making a lot less money, but surviving (the Microsoft's of the world). Some would concentrate on the hardware business and forego the software side completely (ala Sun). In any event, those employees who become extraneous at the software companies would most likely find employment at a business using his former software product where his expertise would be invaluable to daily operations. In the big picture, more of the software money would be going to us rather than to the MBA grads running these software companies. Also a Very Good Thing, IMO.
ESR saw that companies weren't going to bite off both ends, and thus tried the approach of selling the quality side without pointing out the ugly corollary--perhaps hoping it would sneak in on the coattails. Unfortunately, it hasn't worked, and we have companies trying to use the bazaar to pay for the cathedral. It isn't going to work that way. In fact, it's going to fail horribly with all the naysayers pointing their fingers and laughing at us.
We have to sell both points, gentlemen, and we have to provide alternative economic models. Until we do, we won't get what we really want (Free software), and users won't get what they need (reliable software).
First off, let's call a spade a spade; the opening paragraphs really seem to just be a lead-in to attacking the APSL. Unfortunately, several of the points that the author then goes on to make aren't really valid.
But the best of them all is the latest; Apple taking a bunch of software released under the BSD-license, re-releasing it under an all power to Apple license, and expecting us to thank them for it.
Here's where he first gets to his point. "Look!" he cries, "Apple slapped their own license on code that wasn't even theirs!" Alas, my friend, this is just not true. Yes, there is some code in there from BSD; even Apple won't deny it. But there is much more than just that; Apple has added significantly to this code base, and the source code they released is for a much-modified (and improved, IMNSHO) OS.
Many even said that it would be very unkind of us to try to make competing products to be released under true free software licenses, when these companies had been so gracious towards us.
Who said that? We shouldn't make free software, just because some companies are charging for it? Then what about Linux distributions? Should we stop giving away any free distributions just because Red Hat is charging money for their version? I'm afraid this argument doesn't hold water.
Some might claim that the release of all this software will lead to something good, that all the best ideas and best code will end up being melded into one great piece of software.
Again, I ask, who? I don't think that anyone thinks that MacOS X, Linux, and *BSD are going to merge into one UberOS. But the open source code means that we can learn from it, and we can fix it where needed, and we can improve it if we have ideas that they haven't had at Apple. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have 2 good OSes that grew from a larger unified community than 2 lesser OSes that grew out of a fragmented developer community.
Software needs to be free, not just open.
I'm afraid I have to laugh at this sentiment. Software does not need to be free; you want it to be free. I believe (as do many) that a person should be rewarded for good work, if he will accept a reward. You're welcome to give away your own code for free, but I will continue to happily pay for the MacOS, because it is an excellent product, and my payment rewards those who made it. (Yes, I actually pay for my OS, and I'm happy about it, because it's worth the money!)
-Snibor Eoj
Submitted for your approval...
I work for a software company. We develop custom software for the US Air Force. Very niche market stuff. We have been doing this for almost ten years. Normally, I would say free software (as in free speech, not free beer) would be ideally suited for such a custom application. But.
The people in the field use and like our software. In fact, they generally cannot get by without it. However, they do not have the time and/or the technical expertise to improve it. Nor do they control the funding to pay others (us) to improve it for them. The people who do control the funding are not end-users. They are what we in corporate America call "suits".
If these suits were given the source code to the software, they would no longer fund us to improve it. Instead, they would give the task to over-worked, under-paid, inexperienced USAF people who have too much to do as it is. The over-all quality of the software would decrease. The field -- the end users -- would suffer. We know this from first-hand experience. This is fact, not conjecture.
The product is useful only to the USAF. Thus, there is no one outside the USAF who would improve the software just to scratch their "personal itch".
"Get rid of the suits" is one idea that comes to mind. Unfortunately, and for entirely separate reasons, changing the power structure of the military is neither viable, nor a good idea in general.
So what *do* we do?
This is not troll-bait. This is a serious question, one that I struggle with frequently. I am looking for ideas, comments, and maybe even suggestions. My thanks, in advance. And clear skies to all.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.