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.

Comments

Define your goals

[Analog]

I think a lot of the hubbub over different licenses is due to differing ideas over what people want to do with the code.

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.

Poor article

[Stu Charlton]

- 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.

Ok thats it!

[Odinson]

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.

Right problem but no answer.....

[Mynok]

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).