Slashdot Mirror
Torvalds Criticizes Open-Source Wannabes
Wonko42 writes "In his address at Internet World '99, Linus Torvalds threw some harsh words at Microsoft and Sun, criticizing Microsoft's thoughts of opening portions of Windows source and making his feelings known about Sun's restrictive new community license. He also spoke some about the future of commercial software, and dodged lots of Transmeta questions. "
I think the point you are missing is that sun is asking for Community participation as there is with Linux, but they are not giving the community the same quid-pro-quo that they get with real Open Source software. So, people of that community have a right to say:
1. I am not going to work on this because I don't think the license offers us a good deal, and I don't think you should work on it either.
2. Hey, you out there who don't understand about Open Source but have been hearing about it! We want you to know this isn't the real thing!
The only reall difference between SCSL and GPL in this instance is that with the GPL you can go your own way and distribute it anyway [if Linus doesn't like your change].
I can't stress how important a difference that is. The right to change software without someone's approval can be abbreviated to "the right to change it", period. For Sun, it's a control thing - they can't stand the thought that Microsoft might participate in Open Source and make its own changes. This even though everyone else would have access to MS's changes in that case and could clone the good ones.
There's also the matter of circumvention. If I don't like what Red Hat is doing with some GPL software, I can circumvent them and distribute my own version, which I continually develop and for which Red Hat gets no money. When you work on SCSL software, you're essentially working for Sun - paycheck or none.
Sun sells hardware. They can afford for their software to be Open Source if they just keep making good hardware. They are going to control-freak themselves right out of the market if they keep on this course.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
People seem to be getting into this "good enough" attitude regarding whether Sun's Community Source License is open or not.
It Just Isn't, and here's why.
StarOffice, recently licensed under Sun's Community Source terms(so I've heard), possesses an excellent charting component. While the GD Library is good for many tasks, the charting component of StarOffice is clearly superior, and would be inordinately useful for the myriad Linux/Unix based web servers out there.
Unfortunately, Sun's license restricts any productive work from being done that could web-enable StarOffice on the server side. Apache could never be bundled with mod_starchart, and fellow coders can't put out their own, less memory hungry versions of the component.
The only thing Sun lets you do with StarOffice is fix problems for them, and if Sun doesn't want the problems fixed, the most you can do is release a bulky and semi-difficult to apply patch to repair it.
I believe they even end up owning your patch as well.
Now, StarOffice appears to be a very well put together app, and I don't want to slight it for its licensing terms. But the bottom line is: StarOffice is not Open Source. It's nothing like Open Source. Using the words "Community Source" is a cynical and slimy attempt to undermine the core advantages of the open model. While Sun is allowed to derive benefit from the community, the community is placed in a state of perpetual legal risk(and thus, extortable circumstance) should they do anything at all with the code beyond mailing in fixes.
Sun's License means no web charting component for you. It's that simple.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
This isn't true. Open Source software (in a GPL-sense, even) fits perfectly well with many, many existing business models. Open Source software as a product of business does not fit with existing proprietary software business.
Free software (Open Source products) may or may not generate revenue directly (consulting is just one established business model in which Free software can pay the bills), but that doesn't mean that it can't make existing services or products more attractive. Take, for example, a company that sells plumbing supplies wholesale, and provides Free software to its customers to manage specialized plumbing equipment inventory. If you were a plumbing supplies retailer, the availability of this software and its acceptance by said company adds to the value of the proposition of purchasing and managing your supplies from this corporation. The fact that this software is Free allows this company's customers to tailor and customize it for point-of-sale workstations, integration with payroll or other inventory systems, etc.
Red Hat is an example of a company that exists in that orthogonal world, as you mentioned. But to say Free software does not fit anywhere in "traditional business models" is ignoring centuries' traditions of marketing, customer relations, and a services-driven economy.
--