Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Open Group's New Open Source Strategy

michael posted more than 11 years ago | from the thinking-caps-on dept.

GNU is Not Unix 287

Bruce Perens writes "The Open Group hasn't always had the best reputation in the Open Source community, mostly because of their handling of Motif, which remained proprietary for much too long. But there's no arguing with the success of our community, and now the Open Group leadership understands that their organization must be fully involved in Open Source... or it's time for them to change their name. To that end, the Open Group contracted me to develop an Open Source strategy for their organization. The draft strategy has been published and they are requesting comment. - Bruce"

cancel ×

287 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Are we sure this is from the *real* Bruce Perens? (-1)

Anonymous Niggard (657484) | more than 11 years ago | (#6533765)

Also, I can see how Open Group would hold onto Motif for so long. IT's TEH BEST!!!@

michael rushed this out due to timothy's failure (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6533951)

Check out today's book review and the riot that followed.

Re:michael rushed this out due to timothy's failur (1)

Uber Banker (655221) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534040)

OMG! I don't usually look at book reviews but glad i did... that was mayhem! Not one serious comment.

Hell, I mainly read comments for the good trolls anyway...

Viral (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6533774)

Open Source = Viral.

If you care about your IP you won't use it.

Re:Viral (5, Insightful)

wo1verin3 (473094) | more than 11 years ago | (#6533779)

>> Open Source = Viral.

It's because people have pride in their work and want to share it with others that open source exists.

Re:Viral (0, Offtopic)

Elwood P Dowd (16933) | more than 11 years ago | (#6533868)

Exactly. I feel the same way about my VD.

Re:Viral (3, Funny)

Clippy (691243) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534011)

No, no. Not Open Source = Viral, Open Source == Viral

Re:Viral (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6534059)

It's because people have pride in their work and want to share it with others that open source exists.

That sounds eerily familiar like how junkies and drug addicts think. They want to "share" their love with someone else. Anybody who isn't like them just doesn't "get" it.

Open source zealots = junkies.

Re:Viral (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6533847)

You must be from the Gay Nigger Association, just like all the other trolls. That is why you are so paranoid about catching a virus.

Re:Viral (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6533852)

"Open Source = Viral."

I'd agree except for one minor detail:

No one forces you to plunder GPL'd (and other similarly licensed) code.

Millions of programmers and developers get along just fine with the ideals set forth in 'open source' licenses. They also greatly benefit from the fact that some random person or corporation can't then steal their work.

Way offtopic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6534050)

I am curious as to how this differs from MS's shared source. With it, MS will own what you have. And MS will take it legally as opposed to Illegally (intertrust comes to mind).

Re:Viral (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6534130)

Careful, your fly is down, you could end up losing another few billion.

Re:Viral (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6534173)

There's a whole lot that is not being said. Intelligence is one reason, there are a few more. The sweet point of it all is that it costs nothing, usually it's just using something in a different way.

BTW-duck

ugly (-1, Flamebait)

jooon (518881) | more than 11 years ago | (#6533776)

I blame them mostly for making motif look so ugly. :)

WILDCAT IS ON TEH SPOKE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6533784)

An added strategy (4, Insightful)

mao che minh (611166) | more than 11 years ago | (#6533785)

The Open Group needs to add one more major strategy: preparing for and combating frivilous legal claims and the insuing litigations.

This is perhaps the greatest (and one day maybe even the only) threat to Open Source.

Re:An added strategy (3, Insightful)

kmak (692406) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534016)

Maybe... but it still remains to be seen if Open Source can generate enough revenue for the developers after reaching critical mass...

Re:An added strategy (3, Insightful)

Jameth (664111) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534068)

I would say it is definitely the only threat. Now, it might not be the only threat to open source expanding further, but open source has gone this far with only what it has, and a strong legal suit is the only thing that can make it backtrack.

Worries about open source being profitable forget that open source lasted plenty long without profitability.

Re:An added strategy (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534087)

preparing for and combating frivilous legal claims and the insuing litigations.
Not likely to occur. It appears that Sun is also one of the companies behind the SCO suit. They are also part of open group. I doubt that they will permit Open Group to help stop them, even though they have more to lose with MS holding power than Linux gaining it.

My attention span is about 5 minutes (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6533789)

The document is boring and long. You need to spiff it up with Flash animations and PowerPoint slides. The ratio of pictures to words is also extremely low. There is no executive summary. No one will ever read the whole thing.

Re:My attention span is about 5 minutes (4, Insightful)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 11 years ago | (#6533829)

As much as this does sound like a troll put yourself in the place of a PHB...

Re:My attention span is about 5 minutes (1)

deego (587575) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534021)

what is PHB?

Re:My attention span is about 5 minutes (2, Informative)

Mr_Silver (213637) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534066)

what is PHB?

Pointy Haired Boss - as found in Dilbert [dilbert.com] .

Generally used to indicate the archetypal half-witted middle-management type.

Re:My attention span is about 5 minutes (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534067)

pointy-haired boss. From Dilbert.

Re:My attention span is about 5 minutes (2, Funny)

The Phantom Buffalo (613874) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534129)

Piping Hot Bitches

But I fail to see what attractive women have to do with this.

Re:My attention span is about 5 minutes (1)

Eric Ass Raymond (662593) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534065)

Couldn't they summarize it all using three bullet-points?

Meh (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6533798)

This is boring, pompous, pretentious, arrogant crap.

Just change your name to Evil Properitary Bastards and get on with it.

Re:Meh (0)

Omega's Wildfire (603364) | more than 11 years ago | (#6533815)

I beg to differ. Wait... No I don't.

Anal [Sc0re: -132, Flamebait] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6533973)

Why do comments that speak the truth always get moderated as flamebait?

Yeah, it's crude. So what? It's an opinion, and every opinion is valid.

People moderate in such an anal retentive way on slashdot. Any comment that dares to say something against Linux, or something for anything Not-Linux automatically gets moderated down. Wouldn't your mod points be of more use to moderate down the real troll posts?

Some slashdot readers seem to suffer from terminal anal retentiveness and dangerously close-minded fanaticism.

Re:Anal [Sc0re: -132, Flamebait] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6534002)

Tell us more about it, we want to know...

No, REALLY, we do!!!

Ok ok, we don't. Shut up.

Fucking lameness filter (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6533800)

Well.. (5, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 11 years ago | (#6533804)


I won't believe they're serious until they change their name to Gnu/OpenGroup.

Re:Well.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6533833)

I thought we setteld this. It was BSD/X11/GNU/KDE/GNOME/OpenGroup.

Re:Well.. (1)

Uber Banker (655221) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534070)

But... X12 offers superior seasonal adjustment than X11, and it's open source.

face it grub (-1)

Sexual Asspussy (453406) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534055)

it is time for you to retire.

Re:face it grub (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6534105)

and we both know why you say that..

Re:face it grub (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6534120)

i am not sure what you mean.

--sa

Re:Well.. (0, Troll)

Dashmon (669814) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534079)

Of course, GNU has nothing to do with Open Source.

Re:Well.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6534099)

oh yeah, cuz they use TONS of GNU software.

Jeeze.

Can we mod this joke as GNU/Lame and GNU/Overdone and GNU/FUD?

no arguing? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6533811)

> theres no arguing with the success of our
> community

Baawhahhwhahwhahwhahwhwhwhahahahaha

i find you all amazing without fail

FIRST NONRIVALROUS POST (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6533813)

I hope I have not diminished your SlashDot experience.

Thank you for your time.

Thank God it is you Bruce (-1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6533814)

Someone who understands open source and not some idiot who pretends to understand it but only wants to use the position to further his own career. We trust you Bruce.

--A community member.

GNAA! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6533820)

GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which
gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [klerck.org] ?
Are you a NIGGER [mugshots.org] ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [gay-sex-access.com] ?

If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America. You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

First, you have to obtain a copy of GAY NIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [imdb.com] and watch it.

Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA "first post" on slashdot.org [slashdot.org] , a popular "news for trolls" website

Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on EFNet, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today!

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is EFNet, and you can connect to irc.secsup.org or irc.isprime.com as one of the EFNet servers.
If you do not have an IRC client handy, you are free to use the GNAA Java IRC client by clicking here [nero-online.org] .

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

This post brought to you by Penisbird [nero-online.org] , a proud member of the GNAA

________________________________________________
| ______________________________________._a,____ |
| _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ |
| __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ |
| _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ |
| _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ |
| ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ |
| _________#1__________?________________________ |
| _________j1___________________________________ |
| ____a,___jk_ GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_|
| ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ |
| ______-"!^____________________________________ |
` _______________________________________________'
-GNAA member 'penisbird'
P.S. CmdrTaco, you banned my other user account from logging in for some reason. I still get emails from Slashdot whenever a friend writes in his/her journal. I cannot login to disable these emails. This is quite gay.

Re:GNAA! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6533850)

is it gay, or gnaa?

Re:GNAA! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6534006)

it's gnu/gay

Hmm... (-1, Offtopic)

Faust7 (314817) | more than 11 years ago | (#6533867)

a nonrivalrous public good.

"Redhat!"
"Mandrake!"
"SuSE!"
"Redhat!"
"Mandrake!"
"SuSE!"
"SCO!"

*sqlrch splach glurchhhk*

"Redhat!"
"Mandrake!"
"SuSE!"
"Redhat!" ...

Motif? (3, Interesting)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 11 years ago | (#6533875)

Huh? I thought Motif still was proprietary, even to this day. Or at least, it is proprietary software in the sense of not being free software. Or was there some big announcement I missed?

Re:Motif? (4, Informative)

TheViffer (128272) | more than 11 years ago | (#6533933)

Motif Faq [faqs.org]

Subject: 2)* Is the Motif source code publically available?
[Last modified: Jan 02]

Answer: On May 15, 2000 the Open Group released the Motif source code for
Motif 2.1, using a public license, to the Open Source community. On January
29, 2002, Open Motif 2.2 was released.

Re:Motif? (3, Informative)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 11 years ago | (#6533992)

Yes - it's available under a semi-free licence that lets you distribute it alongside Linux, but it's still not free software. So Lesstif is not obsolete quite yet.

Re:Motif? (-1, Troll)

Eric Ass Raymond (662593) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534119)

I am so sick of the so called open/free source community defining what is free by their own puritanic standards. If you have the source code, the product is free. It's just as simple as that.

From the point of view of a business, if you let people have your source code, you've given away your product. It's free. Period. And just how many "open source" businesses are currently making profit? Without dubious accounting practises like that of RedHat.

The belief that the parasitic open source community would somehow help to improve your product is naive to the exteme. And what's the point in improving the product when you no longer have a product in the first place - at least a one that would help your bottom line.

Re:Motif? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6534034)

On May 15, 2000 the Open Group released the Motif source code for
Motif 2.1, using a public license, to the Open Source community. On January
29, 2002, Open Motif 2.2 was released.

But NOBODY CARED.

Waaaaaaaaaaaay too little too late.

Re:Motif? (2, Informative)

zephc (225327) | more than 11 years ago | (#6533952)

According to the Motif FAQ, "On May 15, 2000 the Open Group released the Motif source code for Motif 2.1, using a public license, to the Open Source community. On January 29, 2002, Open Motif 2.2 was released.

For more information on Open Motif, see:

http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/ [opengroup.org] "

Re:Motif? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6534013)

It is under this license. [opengroup.org] I just skimmed it, and my take is that it seems like a free license, except your copyright is always assigned to The Open Group.

So, the Open Group will always own Motif, but you are free to use, modify, redistribute, and sell. Unless I am reading it wrong. I don't feel like looking too closely right now.

Is Open Source Good for All of Our Members? (4, Interesting)

billstr78 (535271) | more than 11 years ago | (#6533876)

This is a very good question. The trend that Open Source software seems to encorage is a gradual but irreversable shift away from propriatary and profiting methods. As stated in the strategy, this is good for the majority (users) and bad for the minority (vendors). The question is wether or not this method of software development is sustainable if it's popularity grew to a point where it was the majority method of development.

Some would say that it would be great. Everything would be free, innovation would happen at a rapid rate, but what about compensation for the developers. Software written under a GLP type licience, does not leave room for profits from the actual software. Ad-hoc services can only go so far to support an entire development effort. Who pays the developers for thier hard work?

The question I leave open for disucssion is this: How sustainable do you think Open Source in it's current form is and do you think that varients such as the Apache Licience are an innevatable change necessary for the properity of the community.

Re:Is Open Source Good for All of Our Members? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6533916)

The question I leave open for discussion is this: What did you do to pass English 101. You obviously can't write grammatically correct sentences and you can't spell for s***.

Re:Is Open Source Good for All of Our Members? (0, Flamebait)

billstr78 (535271) | more than 11 years ago | (#6533997)

Maybe if I used very small words and stopped myself from thinking before I replied, my posts would be grammatically correct like yours.

C is my primary language, English is an afterthought.

Re:Is Open Source Good for All of Our Members? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6534121)

C is my primary language, English is an afterthought.

Were you trying to be funny? Because I hate to tell you, but that's not funny. It's actually really fucking pathetic. Not just because the statement itself is pathetic, because it is, but also because you thought it would be funny, or cute, or whatever, and it's not. I mean WOW, that's some really fucking sad shit.

Next time you're sitting alone in the dark late at night wondering if you should kill yourself, do it.

Re:Is Open Source Good for All of Our Members? (0, Offtopic)

billstr78 (535271) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534142)


Next time you're sitting alone in the dark late at night wondering if you should kill yourself, do it.


Sorry, trolling for people to flame on, is way more pathetic. You first.

Re:Is Open Source Good for All of Our Members? (1, Interesting)

Delphiki (646425) | more than 11 years ago | (#6533968)

If Open Source were the only software solution there would become a lack of demand for paid developers. Sure there ar epoeple who make a living developing for open source but they are in the minority. So if the lack of demand for developers went down the people who currently work on open source projects as a hobby who are programmers would largely have to move to another profession to be able to support themselves. This fallout in the demand for software developers would cause a shift away from software development in education. Sure, some people would still study computer science, but many, many less. So the pool of hobbyist developers would grow smaller and drop in skill level. This would most likely cause a great deal of stagnation on open source projects, leaving a wide opening for closed source software to move quickly back into the market by being able to afford the best developers full time, not just as hobbyists. So basically, the way I see it, open source is dependant upon closed source, just as closed source software is dependant on open source software frequently.

Re:Is Open Source Good for All of Our Members? (2, Interesting)

MAXOMENOS (9802) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534097)

If Open Source were the only software solution there would become a lack of demand for paid developers Most of the software development happening today is for code that runs in house, so that businesses can handle their accounting, inventory, transportation and personnel needs. This will still be the case down the road, regardless of whether the dominant commercial software model is proprietary, open-source, or public domain.

They're going to need coders to develop that software, and those coders ain't gonna work for free.

Granted, this means that there's less work available to develop one-size-fits all solutions for word processing, operating systems, databases, compilers, etc. But, frankly, the market for these items is pretty crowded as it is anyway.

Re:Is Open Source Good for All of Our Members? (1)

Delphiki (646425) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534139)

Developing in house solutions is generally a much different type of programming than that which is done for commercially available applications. Typically in house it applications are written in very high level languages such as Java, C#, asp, php, i.e. not C, C++, assembly.. How does that kind of work help one to hack on a kernel or a RDBMS? If this is the only kind of software that is going to be paid for, then the level of hobbyist skill is going to drop considerably. If you don't believe me, take someone you know who thinks their great at VB and sit them down in front of an IDE open to some source code for the linux kernel and give them a bug to fix.

Re:Is Open Source Good for All of Our Members? (2, Insightful)

KoalaBear33 (687260) | more than 11 years ago | (#6533998)

An important issue...

My theory is that free software will self-destruct if all programmers lose their jobs. A lot of people who create free software are volunteers. Most of these people have other full-time jobs that pay for their living. My view is that if NO developers were paid for their jobs (doesn't matter what), then the free software movement will collapse. Thes people would instead spend time searching for jobs to make a living.

What all this means is that what you are saying won't happen (ie. people won't lose jobs). If everyone started losing jobs (I don't think this will happen--other threats like out-sourcing jobs/governments defaulting on debts/currency depreciation/etc will have an impact though), the movement will slow down and die.

To answer your question, the free software environment will exist forever--or at least as long as the programming profession exists. What I said mainly applies to free software; open-source software, on the other hand, is a slightly different matter.

KoalaBear33

Re:Is Open Source Good for All of Our Members? (4, Informative)

Quill_28 (553921) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534100)

You need to re-read the GPL manifesto. You are under the assumption that the GPL is around to help people.

Re:Is Open Source Good for All of Our Members? (4, Interesting)

pjack76 (682382) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534008)

Well, my job right now is basically to support my organization's systems. If the accounting system goes wonky, I call the vendor to address it. If our in-house web intranet thingy goes wonky, I fix it. If a WinNT4.0 desktop goes wonky, I explain that we are all powerless to do anything, let's go have a drink.

My point is that in an all-open-source world, I would still have a job: I'd be answering user's requests and fixing bugs for them. I just wouldn't have to call vendors anymore, and I could actually fix a desktop too.

Re:Is Open Source Good for All of Our Members? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6534062)

Yes, system admins would still have jobs.

But, what about hard core hackers? You know the type of people currently developing the systems you support.

Re:Is Open Source Good for All of Our Members? (2, Insightful)

pjack76 (682382) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534102)

Well, yes, there's that. :) Although I guess I should add to my prior post that I do spend a lot of time adding features to our in-house systems (so that, for instance, you can submit Expense Payment Requests via the web intranet thingy and they get imported into the vendor's accounting system).

So it seems to me that adding features to, say, Open Office would be part of my job too, were we only using it. The process would be something like, "Oh shoot, you can't paste tab-delimited text into Calc, I wonder if anyone's working on this...oh look, someone is...I wonder if I can help..."

Still, I suppose that there would need to be organizations such as Apache, Mozilla etc that support initial development efforts. But surely these could be nonprofits like they are now?

Re:Is Open Source Good for All of Our Members? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6534136)

How come GPL software (developed by unpaid people) is good but exporting development jobs to India is bad?

Re:Is Open Source Good for All of Our Members? (1)

HermanAB (661181) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534160)

You are totally missing the point. Free software is all about *service* and *support*. All you need to do to be drowning in high paying work up to your ying-yang, is to join a local Business Breakfast Club, Toastmasters, Rotary or whatever.

The reason being that most small business owners do not know anything about computers and more importantly, do not want to be bothered with it at all and they are very quick to seize on the cost benefits of free software.

The work is out there Sculley...

Re:Is Open Source Good for All of Our Members? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6534167)

That is not a good question. Competition should not be slowed because the price is close to zero.

Your question makes about as much sense as a corner grocer complaining that the chains have come in and undercut all his prices because they are more efficient.

Welcome to competition. If software can be developed for free (I didn't say supported for free, but DEVELOPED for free), then how long do you think these pay-per-copy schemes will last?

Answer: only as long as they offer something the open source world doesn't. In the case of Motif, that's pretty obvious, Motif is not any better than anything else, no point in keeping it closed. The profitable period is over.

And I would point out, the compensation for adding feature XYZ to an open source package is that now you have feature XYZ. But everybody else has it too, because feature XYZ can be copied for very little. The open source world is based on both self-interest and cooperation.

However upon re-reading your post, I believe it is just an anti-GPL troll or perhaps a clever attempt to make GPL trolls look stupid ("GPL licience"). Either way your point is off.

Don't listen to the leftists that talk about sharing and greed. Talk about competition and freedom.

Re:Is Open Source Good for All of Our Members? (3, Interesting)

73939133 (676561) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534175)

The trend that Open Source software seems to encorage is a gradual but irreversable shift away from propriatary and profiting methods. As stated in the strategy, this is good for the majority (users) and bad for the minority (vendors). The question is wether or not this method of software development is sustainable if it's popularity grew to a point where it was the majority method of development.

No, that is not the question. The 40-70% profit margins achieved by vendors are clearly unsustainable--they can't exist in an efficient market. Open source software just happens to be the mechanism by which this market finally starts operating efficiently.

How sustainable do you think Open Source in it's current form

You are viewing open source software as some kind of alternative to proprietary development, but it is not. Rather, it is a stage in the evolution of a software market segment.

Something like the UNIX kernel used to cost lots of money because it provided functionality that was not widely available. But it was natural for it eventually to become open source. Ditto for software like Wordperfect and Microsoft word: initially, people could charge a premium for it because few people offered it (let's not get into the fact that the technology was invented elsewhere), but (absent monopolistic barriers), something like OpenOffice now gives you the same functionality for free.

You can make a big profit on some innovative piece of software for a few years, but then it gets commoditized and your price will go down from competition. Software is different from other goods there because it really has no physical component; generic drugs, electronics, etc., still have a non-zero cost even if there is no intellectual property. That's why it is ultimately open source programmers, not no-name manufacturers, that are driving software prices down, and in fact are driving them to how much it costs to make another unit of product: zero.

In short, open source software is sustainable--it's pretty much inevitable in an efficient market. The only thing that can kill it is government interference in the market or monopolistic practices.

OSF/1? (4, Interesting)

emil (695) | more than 11 years ago | (#6533890)

Didn't The Open Group do an entire UNIX implementation (the only implementation of which was Digital OSF/1|UNIX|Tru64)?

If so, how much of this could they open? Anything useful in it?

Re:OSF/1? (1)

homer_ca (144738) | more than 11 years ago | (#6533985)

They're a relic of a different time. Think Open Standards, not Open Source. The term Open Source only dates back to 1998 [opensource.org] .

Draft strategy is excellent summary of Open Source (5, Insightful)

Thagg (9904) | more than 11 years ago | (#6533891)

Bruce,

I think that the opening section of your draft strategy is the best summary of the current state of the world of open-source/closed-source detente. It's exactly right that proprietary solutions are failing, and will fail with increasing rates, as open source proliferates and hardware increasingly becomes a commodity.

I have two issues with the summary. The first is that it a strategy should be a long-term document, something that might be as valid five or ten years from now as it is today (this compares to a tactical position.) I don't think that the current stated strategy, while appropriate to this time of flux, will be appropriate then.

Second, I just have a issue with the 'Sorry Vendors' line at the end of the first section -- everything else in the document is straightforward, concise, and emotion-free.

thad

Re:Draft strategy is excellent summary of Open Sou (3, Funny)

deego (587575) | more than 11 years ago | (#6533971)

Parent is someone who seems to have actually read the article! What is happening to /.!?

Bruce's Spin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6533895)

A BSD-like license.

Least restrictive, can be integrated into proprietary software with impunity.


And it can be used in other open souce software like the GPL. Notice how Bruce neglects to point that out.

GPLed code however cannot be put into BSD code w/o the BSD code loosing its far more open nature.

Re:Bruce's Spin (1)

BoneFlower (107640) | more than 11 years ago | (#6533930)

Agreed, that should be in there.

Don't flame him for neglect, this is a draft. Its bound to have many small and some large omissions by the nature of the document. Drafts are like a JPEG with 99% compression- looks crappy but gives a solid idea of what it is supposed to be.

Re:Bruce's Spin (1)

FatAssBastard (530195) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534166)

Notice how Bruce neglects to point that out.

It's a draft, sir. Please feel free to comment directly to Bruce, since that is what he requested.

GPLed code however cannot be put into BSD code w/o the BSD code loosing its far more open nature.

Depends on your definition of open, I guess. I prefer open code to remain open. If it can be taken closed and proprietary, then that makes it less open, IMO.

start with a name change (5, Funny)

b17bmbr (608864) | more than 11 years ago | (#6533898)

how about,
  • "The now we're open group"
  • "More Open Group"
  • "We haven't been so Open in the past, but we've see the errors of our ways Group"
  • "No longer Not Open group"
  • "Bandwagon Group"
  • "The New and Improved Open Group"
  • "Really Open Group"
  • "This time we mean it Open Group"

I just glad you didn't suggest ... (1)

sbowles (602816) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534017)

"The Wide Open Group"

I couldn't stand getting suckered into clicking on a link to the Goatse guy again.

Well, I guess... (1)

Dog and Pony (521538) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534033)

... "The Group formerly known as Open" doesn't really have the right associations for this move... ;-)

Ah well, it didn't work for Prince either.

Re:start with a name change (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6534054)

Planet of the Gapes

OSS and POSIX/SuS certification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6533917)

Does this mean that they will stop making POSIX/SuS certification an expensive pain in the ass for open source? I doubt it.

Still don't think we'll see an open source OS that meets the Unix trademark, which might help it gain legitimacy among some people. (After all, what's in a name? Lots.)

Emacs people: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6533938)

what's the origin and/or significance of the "p" suffix on certain emacs lisp commands? I.e., "listp", "file-exists-p", etc.

Re:Emacs people: (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6534085)

I think it is an old-timey way of denoting a Boolean check. I'm not an Emacs person nor a Lisp person but I heard that somewhere.

Re:Emacs people: (1)

krog (25663) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534145)

the -p stands for 'predicate'. it denotes something that returns true or false (T or NIL).

oi! mac problem (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6533946)

I daan't wanna start a 'oly war 'ere, but wot is the bloody Ian Beale wif ya mac fanatics? i've been sittin' 'ere at me freelance gig in front of a mac (a 8600/300 w/64 megs of ram) for abaht twenny minutes na while it attempts ter copy a 17 meg file from wahn folder on the chuffin' 'ard drive ter anovver folder. twenny minutes. at Pope in Rome, on me pentium pro 200 runnin' nt ffour, which by aw standards should be a Hoppin' Pot slower than this mac, the same operation would take abaht Bo-le of Glue minutes. if that. in addition, durin' this file transfer, netscape will not Kathy Burke. and everythin' else 'as Penny-A-Pound ter a 'alt. even bbedit lite is strainin' ter keep up as I type this. i won't Front Door ya wif the laundry list of ovver problems that i've encountered while workin' on various macs, but suffice it ter say there 'ave been many, not the least of which is i've never Pearly Queen a mac that 'as ran faster than its wintel counterpart, despite the macs' faster chip 'rchitecture. me 486/66 wif ait megs of ram Radio Ones faster than this 300 mhz machine at times. from a productivity standpoint, I daan't get 'a people can claim that the macintosh is a superior machine. mac addicts, flame me if you'd loike, but i'd rather 'ear sum intelligent Four Seasons why anyone would choose ter use a mac over ovver faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

Clippy is HETRO! I Don't Fuck Sheep! (-1, Troll)

Clippy (691243) | more than 11 years ago | (#6533975)

Clippy LOVES Motif! Clippy will never be GNU! I don't fuck sheep like the rest of you!

wow (-1, Flamebait)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 11 years ago | (#6533982)

the Open Group leadership understands that their organization must be fully involved in Open Source... or it's time for them to change their name.

Talk about being a pretentious prick!

Close up shop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6533988)

Seriously. The Open Group has a deservidly tainted reputation in the *nix community, and do we really need yet another open source/Open Source/Free Software advocacy group with its own slightly different message/agenda?

Open for business. (2, Interesting)

ratfynk (456467) | more than 11 years ago | (#6533995)

There does need to be a business community developed among Open Source, and the very idea free not as in free beer. To go about bashing (even if you are a born again basher) those who seriously try to make a living with technology is just stupid.

The best possible way to accomplish this is to set a model of co-operative enterprise that todays over-blown corporate despots cannot compete with. If you study nature co-operative systems invariably will out compete when up against closed single modeled systems. The fundamentals of this are already in the GPL which will go down in history as one of the great documents of our time. Along with other human social documents like the Magna Carta. RMS really is a visionary.

Open Source Strategy (1)

y77 (692293) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534010)

I can see the position to share it but irreversable shift away from propriatary and will be used in the greatest (and other open source OS that meets the developers get along just fine with Flash animations and PowerPoint slides.) The Open Source Strategy GNU is the majority method of their name to add one forces you care about your draft strategy is today (this compares to further his own career.) I trust you won't believe they're serious until they will fail meaning I won't believe they're serious until they will fail with the success of Motif, which remained proprietary software with others that did.

Open Group has no place in open source (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6534018)

I think I can speak for most of the open source community when I say:
fuck you, open group

Place your bets! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6534035)

Here are mine:

Time before Perens tells the Open Group to "fuck off and die" as he did with Debian: 3 months

Time before the Open Group fires his ass as HP did: 6 weeks

I know the two bets may seem contradicting each other, but that's just like betting two numbers in roulette.

I never cease to be amazed that a fuckup with BP's baggage still manages to dupe people into considering him anything but a weasel.

Too complex/too little time? (4, Insightful)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534076)

To me these issues are quite complex, and a draft like this need a follow up here at Slashdot soonish. Perhaps within a week to get a good brainstorming settle.

Unfortunately all good remarks will come very late to this message, when people have had time to read it carefully. Then, there are already more than 500 comments, of less value and people don't really care any longer.

My suggestion, in cases like these, would be to use the Slashdot forum as a forum with delay - as is done before an upcoming interview. A short notice in advance and a more indepth follow later. Let people have a few days to think it over and get a refreshener then. Perhaps overdoing it? Whatever.

Comments? Hah! (5, Funny)

batkins (602341) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534090)

So, wait, he expects the Slashdot readers to read a draft and comment on it? Ha! Read the article - that's a good one, Bruce.

Why do you want Motif? (-1)

Seth Finklestein (582901) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534094)

Motif has, without question, the worst UI design ever. It makes Windows 3.0 look like a quantum leap in interface design. Every time someone asks why I use Windows, I point to the eight different widget sets on a typical Linux desktop and say, "that's why."

In fact, I'm beginning to believe that Motif was a secret Micro$soft plot to distract Linux designers, tricking Linux designers into mimicking the wrong thing. It would take years before Linux ever attained the level of usability that more commercially viable operating systems have enjoyed for their entire lifetimes.

The OpenGroup is the Cathedral and irrelevant (2, Interesting)

GGardner (97375) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534103)

The Open Group has been pretty much irrelevant for the last 5 years, not because they have been closed source, but because they are a Cathedral style closed source. Both Gnome and KDE have become far, far superior to Motif in a far shorter amount of time. What role is there to play for a centralized standards-blessing body in the world of the distributed, bazaar-style development?

Re:The OpenGroup is the Cathedral and irrelevant (0, Flamebait)

Eric Ass Raymond (662593) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534153)

Both Gnome and KDE have become far, far superior to Motif in a far shorter amount of time.

Yes, they have certainly helped to fuck up the Linux/free OS desktops. Two more competing widget sets. Way to go, OS!

If Bruce says it doesn't exist, it probably doesn' (1)

gokubi (413425) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534110)

When attorneys new to Open Source have access to another attorney who is experienced with Open Source licensing, especially the GPL, the process goes much more smoothly. One way we can help is to produce a reference for attorneys, or programs for attorneys at our meetings.

Does anyone know of a reference quide or set of resources that might help IP attorneys start thinking about the GPL and open source?

I'm working on building a cross-corporation (non profits) knowledge sharing network that will likely rely heavily on GPL like language. I expect the legal conversations to be less than fun. Any resources for convincing IP lawyers that there are other ways to do things would be much appreciated.

Ramblings about the draft.... (1)

flynns (639641) | more than 11 years ago | (#6534116)

Sadly, I haven't been around the *NIX/'open source community' long enough to know about the Open Group's misdealings with Motif.

However, this draft thingy looks pretty good; there are a couple things I'd look at in closer detail. For instance, observe the three distinctions between the various 'manifestations' of things "open source". Open Source Methods, for instance, bear little resemblence(sp?) to the concept of open source software licensing.

Notice that there is no "Key Point" under the second 'open source manifestation', open source licensing. Odd, that.

Note one of the recommended projects:

"Establish an "OpenForge" portal for The Open Group, where all of the various Open Group projects that are available in Open Source will reside. This portal could also be expanded to host deserving Open Source projects on the outside."

Sort of like a non-public, corporate-funded SourceForge? Hm.

Keep in mind, of course, that this is a draft.
---

"Jonas Miller. He's a nightcrawler. We all started out in the same lab, but Jonas went out and got himself some corporate sponsors. He's in it for the money, not the science!" -Twister
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>