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!

OpenBRR Launches Closed Open-Source Group

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the education-in-small-pieces dept.


An anonymous reader writes "eWeek is reporting that SpikeSource co-founder and CTO Murugan Pal and the Open Business Readiness rating have launched a new initiative designed to maximize open-source software knowledge across organizations. While they are targeting corporate and Wall Street CIOs and IT directors as members, the current plan is not to open membership of the new OpenBRR Corporate Community to all, but to offer it on an invitation-only basis 'to ensure that only trusted participants are coming into the system,' Pal said. This would allow members to discuss sensitive issues and share information without having to worry that it would be made widely public, he said."

cancel ×


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

Non-MS Open Source (4, Insightful)

foundme (897346) | more than 8 years ago | (#15202244)

to ensure that only trusted participants are coming into the system

Is this just a more polite way to say they don't want MS to join?

Re:Non-MS Open Source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15202316)

No, I think it's a polite way to say they don't want 14-year-old Lunix fanboys to join. Or Bruce Perens.

Re:Non-MS Open Source (3, Funny)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 8 years ago | (#15202542)

14-year-old Lunix fanboys to join. Or Bruce Perens.
It's a fine line...

Re:Non-MS Open Source (1)

Doytch (950946) | more than 8 years ago | (#15202385)

That's exactly what I thought of when I read this. There was a ./ article a while back about how MS was trying to join the ODF alliance, and it was extrapolated that it was just an attempt to slow down ODF certification. Guess these folks saw that and came up with this.

Re:Non-MS Open Source (1)

Technician (215283) | more than 8 years ago | (#15202424)

Didn't I hear once about Netscape folks showing up at a Microsoft shareholders meeting once? MS wanted to kick them out, but couldn't because Netscape bought a share of MS and were therefore a shareholder. Good thing open source doesn't have shares of stock and shareholder meetings. Brilliant move.

Apr.25:Prostitute Schedule @ MBOT in San Francisco (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15202622)

Like Las Vegas, San Francisco offers prostitution as a tourist attraction. If you want to buy some prostitution services (i.e., hand job, blow job, or full sexual intercourse), you need to merely walk through the doors of the Mitchell Brothers O'Farrell Theater (MBOT), located at 895 O'Farrell Street, San Francisco, California.

Check out the prostitute schedule for April 25, 2006 at the MBOT [] .

The prostitute schedule is updated daily.

Unlike Las Vegas, San Francisco does not regulate prostitution. So, the MBOT heartily welcomes everyone -- including HIV-positive customers.

Re:Non-MS Open Source (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 8 years ago | (#15202643)

Is this just a more polite way to say they don't want MS to join?

Actually, I'm half expecting that there will be an application to be invited, and the only question will be "Are you affiliated with Microsoft?", and if you answer no, you are always invited, and if you answer yes, you are never invited.

Re:Non-MS Open Source (1)

rgriff59 (526951) | more than 8 years ago | (#15204524)

Limiting MS could be a motive, but I can't help but recall that SCO was a trusted participant in an open source alliance not all that long ago.

Isn't that a bit oxymoronic? (1)

Flimzy (657419) | more than 8 years ago | (#15202252)

I guess the idea sounds kind of cool... "What if we could build ODF without Microsoft hijacking it?"

But isn't it a bit oxymoronic, and perhaps counter-productive, to do open source work behind closed doors?

Re:Isn't that a bit oxymoronic? (5, Insightful)

El Cubano (631386) | more than 8 years ago | (#15202273)

But isn't it a bit oxymoronic, and perhaps counter-productive, to do open source work behind closed doors?

Not so. This is not too different from the way Debian has a debian-private mailing list, which is open only to those who have been admitted to the project as full Debian Developers. Debian does that for protecting personal info (like vacation notices) and financial information. I am not sure that they are protecting the same type of information. However, sometimes things just have to be done behind closed doors. Hopefully, they will keep it as open as possible.

Re:Isn't that a bit oxymoronic? (1)

Flimzy (657419) | more than 8 years ago | (#15202295)

Like you said, that's for protecting personal information. Anyone who wants to follow the Debian development process can do so freely. The ability to post on some of the Debian devel lists may be limited (which is necissary if for no other reason than avoiding spam), but as far as I know, reading them is pretty open.

Re:Isn't that a bit oxymoronic? (1)

umbrellasd (876984) | more than 8 years ago | (#15202489)

It's not an oxymoron. It's just a bad metaphor. What you have here is a screen door, not an open one. I guess you can call it Screened Source if you want, but it isn't open. Open is IP for the use of all. This is IP for the good of the chosen. That's not exactly proprietary, in the project sense, but it is in the context of the "value" of IP pooled in the source associated with it.

It's open if anyone can look at it.

Re:Isn't that a bit oxymoronic? (1)

umbrellasd (876984) | more than 8 years ago | (#15202504)

This would allow members to discuss sensitive issues and share information without having to worry that it would be made widely public, he said.
And as far as this stated value of such a system goes, it is entirely laughable. How frequently is completely proprietary information leaked to the public--often intentionally--on high profile products and projects? And they think this half-assed...err open system is going to be somehow more robust at keeping sensitive information private? Durrr.

What you have here is the typical justification for elitism...which inevitably leads to bad thing.

Re:Isn't that a bit oxymoronic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15205145)

What is oxymoronic is generating publicity for an initiative limited to several dozen invited participants. Kim and the Kleiner people must be pretty hard up for some news. If they need some press, may I suggest taking a bold and truly innovative step, like maybe writing some code?

FP? (0, Offtopic)

deafpluckin (776193) | more than 8 years ago | (#15202253)

Is the title purposely oxymoronic?

Re:FP?BS (1)

jimmydevice (699057) | more than 8 years ago | (#15202724)

Isn't your reply narrow minded in the interpretation of closed == "invitation only"? That is assuming you did read the FA? Microsoft has screwed up HTML, java and a bunch of internet protocols in an attempt to subvert developers into making MICROSOFT COMPATABLE products. Screw the fact that microsoft "extensions" don't work with the rest of the universe, usually add nothing to the feature base and corrupts the expansion of standards already implemented. Microsoft calls the shots. Ya I'M All For That. Cause I'm Living It.

"Closed" Open Source (2, Informative)

moochfish (822730) | more than 8 years ago | (#15202272)

So it's only available to the people they want it open to? Isn't that how "proprietary" is also defined?

Re:"Closed" Open Source (5, Interesting)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 8 years ago | (#15202474)

"Open source" implies .... wait for it ... open source code! Nothing else. Many OSS organizations -- like Debian -- also have an open and democratic development methodology, but this isn't required.

I could get ten (or a thousand) of my best friends together, lock ourselves in a garage (warehouse), put a sign on the door that says "Windowz userz keep out!" and produce some piece of software, and then release it under the GPL without telling anyone about HOW we went about making up the code. Any internal documentation, functional specifications, etc., wouldn't need to be open. It's just the code that's protected under "open source." You can develop the software in any way you choose.

Not all open source projects have to be Debian-like. That's just one way of developing; not everything has to be done like that. There's nothing in the OSS licenses themselves -- we can argue philosophy until we're all dead, naturally -- that prevents OSS development from being just as much of a "sausage factory" as proprietary development.

Re:"Closed" Open Source (1)

Xiaran (836924) | more than 8 years ago | (#15203189)

Exactly. And to a lesser extend *all* open source projects have to limit access in cetain ways to be able to function at all. Most OS project for example restrict write access to CVS/SVN repositories for the obvious reason.

Re:"Closed" Open Source (1)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 8 years ago | (#15203611)

There's nothing in the OSS licenses themselves -- we can argue philosophy until we're all dead, naturally -- that prevents OSS development from being just as much of a "sausage factory" as proprietary development.

As a recent CS graduate, I can fully verify the validity of this analogy.

Re:"Closed" Open Source (1)

dsfox (2694) | more than 8 years ago | (#15204144)

Debian doesn't have a purely merit based admission process: Check out [] :

Step 5: Recommendation

When the Applicant has completed the tasks and skills tests, expressed an understanding of the Social Contract, the Debian Free Software Guidelines and Debian Policies and Procedures and been properly identified, it is time for the Application Manager to make a final report to the Front Desk and the Debian Account Manager.

This report includes statements from the Advocate and other people who have worked with the Applicant, the completed identification information, all discussions between the Application Manager and the Applicant and details about the Skill checks, as well a comment from the Application Manager.

The Application Manager will include a recommentation to either accept or reject the Applicant.

Re:"Closed" Open Source (1)

Jasper__unique_dammi (901401) | more than 8 years ago | (#15204378)

I am still a bit confused what open source code means.
What if the source code is obfuscated, (messed up beyond human-read) but it is still the code that is compiled/interpreted. Is it then still open source? (even though there was active purpose to prevent other people from building on it)

Should the code be "human-readable"? How to define that?? I say if you want to call it open source (and be a nice guy) you should give internal documentation away too.

Re:"Closed" Open Source (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 8 years ago | (#15204615)

Well, you can definitely say that (and I might agree with you, personally), but the only thing "open source" requires is the code that's in a known programming language and that's fed into the compiler to produce a binary, as far as I know.

You can strip the comments out, obfuscate it, do whatever you want -- there's no requirement to document or make anyone else's job easy. Although I don't know of any OSS project that does this, because you're right it's exactly contrary to the goals of OSS, it's allowed.

Besides, who's to say whether a project is not releasing its documentation or just doesn't have any? Lots of times during a development "death march," stuff gets done without proper documentation. It's not good (actually, it sucks on any number of levels), but it happens. A huge chunk of uncommented, undocumented, bizarrely-written source code might be an attempt to confuse a downstream reader while still remaining trivially "open source," but it might also just be a product of one programmer, desperate to finish their job on time and working under the influence of little sleep and too much Jolt Cola.

I don't think there's really even anything about OSS that requires the source code that's open actually be the stuff that the programmer wrote. It's quite possible to write a program in one language (say, Smalltalk), compile it to an intermediate language (like C), which then compiles into a binary. That intermediate code (the C) might be an absolute mess compared to the original high-level version, but I could still, I believe, "open source" it while retaining rights to the original human-written stuff. I don't know of any situation where this has actually been done, but there are some situations where I could see someone doing it (where they want to retain some sort of competitive advantage versus someone with the freely available version, but want for some reason to call themselves a "open source" organization--particularly if the high-level-language version was more platform-independent for some reason than the intermediate-language version). If anyone wants to chime in on why this would be prohibited, I'll happily stand corrected, but I believe it would satisfy the requirements as "source code," even if it's dynamically generated. On the other end of the spectrum are languages like Java that have byte-code versions which are then compiled to machine code; can you "open source" just the byte code, and still call it open source?

At any rate, I think you have have a balance between making open source code useful enough to the public for the distinction to have any meaning, while also not placing onerous restrictions that will discourage any kind of code release. Crappily written, poorly documented code is better than a binary lump, in any case. I'd rather see a manufacturer release source code with the comments stripped out, for whatever reason, then never release the code at all.

As someone who works mostly with documentation and not code on a day-to-day basis, I think it's too bad that there isn't more technical documentation available on OSS projects. (Perhaps there is and I'm just missing it.) I'd love to look at the functional specifications for something like Konqueror or GAIM, and I think having documentation that was readable by non-programmers (or programmers not familiar with the language being used) would increase the quality of software projects. You'd be able to use the large number of non-programmer OSS users as testers and analysts, people like myself who are fairly useless on the development side of most OSS projects because we don't read code very well.

Maybe the future solution is some sort of additional OSS "grade" for projects that are 'extra open.' E.g, they keep all their development docs in a publicly readable Wiki, for instance. But I think there's no requirement to do this; we should never discourage people from getting together in a garage for a weekend and turning out something useful that's open-source, no matter how ugly their code might be.

Re:"Closed" Open Source (1)

Constantine Evans (969815) | more than 8 years ago | (#15202667)

That is mostly how the GPL and most other free software licenses work, actually, and seems to be a rather common misconception. The owner of the software can choose to only release it to certain people, under a license like the GPL. The catch is that then those people can also choose, if they wish, to release the software to others, under the same license (at least in the case of the GPL). While I don't know of any cases where is this actually done outside of a organization, it can be useful for software that is only meant to be distributed inside a company.

Free Software doesn't mean you have to give your software to everyone who wants it

Re:"Closed" Open Source (1)

moro_666 (414422) | more than 8 years ago | (#15202781)

i like this markup , closed open source :)

this sounds like ... austin powers (now which one is it, spit or swallow ? (o)

ps. democracy in software developement doesn't always pay off, there are quite a bunch of examples where very strongly lead software can make a big hit (i think into the list would fit oracle, skype, and even the very hated and useless windows (if it sells in millions, it is a hit ...))

as usual, i welcome our new closed open overlords

Re:"Closed" Open Source (1)

4of12 (97621) | more than 8 years ago | (#15206939)

This being Slashdot and all, I think it's easy to understand where decisions to move from a proprietary solution to an open source implementation can generate a great deal of unwanted heat in the political/religious/monetary venue.

Headline doesn't reflect article. (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15202280)

"Closed Open Source!"

When what really happens is that a set of industries try to meet up to discuss their common interests and how they can get it throug open source projects.

An example would be banks getting together to discuss how they would link up to each other's ATM's securely without having to use closed software.

Doesn't this defeat the purpose of open-source? (1)

TechnoGuyRob (926031) | more than 8 years ago | (#15202283)

I don't know what they're trying to accomplish with this, but here's on statement that explains it:

Enterprise and corporate CIOs are faced with many product choices and alternatives, as well as with making decisions about new and legacy solutions, so being able to privately share information on these subjects is important, Pace said.

I do not see how this Pace guy can jump to that conclusion. Wouldn't it make more sense to have as much input as possible about possible software choices? Limiting discussion to an elite "in"-group will only inspire the commercialized corporate culture we are seeing today; exactly the opposite of what open-source is trying to accomplish.

Ok, so they make this point:

The guiding principles of this new community will be trusted, dedicated and self-moderated communities for sharing business-oriented open-source software information.

Okay, so reliable peer review--at least, this is what I think they're trying to say--is important. However, they are basically closing themselves out to everything else. If anyone disagrees, could you please explain why?

Re:Doesn't this defeat the purpose of open-source? (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#15202401)

George Pace, a systems architect at Prudential Financial and a member of the OpenBRR steering committee
I'm guessing he didn't "jump" to any conclusions.

As for "closing themselves out to everything else", they obviously haven't finished deciding all the how's of this group.
Pal responded that nothing was yet set in stone and, if enough potential members wanted the group to be open, or more open, this could be done.
TFA answers your questions...

Re:Doesn't this defeat the purpose of open-source? (1)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 8 years ago | (#15202517)

Maybe they want Japan-style (or other places?) CVs on which the applicants photo is affixed. Maybe they don't want (to use the words of a USMC SSgt/ GSgt I served under many moons ago...) "spaghetti-long Bob Marley hairdos" (the words the SSGT used in dismay when he ordered us Sailors to uncover (remove our caps/head gear) for his personal inspection of us... some dumb-assed boneheads (we were right out of boot camp) were not staying within hair/grooming standards...)

But, also, as a peer organization, MAYbe, just maybe, "professional-looking" suits and lawyers might make more headway getting certain enterprise/corporate IT-level implementations achieved with a better PR face on the stories. It's hard as hell (I gather) to put on a major mag a face with buckteeth, wild hair, unkempt appearance and so forth

I kinda have first-hand observation of this. A company I worked for had 6 IT guys. 3 were not very hygienic (crudded teeth on one, wild hair on the 2nd, BO to high heaven on both, T-shirts and sneakers. Business casual (no tie) was my dress. The manager was about the same as mine. The others were similar. We got bought and merged (and the usual stuff that goes with it) and the top partner IT came in and interviewed each of us, making their assessments as can be expected. They already had HUNDREDS of IT on staff, but I wouldn't be surprised that their corporate culture only forced the interviews in the name of feigning fairness. They were strictly suit and tie, shiny shoes, and maybe 80 to 2,000 thread-count shirts (I joked with our own counsel that his shirt was 200-thread count... he didn't laugh... hehehe). I am sure that based on the number of places I've temped at that IT geeks may mostly be behind doors but when it's time to enter a cubicle, you SHOULD look about the same as the others around, just in case "visitors" arrive. It didn't help that 2 had halitosis, LONGGG fingernails, dandruff flakes, Trek-Lazarus-time-traveler-like mustaches and goatees; their cubicles were filled with empty or unopened soda cans and stuff including loose scraps of paper..., no matter HOW brainiac, contributory and wizard-like the dev engineer. Maybe "vanity" is asserting itself in tech circles. A couple of these guys occasionally had runes or chants and sylph-like gaits... all they need were wands, wizard hats, and maybe a dimensional gateway/quantum slipstream portal-opening-summoning device. They are SMART, but they would not be easily integrable with the dominant culture. Not from my observation...of them and of the suits that looked like they walked into a nerd-shack.

But, getting back on track, as for the "Closed Open-Source" aspect, I think they want to be really nitpicky so as to super-enhance the credibility and acceptability of their results when they start wardriving/swooning the companies that might accept their standards proposals, papers, and such.

(I THINK I got the closed parens correct this time...heheheh for the parenthetical Nazis, heheh)

Re:Doesn't this defeat the purpose of open-source? (1)

grcumb (781340) | more than 8 years ago | (#15202582)

"It's hard as hell (I gather) to put on a major mag a face with buckteeth, wild hair, unkempt appearance and so forth."

Yeah, Lord knows who would want to be associated with someone like this guy [] .

Sorry, but this 'you have to wear a suit to get taken seriously' claptrap is a crock. It's pandering to the very worst anti-intellectual elements of our identity and society.

Re:Doesn't this defeat the purpose of open-source? (1)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 8 years ago | (#15203216)

True, but Einstein was more than "da bomb". The way he's popularly portrayed (as a single inventor of da bomb, with few if any assistants) could almost qualify him as proxy unibomber, depending on your perspectives...

Funny, tho, I was half-expecting images of OTHER well-known Linux/OS advocates. But, in this (aside from estates and heirs) most dead men can't sue, hehehe.....

Yep, it's sometimes unfortunate that appearance/appearances (and voiced opinions) can doom a product or project just because of herd mentality and "shoot the messenger" syndrome.

But, honestly, if a person with halitosis or buck teeth or such in TODAY's times wanted to be warmly received by the masses (or by billionairs), on what difficulty scale would it land? Based on person? The product (I suppose Wiley Coyote or the Wildebeast could be backed by investors as long as they stood to make butt-loads of money and could invoke plausible denial if Wiley's face made the cover of time...)

Re:Doesn't this defeat the purpose of open-source? (1)

Goozbach (683008) | more than 8 years ago | (#15204043)

You'll notice that in almost every one of those pictures, Mr Einstien is wearing a shirt and tie, if not a full suit. There's a difference between unkempt and wild hair, and unwashed and disorganized.

Re:Doesn't this defeat the purpose of open-source? (1)

znu (31198) | more than 8 years ago | (#15202767)

Open source is about sharing source code, which is inherently useful for all sorts of reasons; it means there are more eyes to spot bugs, it reduces duplication of effort, it allows tech-savvy users to customize stuff to meet their needs, etc.

There's also a kind of ideology of open community that has grown up around open source, and in general I think this has been beneficial. But there's also room for other models, which might be more attractive to certain types of organizations. Free software licensing allows for this; you don't have to take the ideology along with the code.

Some people don't really see it this way; they want to see the source code used as an incentive to get people to buy into their utopian visions of information freedom. I've always considered this a bit misguided; if the open community models really work better, they'll win out in the long run. Allowing experimentation with different models will bring this about faster, not slower.

Re:Doesn't this defeat the purpose of open-source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15202816)

Okay, so reliable peer review--at least, this is what I think they're trying to say--is important. However, they are basically closing themselves out to everything else. If anyone disagrees, could you please explain why?

Disagree. The source code is technically open for all to see and fork, but commit list is closed. It's "open source" (lower case) in the literal sense, but without subscribing to the entire FOSS manifesto. Semantics always come back to bite you. Danged TBL.

I suggest we deny the "Open Source" trademark to projects like this, where "you're welcome to see the code of our final product and submit bug fixes, but not participate in any significant decisions." Maybe "public source" or "read-only source" or something. Whatever it is, it ought to have an appropriate acronym, like "Public Industrial Source Software" or "Open-In-Name Code" or "Free Anal-Retentive Trash" or "Elitist Volunteer Industrial Loophole for Danged Oligopolists and Evasive Racketeering Syndicates."

Okay, maybe that last one was a little over the top.

Sounds like... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15202309)

Sounds like a petting zoo...

PC way to keep things to themselves (1)

cdtoad (14065) | more than 8 years ago | (#15202317)

And not have the next NYSE killer app downloadable from Source Forge.

OpenBRR? Closet hippies... (3, Funny)

gravyface (592485) | more than 8 years ago | (#15202327)

Meanwhile, at the OpenBRR secret lair...

Stodgy CEO: "Close that door, Johnson!"
Johnson from Spike: "I'm on it, Sir. Its closed."
Stodgy CEO: "Now pass me those sandals. Do they have that Grateful Dead tie-dye in XXL?"

^_____^ (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15202371)

OMG I posted on sladhdot. This is so cool

That's nothing until... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15202621)

have you posted an ASCII goatse?

one drug leads to another.

omg!!!one1!! are you the guy from pony linux? (-1, Offtopic)

bobamu (943639) | more than 8 years ago | (#15203174)

The world's pinkest and most pony based linux distribution

Closed Open Source (4, Insightful)

dcapel (913969) | more than 8 years ago | (#15202403)

Before people start barking about open source being "closed", lets remember a little book that we all should have read. It was written by a bard named ESR, and is named "The Cathedral and the Bazaar". It tells a story about how many open source projects are, and still are, closed in the development process. These days, many are more transparent, but there is more than one closed one lurking about.

The book was wrong, and the author was (is) stupid (1)

Homestar Breadmaker (962113) | more than 8 years ago | (#15202471)

The whole idea behind that book is nonsense. Almost all sucessful open source projects are closer to cathedral than bazaar. And ESR is a lunatic.

Re:The book was wrong, and the author was (is) stu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15202522)


Alas, good parent (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15202696)

You're absolutely right, but I'm sure you'll get modded into oblivion.

But at least you had the chutzpah to bring it up.

Excellent idea (1)

infoterror (909229) | more than 8 years ago | (#15202456)

Better to be honest about its membership than turn it into a secretly closed "open" society like WikiPedia.

This will also improve quality by keeping the rabble out!

Oh Christ! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15202537)

Closed doors? Where are all the tinfoil fucks who normally scream "conspiracy" over shit like this? Oh, it's open source so now it's magically OK. One poster was even dumb enough to mention something about it being traditional during development? Fuckhead, this is an organization that will try to pass standards on to dues paying members without the membership having the benefit of input into the process. Talk about bureaucracy...

Fucking open source fags... you're all hypocrites and you all suck dicks. BURN IN HELL.

Oh no! Open source code made widely public! (0)

atomm1024 (570507) | more than 8 years ago | (#15202543)

"This would allow members to discuss sensitive issues and share information without having to worry that it would be made widely public, he said."

I don't think he's fully grasping the concept of open source. :)

Re:Oh no! Open source code made widely public! (1)

muddyblooz (955382) | more than 8 years ago | (#15202740)

Or at least not grasping your concept of it. Face it, not all uses of Open-Source software fall under GPL guidelines. It's important to remember that major software such as OpenSSH and OpenSSL are licensed otherwise and may be used for proprietary applications.

Re:Oh no! Open source code made widely public! (1)

Gorshkov (932507) | more than 8 years ago | (#15202791)

I'm not sure that you're grasping the nature of business.

This isn't a collection of nerds high on jolt and twinkies - this is a group of serious boardroom-type suits.

What theyr'e trying to do if figure out how Open Source can HELP them, and how they can "sell" the use of open source to their PHBs.

To do that, theyr'e gonna have to discuss a whole bunch of business concerns, and for it to be usefull, they're also going to have to get into some aspects of their companies that they will NOT want to become generally known.

Yes, they're looking after their own interests. Some of that is going to be how to figure out how to get feature X, Y or Z into the next relase of whatever 2.3.

But a lot MORE of their interest is in their businesses, and they want to discuss it with others who have the same problems and concerns, not a bunch of techies.

Re:Oh no! Open source code made widely public! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15204206)

exactly. We're also talking about wall street bankers who have to be very careful about what they say publicly. If they let any insider information slip in a brainstorming session they'd want to be able to limit the damage done to a few other insiders and not have to make a press release telling the world that company A is going to aquire company B.

Good Grief (1)

SaidinUnleashed (797936) | more than 8 years ago | (#15202663)

Open-source does not imply or require open development. An entity (compant, group, person) can develop a project behind closed doors, without any outside influence, and release the source code under the GPL, and it works. Others can tinker with the code all they want, but the original creator(s) are not required to accept any outside code into their project. If I decided to take the Linux 2.x kernel and start developing it away from the way Torvalds' team goes, not incorporate any future changes crafted by the present kernel team or anyone else, and create my own operating system based around this new kernel fork, as long as I make the source code available for free, I am within the terms defined by the GPL. Open-Sourcedness (is that a word) does not wrest control of the project away from those who create it. It just allows anyone else to use the code and benefit from someone else's experience and work to make whatever the thing is work better for them, improve upon the work, etc.

Summary: My code can still be my own under the GPL, but you can also make it your own, provided you follow the rules.

*yawn* (1)

Theatetus (521747) | more than 8 years ago | (#15202745)

This would allow members to discuss sensitive issues and share information without having to worry that it would be made widely public

Blah blah blah. Suits make a big deal about keeping secrets when they don't have anything special. People with actual money-making ideas are too busy implementing them to worry about if their "secret" is kept. (Hell, most of them patent it, which is the exact opposite of a secret since the invention is then published in its entirety.)

Geez... can we go back to the 19th-century way where the owners didn't have to pretend they knew the first damn thing about how their company works? Now that they do, they come up with all kinds of ridiculous horseshit like this, which all has to be kept secret from our proletarian ears.

Re:*yawn* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15203236)

I think everyone is missing the point here. The application will be open source, but interested parties can come and have sensitive issues addressed. The closed element allows business secrets to be secret, not software. I mean come on - if it is going to be open source then how can it hold secrets?

Too much to ask that everyone RTFM, instead of just going off on one.

Very bad idea to flaunt non-publicity in public (1)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 8 years ago | (#15202800)

'to ensure that only trusted participants are coming into the system'

Sounds like they took a bad clue from the guys of Stanford. There really is no legitimate reason (outside of bragging) - the "trusted participant" part is just a red herring if they intend to be "open". If anything it should advertise to steer clear of this organization and disregard what will be blackbox ratings.

This would allow members to discuss sensitive issues and share information without having to worry that it would be made widely public.

Somehow I dont think they're talking about financials here, and wanting to pull a Sveasoft style act - all the bad parts, none of any relevant or good.

open trusted computing ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15202924)

as mutch as most of us resent the use of closed source in some cases if it was open then it would make the code useless

so there are arguments that the code should be open , but by the same token
would you want say your pasword list to be open and readable in plain text

what should be the descusion is how best to manage this in an open source environment , how do you write software to protect the users data that may include an encription algarithom without letting people know what algarithom is beeing used

this seems to be a good solution to that problem , and in the long term this problem is going to need a solution

not only for pasword encription , but for trusted computing (ether we keep the algarithems closed or we cannot use them) , and as mutch as most of us dislike the idea of drm , it may be the only way that we can develop players to use drm
encoded content

now do we want to totaly not allow the use of anything that will not allow for the code to be opensource ,

but we do need a way that is acceptable to manage this sort of thing within the open source community

i would rather it was done this way that left to a single 3rd party comertial
company to develop , at least here its a group that should be working with the open source communities interests at heart

St. Trinian's! (1)

jd (1658) | more than 8 years ago | (#15203002)

If the phrase "closed open shop" drift through your mind, you know what immediately came to mind. For those not in the know, "St. Trinian's" was a series of old, extremely dodgy TV movies involving sex, drugs, alcohol, high explosives, hockey sticks and an extremely violent school that would put several unintended meanings on the US phrase "no child left behind".

In one, where they completely fail to grasp the notion of a union, they end up deciding to form a closed open shop. The parallels between this and OpenBRR are unmistakable.

Confusion about "free" and "open", here? (1)

Bromskloss (750445) | more than 8 years ago | (#15203088)

Open source is not the same thing as free software, right? Open source software could even be much like any proprietary software. Remember, we want free software!

e?p.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15203386)

BitTorrent) S3cond, corpse turned over

morons (1)

prurientknave (820507) | more than 8 years ago | (#15205205)

Oooh look the boys are making a public announcement of their secret clubhouse. Are YOU cool enough to be invited?

Cue the openBBR invitation spoolers and the "oooh if anyone has an invitation hook me up" posts.

Clarification... (1)

openbrr_member (970860) | more than 8 years ago | (#15205684)

We welcome many of your comments listing the positives and negatives of the private mailing list to discuss industry vertical issues. At this moment we are open to both options, and in the process of compiling the feedback from CIO and Enterprise Architect type members of the corporate community. Corporate CIOs want a peer level forum to discuss common issues and leverage open source to solve their business problems. Hence, the proposal from OpenBRR's corporate community. If all the participating members want this to be an open forum we could keep it that way. It is a community driven initiative, more like a social networking group and the policies will be steered by the members. In addition, all the contents will be licensed under creative commons.

Re:Clarification... (1)

Kiaser Wilhelm II (902309) | more than 8 years ago | (#15232982)

I don't see why there should be a fuss about this.

This isn't a secret discussion for Linux kernel developers, its for users.

This is like saying its "elitist" for a company to have a closed board meeting that discusses the possibility of using OSS in a particular corporation.

Heck, I just got out of a meeting with my boss and fellow programmers about our company switching to Linux on our internal systems. We didn't invite Linus Torvalds or Slashdot members to attend. Does that make it wrong somehow?
Check for New 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>