How Open Does Open Source Need to be? 147
mjhuot writes "Doug MacEachern, CTO of Hyperic and creator of mod_perl, responds to criticism by Tarus Balog, a maintainer of OpenNMS, that his company's recent open source announcement is nothing but a marketing ploy. It is starting the debate on whether or not just releasing some code qualifies an application as 'open source.'"
Use Free Software instead (Score:4, Insightful)
Open source means you can read the source, much like an "open book exam" means you can read the book. The correct term for software that belongs to the community is Free Software. With Free Software, you are guarenteed to have the four fundamental software freedoms. With "Open Source", there is no such guarentee.
By my definition, even Windows is Open Source. In principle, I can view the source code to Windows. It's difficult and I have to sign a whole bunch of documents but I could do it with sufficient patience. This is why I don't like Open Source as a term; it is far too misleading. In fact, it doesn't actually mean anything other than the fact there is a mechanism by which you can see the source code that doesn't involve getting a court-order.
In contrast, the term Free Software has a very precise meaning and really should be trade-marked by the FSF. Then the FSF could only issue licenses to se the trade-mark where the software is licensed that protects the four freedoms. This way, companies couldn't profit from the name unless they labelled their products correctly.
Simon
Re:Use Free Software instead (Score:1)
Re:Use Free Software instead (Score:3)
Re:Use Free Software instead (Score:2, Informative)
Have you ever read any "Open" document from the ISO? Please do try to do so and you will see that to read that "open" document you have to pay about 100 chf (~ 65 eur or 80 usd).
Of course, you can read most of them by downloading them with your favorite
Free Software if Free Software
Open Source is proprietary name for quasi free software and it is a name made up by proprie
Re:Use Free Software instead (Score:2)
Having a membership fee to support the organization is a bit different than M$'s lawyer's determining you aren't a hostile threat to them.
Re:Use Free Software instead (Score:4, Insightful)
Free Software is about sharing. Open Source is about curiosity. I can do what I want with a truly Free piece of software, including repackaging and selling it. With Open Source, all I usually get to do is look at the code (curiosity), and if I see anything I want to fix, I usually have to give my fix back to the original owner.
The power of Free Software is the idea of community development. When you force everyone into restrictive licenses to see your code, you are not only missing the point, but you're losing the single biggest advantage in opening your source code in the first place. At that point, it becomes a marketing scheme and nothing more.
Unfortunately, most software companies are built around Intellectual Property. Trying to sell an idea to them whose central tenet is giving that Intellectual Property away without a lot of restrictive licenses is not going to get very far. So, in order to placate them, we come up with this Open Source idea, which may win the battle but loses the war.
Re:Use Free Software instead (Score:3, Informative)
Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. -- From the Open-Source definition [opensource.org].
The difference between Free Software and Open Source is a matter of philosophy and intended goals. The difference between Free Software and Open Source is not what you are permitted to do with the software. Open Source Software is just as redistributable and forkable as Free Software.
Re:Use Free Software instead (Score:2)
Re:Use Free Software instead (Score:2)
Re:Use Free Software instead (Score:2)
Re:Use Free Software instead (Score:2)
>Open Source is basically FSF-lite and was invented to make the whole Free Software thing more palatable to businesses.
Ehm no. BSD or MIT for example was not created for the FSF, and existed well before the FSF.
>Free Software is about sharing. Open Source is about curiosity.
Ehm no. So you're saying all the fine non FS open source projects are not about sharing? This is the first time I've seen -this- definition
Re:Use Free Software instead (Score:2)
I agree completely with you (and RMS) that the ideals of Free Software were lost when Open Source was formulated, but I also think that true Open Source, that provides the advantages which ESR suggests it should, is actually closer to GPL3 (and maybe
Re:Use Free Software instead (Score:4, Insightful)
Free Software is about sharing. Open Source is about curiosity. I can do what I want with a truly Free piece of software, including repackaging and selling it. With Open Source, all I usually get to do is look at the code (curiosity), and if I see anything I want to fix, I usually have to give my fix back to the original owner.
There are something like 60 OSI-certified Open Source licenses [opensource.org], so discussing all of them as if they were the same only leads to confusion. In fact, the GPL is an OSI-certified Open Source license.
Also, Stallman's arguments about the GPL providing more freedom than other licenses aren't shared by everyone. The BSD license and other academic licenses have no reciprocality requirement. In that sense they are more free than the GPL, which has a strong reciprocity requirement. One interpretation I've heard is that the GPL reinforces community freedom, while the BSD license reinforces individual freedom.
Re:Use Free Software instead (Score:2)
Re:Use Free Software instead (Score:2)
Actually, "Free Software" is just as misleading in the vernacular. Just as anyone who doesn't know the technicalities of "Open Source" might assume that they have unrestricted public access to any source code with that label, many people assume that "Free Software" means free as in beer.
"Rights Free" might be a clearer term, or "Freedom Software"... nah, that opens up another can of semantic wor
Re:Use Free Software instead (Score:2)
How about "Libre Software?"
(Of course, I just call it "capital-F Free Software," myself -- I make sure to explain what it means so that the person I'm talking to doesn't think it's the same as "freeware.")
Re:Use Free Software instead (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Use Free Software instead (Score:2)
Re:Use Free Software instead (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW, you're using the RMS definition of 'Free' but your own definition of 'Open Source.' By picking and choosing which definitions I'm going to use, I could just as easily
Re:Use Free Software instead (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the term Open Source has a clear technical definition, which is available on the OSI website:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php [opensource.org]
In my opinion it is not as successful a definition as the 'four freedoms' used by the FSF, but Open Source is a less misleading term than Free Software for most people.
For one, it has the advantage of actually so
Re:Use Free Software instead (Score:2)
Re:Use Free Software instead (Score:2)
Re:Use Free Software instead (Score:2)
Re:Use Free Software instead (Score:2)
Free Software is a subset of Open Source software, it's not completely different.
Re:Use Free Software instead (Score:2)
Re:Use Free Software instead (Score:2)
The software's openness is governed by its license. We now have several standard licenses defining degrees of openness. I'd like to see one for each possible degree, with a trademarked name and logo (eg OSS-0, OSS-19) backed by tests in court. But we'd also need standard definitions of open projects, not
Re:Use Free Software instead (Score:1)
Copywritten software can never truly be free, true freedom exists only in the public domain.
Use Open Source instead (Score:2)
By my definition, even Windows is Free Software. In principle, I can get Windows for free. It's difficult and I have to sign a whole bunch of documents but I could do it with su
Seconded (Score:2)
Re:Use Free Software instead (Score:2)
Have you ever read the Open-Source Definition [opensource.org] ? This is basically a rebranding of the Debian Free Software Guidelines [debian.org].
This stupid Open-Source vs. Free Software rethoric get us nowhere. Please get over it already.
Re:Use Free Software instead (Score:2)
That's not true. Open source means much more than that, and you know it. There are plenty of proprietary software that is distributed with source, sometimes as a necessity, as in the case of scripting languages, or cross platform compatability. (Proprietary UNIX programs have frequently been distributed as source, since that was the only way to ensure the program could run on the users' actual hardware.)
Re:Use Free Software instead (Score:2)
I hate the term "free software" cause if I tell my mom I can install "free software" on her computer to save her the $500 MS Office fee. she thinks that the only reason this software is worthwhile is cause of its cost.
using the term "free" stupifies and blinds people to the real beniffits of "Libra/freedom" software.
it makes people believe that if then can get a "Freeware/shareware/warez" version of there current software, then there is no need to use libra/freedom software.
but t
Re:Use Free Software instead (Score:2)
A ridiculous argument. (Score:2)
There are more-valid arguments that Windows is not Open Source.
What do you think would happen if Steve Jobs showed up at a Microsoft's Headquarters and said, "I'm here to see the Windows Source Code. I'll fill out whatever forms you like." as you propose anyone can do?
Bill whips out the "All your bases are belong to us" form and Apple is out of business.
Starting the debate? (Score:3, Informative)
There isn't one open source license. Some are more restrictive than others. Some are more open than others. People need to be more cautious in their use of terminology and should not use GPL interchangably with open source.
Re:Starting the debate? (Score:1)
Open Source is healf hearted philanthropy (Score:1)
They are open... (Score:1)
Open Source - Free Software (Score:3, Insightful)
If its Free -and- Open Source, than some anonymous 12 year old can get the source, and re-compile it, without any licensing fees or issues.
If its BSD/GPL-style-free, than said 12 year old can also re-distribute without sending in signed forms or paying anyone.
Where is the confusion?
Re:Open Source - Free Software (Score:1, Insightful)
If you check with the guys who actually coined the term open source (www.opensource.org), you would notice that modification and redistribution is a "must" in their book.
Same as above, but this time we also have to look at the FSF due to the term Free
Re:Open Source - Free Software (Score:1)
When you use than for then. Then you understand that this is better than that.
So Windows is Open Source? (Score:2)
Open Source doesn't mean you can get the source code. If it did, then Windows, QMail, PocketPC, Pine, etc. would be Open Source. They're not.
Open Source is defined by the Open Source Definition.
Example? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Example? (Score:3, Informative)
Open Office? (Score:5, Informative)
StarDivision (Score:2)
You're right, the german company was StarDivision [wikipedia.org]
Re:Open Office? (Score:1)
Re:Open Office? (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Open Office? (Score:2)
Netscape (Score:3, Informative)
Quake 1,2,3 (although not mantained anymore)
Google's AJAX toolkit
Re:Netscape (Score:2)
and extended (Score:2)
it is also upgraded and new engines are build on top of it, like : Nexuiz [alientrap.org] witch feature additionnal eye-candy built on top of the Quake Engine.
Re:Example? (Score:1)
Re:Example? (Score:2)
uhhhmm... mozilla! (Score:2)
Re:Example? (Score:2)
Re:Example? (Score:1)
Best Example - Blender (Score:2)
Blender History [blender.org]
Re:Best Example - Blender (Score:2)
Re:Example? (Score:1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender_(software) [wikipedia.org]
Re:Example? (Score:2)
Re:Example? (Score:2)
And if you believe that, I believe the guys at SCO have a bridge they're looking to unload at a low, low price to raise some money to pay their lawyers.
Re:Example? (Score:2)
Can anyone give an example that didn't? (where "successful" = "regularly used by people who've never even heard of open source")
VLC, Gaim.. Gimp? I stuggle to think of as many as the other way round, and those that I can think of aren't as popular (as eg firefox) :-/
Which brings up a theory -- open source is great at building on top of things and adding featur
Re:Example? (Score:2)
Yep.
The Cathedral and the Bazaar [catb.org]
See the section titled "Necessary Preconditions for the Bazaar Style".
Other exemples (Score:2)
Linux kernel : (unless you beleive Alexis de Tocqueville) it was built as open-source from the start. And is very widely used in embeded hardware. A lot of people (who don't even know what an operating system is) have xDSL modems/routers at home that use an embed Linux.
Samba : MacOS X standart way to interoperate with Windows environnement (OK, bad exemple, maybe not a lot of people use macs, so it fails the
Re:Example? (Score:2)
I think the question goes the other way around - why would a successful proprietary software open up its source? You own the whole source, there's no cheap knockoffs or rebrands... alright there's a few pros and cons but for the most part, selling services around an open source product is a lot less profitable and a lot more cut-throat than carving your own niche wh
Um, use the definition, will ya? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Um, use the definition, will ya? (Score:3, Insightful)
So I don't see the problem.
Re:Um, use the definition, will ya? (Score:2)
Oh, I didn't want to comment on whether there is a problem or not, I didn't even read TFB. I was just saying that the question is stupid.
Re:Um, use the definition, will ya? (Score:2)
"From TFBlog: "the source code will be available under the GPL next month."
So I don't see the problem."
If history is any guide, you may start to see the problem in a month or two.
Here we go (Score:5, Insightful)
So, two heavyweights(?) in the OSS community are going to start having a little war over what "open source" really means, eh? Must be a slow news day.
Open Source is what it is, and how "open" you want your software to be is your business. You can throw the whole thing open to anyone and let talented people take up the challenge to adapt and improve your code, or you can have one set of "open" code and one set of "closed" code, the former being available to anyone, the latter available for a price. No one is under any obligation, in either case, to use your software. If you want to charge for the "closed" version so you can actually make a living, where's the harm in that?
In an ideal world, there would be no secrets. All software would be open and free to roam the Earth. We are a far cry from an ideal world; commerce dominates and servers and bandwidth cost money. Whether your OSS is "open" or "slightly open" doesn't matter much -- if you can't scrape up the cash to keep the lights on and the servers running, it doesn't much matter how cool your software is. All I can say is, leave it alone.
What's in a name? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's in a name? (Score:2)
Adventures in Naming (Score:4, Funny)
"No honey, that's too cruel
"Okay
And there you have it. Taurus Balrog would be a cool name, though
Shareware (Score:5, Insightful)
Shareware is a limited or expiring version of an application made available for free with the idea that you should be able to try the software before purchasing it. It doesn't have a thing to do with open source, it's just another way of selling your closed source software.
If he wants to be irritated at software that claims to be open source but charges for advanced features, that's fine. But he doesn't need to get annoyed at shareware.
Re:Shareware (Score:1)
This is an important issue for Free Software. There should be no feature restrictions in dual licenced software. A good example where its done w
Re:Shareware (Score:2)
In both cases, you've taken a full product, removed some features, and make it available at a lower cost.
Shareware used to have a precise definition (Score:2)
> limited software and leverage its popularity to persuade people to upgrade. Software like Easy CD Creater, Quicktime, Realplayer etc.
> all attempt to recieve extra income by witholding features that are not expensive to implement.
Back in 'the day' there used to be something called the Association of Shareware Professionals who defended the original defination of
Re:Shareware (Score:3, Insightful)
That's what the term has come to mean today, but that's really a demo, not Shareware. In the old days, when software was distributed on BBSes, Shareware was fully functional, and included a notice something like "If you find this useful, please send $X to the creator."
With Shareware becoming Demoware, today that model is sometimes called
Re:Shareware (Score:2)
I can understand his positon.. (Score:1, Interesting)
1) Some guy emails me and says he is interested in the project and would like to help out
2) I email him back with my copy & pasted response welcoming him and telling him about the mailing lists, source code, etc.
3) I never hear from him again.
I've been running my open source project sinc
Re:I can understand his positon.. (Score:1)
This is pretty contrary to my experience.
All of my prospective employers have been intrigued (during interviews) with my work on opensource projects, and that experience definitely weighted things to my advantage.
I've started three small open-source projects. On all three of them, I've received patches, code, miscellaneous contributions(e.g. .spec files), and suggestions from random people; actual
There is an official definition (Score:3, Informative)
Whether some software is open source is equivalent to whether it conforms to all points in this definition. There you have it, debate settled.
It is an entirely different issue if this definition can be legally enforced; it cannot, as far as I know. So there is no mechanism preventing companies from making noise by falsely using the term. That is why one shuold always take an "open source" or "free software" claim with a grain of salt, and verify the claim carefully.
Re:There is an official definition (Score:2)
At least at the US, OSI owns the trademark on "Open Source", so they can tell who can use the name and who can't.
Why are we even having this discussion? (Score:2)
If strings are attached, then it's not open.
Done, next.
Re:Why are we even having this discussion? (Score:2)
If I have an existing body of BSD-licensed code, I can't take a piece of GPL code and add it to my code and then release it under a BSD license.
Maybe the problem of defining "open source" isn't really as simple as you glibly suggest it
Fair enough! (Score:2)
BSD is open too, but can be closed again at some point.
Open Code, really doesn't do us that much good if it isn't growing. The whole GPL pool of code appears to be doing that nicely --and it's gonna stay open. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a BSD basher or snob at all. I run it on a server or two and it's top-notch actually.
For me, the GPL open is the better o
Good ol' days (Score:1)
Ah, childhood.
well... (Score:5, Funny)
[Haj] You know... open.
[Pin] But how open? It's not a black and white issue.
[Haj] It should be open, like a door.
[Pin] That makes no sense, Haj.
[Haj] Sure it does. A door is either open or closed. There's no in-between there my color-blind friend.
[Pin] Are you kidding me? Look at this door. It's closed. But if I pull it just a little, is it open?
[Haj] Yes. It is open.
[Pin] How about now, if I pull it some more, is it more open?
[Haj] You can't be more or less open Pin... That's my point.
[Pin] Look at the %^%@#@%# door Haj. Does it look MORE OPEN to you?
[Haj] Well that's a different question isn't it. Does it "look more open"?
[Pin]
[Haj] I mean what if my eyes were closed?
[Pin] Haj...
[Haj] What if I was blind, Pin? Huh, what then?
[Pin]
[Haj] Now you're totally stumped, aren't you buddy? Stumped by my rhetorical questions.
[Pin]
[Haj] [in a girl's voice] What if I was blind?
[Haj] I can't believe you don't have a response dude... Pin? whatcha doing with that ice pick?
[the screen goes black and there is the sound of terrible things being done to someone's eyes]
[Haj] I just want you to know, if you ask "does the door ~feel~ open", I'm not going to answer you man...
[Haj] Pin... Are you still there? Hello? Anybody?
Questions to ask about FOSS levels: (Score:2)
Sticking to an earlier philosophy, sourcecode is just a list of steps to create a certain effect. By sharing this re
an analogy (Score:4, Funny)
"Why shouldn't I?" he said.
I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"
"Like what?"
"Well
"Religious."
"Me too! Are you Christian or Jewish?"
"Christian."
"Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
"Protestant."
"Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
"Baptist."
"Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"
"Baptist Church of God."
"Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"
"Reformed Baptist Church of God."
"Wow! Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"
"Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"
To which I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.
Re:an analogy (Score:2)
A company releases the source to their App. You can view it and change it for your own use but not distribute the
App to anyone else, without permission. Vs. You can view it and change it for your own use and if you want you
can distribte the app without previous concent
If you want change you well need to evoke small changes not huge one. No matter how well yo
Take 'em both with a big grain of salt (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, that's fun. Tarus basically gets on a soapbox and starts lecturing about how he & his company have been doing Open Source for, like, years. That young rascal Doug better listen to Tarus!
Tarus is arguing from authority, if you know what that old debate tactic is. And to be honest, I give him some credence.
But then Doug posts right in the comments, and basically explains that he's been doing Open Source for at least a decade -- before the term existed. And he explains that they're going to follow a GPL model, but they're going to do it on their own timetable, not Tarus's.
Fun.
Having said that, they're both getting things wrong, IMHO. Tarus is ascribing way more to Open Source than he should. For example, he says that a community must exist, contributing actively to the code. This is a fallacy on two points. First, that would immediately disqualify 90% of the projects on SourceForge, which are maintained by a lone hacker. But second, that's more of a Free Software, you-must-develop-software-the-RIGHT-way line of thinking. Open Source does not have these burdens -- it's just a flag people raise to say "you can get this source code." No more.
And Doug clearly jumped the gun. If they're going slow & sure toward the goal of GPL, that's great -- just don't say you have something that you don't yet offer.
Semi-Open Source (Score:2, Interesting)
SugarCRM does offer an open source version of their software and it seems to be pretty solid. However if you look at it versus even the lowest paid closed source version very important functionality has been removed; namely Outlook support a
And SugarCRM has been forked and Freed... (Score:2)
DG
Re:Semi-Open Source (Score:3, Informative)
There is no acceptable reason to use outlook or outlook express, and by using them people do help making the internet a less nice place.
Making them pay is good.
Has anyone actually used HQ ? (Score:1)
The Debate Ended Ages Ago (Score:3, Informative)
I haven't seen anyone else mention this so far, but wasn't that debate ended some time ago? I thought Bruce Perens' Open Source Definitition [opensource.org] was the final word on the matter.
If it conforms to the definition, it's open source. By definition.
If it doesn't, it's something else.
This is not complicated.
if you can't fork it... (Score:2)
One can have a lengthy debate about whether the term "open source" should still apply to such source-available software, but people who are trying to (mis-)apply the term to such software are simply trying to mislead potential users.
Re:Wine (Score:2)
So is beer [voresoel.dk]. (It's not free beer as in free beer, but beer as in Free beer!)