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!

Has Open Source Lost Its Halo?

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the master-chief-awol dept.

Software 277

PetManimal writes "Open-source software development once had a reputation as a grassroots movement, but it is increasingly a mainstream IT profit center, and according to Computerworld, some in the industry are asking whether 'open source' has become a cloak used by IT vendors large and small to disguise ruthless and self-serving behavior. Citing an online opinion piece by Gordon Haff, an analyst at Illuminata Inc., the article notes that HP and IBM have not only profited from open-source at the expense of competitors, but have also boosted their images in the open-source community. The Computerworld article also mentions the efforts by the Microsoft/Windows camp to promote open-source credentials: '[InfoWorld columnist Dave] Rosenberg is more disturbed by the bandwagon jumpers: the companies, mostly startups, belatedly going open-source in order to ride a trend, while paying only lip service to the community and its values. Take Aras Corp., a provider of Windows-based product lifecycle management (PLM) software that in January decided to go open-source. Rosenberg depicted the firm in his blog as an opportunistic Johnny-Come-Lately. "I'm not impressed when a company whose software is totally built on Microsoft technologies goes open-source," said Rosenberg, who even suspects that the company is being promoted by Microsoft as a shill to burnish Redmond's image in open-source circles."'"

cancel ×

277 comments

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

There was an open source version of Halo? (5, Funny)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 7 years ago | (#18028624)

I wish I had know about that.

Re:There was an open source version of Halo? (4, Funny)

teh_chrizzle (963897) | more than 7 years ago | (#18028928)

yeah, from the same people that developed Xvid. it's called OLAH.

Re:There was an open source version of Halo? (4, Insightful)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029158)

lol. Anybody else tired of stupid journalists trying to stir up trouble or create a conflict where there really isn't one?

I mean really... is anybody truly upset that IBM made a bunch of money cuz they threw a bunch of code and developer time at OSS projects?

I don't care how much money they all make, so long as they abide by the GPL in letter, and spirit. In fact, if I thought Microsoft was capable of playing by the rules, I'd even be happy to see them contribute.

[sarcasm]
zomg! money!!! we're all communists though, this can't be right!?!
[/sarcasm]

Re:There was an open source version of Halo? (5, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029224)

Anybody else tired of stupid journalists trying to stir up trouble or create a conflict where there really isn't one?

Nope, that's why I still read slashdot. ;)

is anybody truly upset that IBM made a bunch of money cuz they threw a bunch of code and developer time at OSS projects?

That's exactly why I don't mind they profit from open source. They contribute. Not only do they contribute code, but many educational articles on various technical details.

No, no, no (5, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029964)

You have demonstrated at least a passing familiarity with the slashdot ethos. That's why it's so surprising that you don't recognize the simple truth. Individuals who use open source but do nothing to contribute except yelling loudly and incoherently about it's benefits are supporting open source. Because, you know, they're, uh, rebellious non-conformists sticking it to the man. Companies who invest time and money into open source projects are still evil because, um, they're doing it for mercenary reasons. And mercenaries kill people. Which is evil. QED.

Re:There was an open source version of Halo? (4, Funny)

teh_chrizzle (963897) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029368)

is anybody truly upset that IBM made a bunch of money cuz they threw a bunch of code and developer time at OSS projects?

this one group of guys was [sco.com] a while back, but i'm not sure anything came of it.

Re:There was an open source version of Halo? (2, Interesting)

md17 (68506) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029920)

I mean really... is anybody truly upset that IBM made a bunch of money cuz they threw a bunch of code and developer time at OSS projects?
I don't think Borland and all the other IDE vendors were too happy about IBM giving away Eclipse.

FREAKIN' LOAL DUDES!!11!#2312`1` (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18029316)

that comment was "YAGHET"

Re:There was an open source version of Halo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18029264)

Yes, you can download it from here [bungie.org] .

Re:There was an open source version of Halo? (2, Interesting)

i_should_be_working (720372) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029876)

Well, if you like older games, the Bungie team started out with Marathon [bungie.org] , which was in many ways a precursor to Halo, and is now Free for Mac, Linux, and Windows.

Who cares if it works (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18028650)

Right?

Halo? (4, Funny)

68030 (215387) | more than 7 years ago | (#18028654)

The first thing that crossed my mind upon reading the headline was that some previosly open-source game to rival Halo had gone closed source or the development team walked away..

Silly context, always breaking things.

Only in /. (3, Funny)

cOdEgUru (181536) | more than 7 years ago | (#18028722)

Can and Will an article that started off with chewing out Open Source vendors who ignore its values and end up bashing Microsoft.

Didnt mean it as a flame..it was just funny reading it.

Re:Only in /. (0, Troll)

GiovanniZero (1006365) | more than 7 years ago | (#18028770)

mod parent down, troll

:p

Re:Only in /. (2, Insightful)

JohnnyComeLately (725958) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029698)

I'm with you. If there was an ability to mod an article, "FlameBait", this would get my vote (and confirmation upon meta-mod). Please, give me a break. I hate M$ just as much as the next *NIX geek, but give me a break. There's two ways to slice and dice this, and they both reek.

Boo Hoo, OS is making $$$: Businesses are making money of open source. OK? So? What'd you think a FOR_PROFIT company would do with it? At least they didn't M$ it: Embrace, make it proprietary, and then lock everyone out of using it. I read /. daily and I guess I missed the thousands posting how they no longer can use a flavor of *nix.

Companies are lying: This is a morally hollow argument. It's like saying, "I won't give to the bum on the street because I bet he makes $150k a year as a 'bum'" Even the lack of evidence of a conspiracy is proof there IS a conspiracy.

I somehow get the vibe that the author is really thinking it's lost it's gleam because OS is:making money, becoming mainstream, and some how no longer just a geek's product of tinkering. All of these are GOOD things to me. Make it mainstream...make money...make it easy....

These are just my ramblings.

OSS gone commercial is still OSS (5, Insightful)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18028744)

I know Tivo pisses some people off, while at the same time they are sort of a poster child for "what linux can do".

I mean, they follow the letter of the GPL - I can get the source - but since the kernel must be cryptographically signed to execute on the device, this source is useless.

But the GPL never said anything about me being able to hack my device. Tivo is just like any other corporation in that respect, they don't want me adding functionality, they want me to pay for it.

They've taken from the community, made a good deal of money, and really have given nothing back, and really don't have to.

The GPL, and OSS in general, really isn't about giving back. It's about taking advantage of the altruism of others. I don't mean that in a negative way either. When I set up linux on old hardware as a router, I was doing the same thing. I've never released the firewall scripts I tweaked up, or even told anybody upstream of a couple of bugs I've fixed for myself. Tivo, and for that matter, IBM, HP or Novell all have the same rights that I do.

GPLv3 (5, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18028878)

But the GPL never said anything about me being able to hack my device.
That's what GPLv3 intends to fix. If TiVo wants to use new versions of the GNU userland after the move to GPLv3, TiVo is going to need to quit with the lockout chip business model.

Re:GPLv3 (2, Insightful)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029220)

That's not "fixing" it. That's breaking it.

The software monkeys of the FSF have no right to impose hardware restrictions on a manufacturer. How are they any better than the requirement for HDCP on an HDMI-compliant device?

Oh, right, because they care about "freedom."

rms's "freedom" is just another kind of chains. If TiVo's business model is so abhorrent, then someone ought to build a better TiVo-esque device and market it.

See how far you get on your "we're Free as in Freedom!" line.

Re:GPLv3 (0, Flamebait)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029332)

RMS thinks freedom starts with dropping cluster bombs. He could be a politician.

Re:GPLv3 (5, Informative)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029374)

FSF have no right to impose hardware restrictions on a manufacturer

Yeah, and they don't. They just say "you cannot use my code for that".

Both agree and disagree (1)

mrcparker (469158) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029448)

If someone wants to build a better box, then do it. As far as the GPL3, it is a voluntary license. The same argument that you made for a better Tivo can be made for the new GPL.

Re:Both agree and disagree (1)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029496)

Except the GPLv3 restricts freedom far more than its predecessor and makes it dangerous.

I don't have the programming chops to maintain the code for a GPLv2 version of the GNU userland, but I will not switch to GPLv3, ever.

Re:GPLv3 (0, Offtopic)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029638)

Modded Offtopic, yet the parent post is modded 3, Informative. The Slashbots are out in force today!

Re:GPLv3 (3, Informative)

nuzak (959558) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029406)

> If TiVo wants to use new versions of the GNU userland after the move to GPLv3, TiVo is going to need to quit with the lockout chip business model.

So is gcc now going to apply the GPLv3 to its output?

Whether you like GPLv3 or not, Linux isn't changing its license. TiVo has nothing to be concerned about except that maybe they'll be locked out of the HURD.

Re:GPLv3 (2, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029710)

What part of "userland" do you not understand? TiVo almost certainly uses more GPL software than just a kernel, you know!

Re:GPLv3 (1)

nuzak (959558) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029806)

> TiVo almost certainly uses more GPL software than just a kernel, you know!

It hardly seems like the sort of thing they're going to have to keep extremely current, and I hardly imagine they're losing a wink of sleep over it.

Re:GPLv3 (1)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029916)

But it is unlikely that the non-kernel parts of the TiVo operating system are important enough to protect.

Re:GPLv3 (2, Informative)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029788)

Linux cannot be released under GPL v3, ever. It's irrelevant to TiVo.

Re:OSS gone commercial is still OSS (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029020)

When I set up linux on old hardware as a router, I was doing the same thing. I've never released the firewall scripts I tweaked up, or even told anybody upstream of a couple of bugs I've fixed for myself.

Thats fine, you are entitled to do that and I really hope the devices work well for you.
However, the minute you start making and or distributing these devices to other people, you better make those mods available as per the license you followed.

Re:OSS gone commercial is still OSS (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029136)

Mods available? I made no mods to the kernel, or shorewall, or anything else.

No, the few shell scripts I set up to do various things, I wrote myself. I'll choose whatever license I want.

The end result to the consumer, is the same as if it was all proprietary. But I get to save a bunch of $$ not licensing some other OS, or set of technologies (arguable, dev cost vs licensing costs).

And I'd be doing nothing different than about every other wireless router on the shelves at best buy. I bought a cheap Belkin Pre-N router, which I know runs linux, but they give me no way to modify it.

Re:OSS gone commercial is still OSS (2, Insightful)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029412)

You said you had fixed bugs that you didn't tell upstream about.

Re:OSS gone commercial is still OSS (1)

lazarusdishwasher (968525) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029054)

I thought the article was focusing more on takeing closed source products open.

I think it could be a matter of IBM and HP and other people have figured out there is more money in selling hardware and support and less money in software. It also seems that you could pay for software development with the advertising budget, if people are using your free software you would look more appealing when they need support or more hardware by the simple fact that if you made it you could support it best.

Re:OSS gone commercial is still OSS (2, Insightful)

MBCook (132727) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029142)

Are you sure TiVo has never made patches to the kernel that got accepted? I doubt it, I'm sure they have caught and fixed bugs. But even if they didn't, we (as users) get the benefits of them using Linux. Using it cut the development time, cut the price of the box (no OS to develop or license), and reduced bugs (compared to if they had to write their own OS).

And let's not forgot all those people who have hacked their TiVos to do neat things, basically with the implied blessing of TiVo. In fact, I believe that TiVo has even integrated some of those features into their boxes over the years.

Just because someone is using OSS without providing new functionality back to the core all the time doesn't mean they are freeloading.

TiVo is better off, Linux is better off, TiVo users are better off, seems good to me.

Re:OSS gone commercial is still OSS (2, Informative)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029320)

Tell me how I can hack my Tivo to do neat things?

Tivo didn't give any implied blessing, Tivo locked down the Series 2 cryptographically to prevent me from copying off the shows I recorded, and making the only conduit the slow and broken TivoToGo. 2 hours to copy a half hour show, I'm glad they take the time to encrypt it on the fly for my protection.

Let me reiterate: Tivo saw hackers doing neat things, based largely on the openness of linux, and locked the system down to prevent it.

The only "hack" I can pull off is 'put in a bigger harddrive with exact same system partition', and that explicitly voids my license. I don't know if they've ever done so, but they could as easily blacklist me off the service for doing this, as MSFT could boot me from XBox live for having a mod chip.

Actually, I heard that the above hack no longer works on Series 3, which include the partition tables in the cryptographic jibber jabber somehow.

I like Tivo as a product, but as a company, they behave as a company, and the fact that they use linux is irrelevant.

Actually, linux is probably the reason it takes 5 minutes for a tivo to reboot.

Re:OSS gone commercial is still OSS (2, Informative)

nuzak (959558) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029472)

> Are you sure TiVo has never made patches to the kernel that got accepted?

They've made modifications anyway. Get them here [tivo.com] .

Re:OSS gone commercial is still OSS (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029498)

If you were talking about the BSD license, you'd be right. But you have missed the entire intention of the GPL, which isn't to help the upstream (though that is also usually an effect) but to guarantee that those downstream can continue to modify that code. If you do one very simple search-and-replce you see that is true:

"But the GPL never said anything about me being able to hack my [software]. Tivo is just like any other corporation in that respect, they don't want me adding functionality, they want me to pay for it."

That applies to any software company. If the intention wasn't for me to be able to modify the Tivo's software, why the hell should I bother with anything OSS? Print out the source and frame it?

Linus has way too much faith in the general purpose computer and that "the best technology wins", and that whatever smart thing Tivo does he can just include in his mainstream kernel. For now that's true but the day you computers come with TCPA and his unsigned kernel doesn't get to touch any mainstream media, it's a dead duck as far as the general public is concerned.

Those who don't understand UNIX... (2, Insightful)

BalkanBoy (201243) | more than 7 years ago | (#18028748)

are forced to reinvent it. The corollary to this is that those who do not understand economics, are eventually forced to "reinvent" it.

Re:Those who don't understand UNIX... (1)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 7 years ago | (#18028790)

> are forced to reinvent it. The corollary to this is that those who do not understand economics, are eventually forced to "reinvent" it.

...poorly.

Paradoxically, those that do understand the GPL, are also prone to reinvent it... just as poorly.

Re:Those who don't understand UNIX... (5, Funny)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 7 years ago | (#18028900)

How do you tell a GPL advocate? Well, it's someone who reads the GPL. And how do you tell a GPL opponent? It's someone who understands the GPL.

Re:Those who don't understand UNIX... (1)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029384)

> > Paradoxically, those that do understand the GPL, are also prone to reinvent it... just as poorly.
>
>How do you tell a GPL advocate? Well, it's someone who reads the GPL. And how do you tell a GPL opponent? It's someone who understands the GPL.

Who says I wasn't talking about RMS all along? :-)

hmm (0, Offtopic)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 7 years ago | (#18028752)

At least open source has its Killzone. That's a Halo killer I hear.

Re:hmm (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029382)

Regarding your sig:
Fighting for peace, is like fucking for virginity.

The bigger picture (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18028760)

Everybody has been in such a rush to get OSS adopted by the world at large that we're losing sight of what made it so great to begin with... A community effort, for fun, to hack, to be free. Not so we could be taken advantage of. This is what I have feared for years and it looks like the "movement" is getting hijacked.

Ain't nobody ever happy (5, Insightful)

Fortissimo (45876) | more than 7 years ago | (#18028776)

OK, help me out here. A few years ago weren't the open source folks crying that no one was taking their clearly-superior products seriously? Now a few large companies are utilizing it and promoting it and taking it seriously, and we're still crying? Hmmmmmm.

Re:Ain't nobody ever happy (1)

tokul (682258) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029342)

Now a few large companies are utilizing it and promoting it and taking it seriously, and we're still crying?

These companies are utilizing OSS and promoting own products. They are not promoting OSS. Companies assume that GPL is same as BSD license and they are free to use work of others.

Re:Ain't nobody ever happy (2, Informative)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029460)

We aren't. Some "journalist" is trying to drum up page hits.

Not really (5, Insightful)

TheMeuge (645043) | more than 7 years ago | (#18028792)

It's not that it's lost its halo, it's just that it has realized its usefulness. The fact that companies make money off open-source technologies doesn't mean that open-source is bad. Anyone who thinks that is doing the entire open-source community a great disservice.

We don't live in a utopian communist state. Progress is driven by self-interest, and I am happy that companies make money using open-source technologies, because it not only affirms the essential role of OSS in the marketplace, but also provides incentive for support and adoption of OSS by those who were previously skeptical.

Re:Not really (3, Interesting)

Reverse Gear (891207) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029010)

I agree, it is a good thing that businesses use OS software and that money also get involved in this.

To me the example of how Daniel Robbins, the man who made Gentoo Linux and did a fantastic job at it, ended up with a huge depth because he put all his time aside for the development of this OS stands as a very good example. He ended up being hired by MS for some kind of Open Source analyzing group because they offered to pay his depths for him if he would accept the job offer. Thankfully Daniel Robbins and his family was able to life a life with few enough expenses to make Gentoo a living project that when he left the project was able to live on and is still thriving.
I remember how the we as a community tried to raise the money to pay Daniels depths, we were able to raise something like 10000$, but having devoted all his time for Gentoo for years his depth was 20 times that high.
It is great when companies hire developers and pay them for doing what they do best, instead of Microsoft being able to hire the best guys of the business to do nothing valuable, because they have to make a living somehow.
So lets get more money flowing in the Open Source community and lets have more paid developers, I have a hard time seeing the evil in that.

A side note is that Daniel the way just on his way back as a Gentoo developer after he left Microsoft again, as far as I understand because he did not feel he was really listened to.

Re:Not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18029176)

When you say "depth" - do you mean "debt"??

Re:Not really (1)

Reverse Gear (891207) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029252)

When you say "depth" - do you mean "debt"??

Yes, sorry English is not my native language, another misunderstanding created by Firefox spell check I guess ;)

Re:Not really (1)

emil10001 (985596) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029122)

I agree. Why is making money so bad? Yes, the company benefits from the community, but doesn't the community also benefit from having the source? Wouldn't it be great if more companies provided source code for their software?

A bit of terminology shear happening here (5, Insightful)

Jooly Rodney (100912) | more than 7 years ago | (#18028816)

Recent developments with Novell aside, if software companies open their software (under a real Free license), their reasons for doing so and their relations with the community aren't really that important. That's the whole reason we have Free Software licenses -- so that users and independent developers don't have to worry about the behavior of the companies that put out the software. You can trust the GPL, even if you don't trust SoftwareVendorReleasingGPL'dSoftware.

Bad Apples Spoiling the Barrel (5, Interesting)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 7 years ago | (#18028826)

I think its a case of "bad apples" spoiling the good ones.

Whether fair or not, a lot of open source projects come across as being incomplete, UI nightmares, geek-tool-only, and large organization unfriendly because of support issues.

Not every open-source project is that way, but when I worked at HP that was the case. You mentioned open-source and managers would run to update your file as a trouble maker. When you got a manager to approve a demo, you'd have to work twice as hard to explain why this was a good alternative, why the weird UI wasn't an issue, and how the tool was self supporting or support could be done easily "in house". However, if you hadn't told the manager that it was "open source" and that it was "off the shelf", you could get by without the massive sales job.

Why?

Because too many open source projects are:

  • Too geek centric ("screw the user", "RTM", "VI is the only way")
  • The UI is too far afield of the normal MAC/PC (win) style the user is familiar with (remember, "screw the user")
  • Incomplete - perpetual beta or worse, perpetual alpha (when it's complete it is going to be so much better than office)
  • Another monster without a support agreement - (Well thats a value add, but then most OSS don't have support plans you can purchase)

It's a perception problem. No matter the platform, OSS has an image problem that may be rightly deserved.

Heh..... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18028836)

that's like asking if the GNAA lost it's AYDS!

As long as the source is open... (3, Insightful)

analog_line (465182) | more than 7 years ago | (#18028852)

...I could care less if the company cares about the community or its values, and that's the point.

The only good argument from a business perspective for open source is that if you use open source software you are not going to be held hostage by a licensor that alters the deal when your business is wedded to the IT infrastructure they provide. As long as the open source license these "bad" open source companies release it under is really an open license that allows you to modify and redistribute the code, that's all that matters. I don't have to care why the released the source. It just doesn't matter.

BS (3, Insightful)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 7 years ago | (#18028870)

Half of his arguments are BS.

For example, Eclipse had killed JBuilder and Symantec Cafe (?) not because it was free but because it was so much better. GOOD commercial Java IDEs are still alive and kicking - see IDEA (http://www.jetbrains.com/) for example.

Apache Derby is hardly ever used outside of small embedded databases. Everyone uses Oracle/Postgres/MySQL/...

A lot of GOOD commercial products exists and successfully compete with their OpenSource counterparts. For example, Tangasol Coherence (http://www.tangosol.com/) beats JGroups and JBoss Cache.

Re:BS (1)

teh_chrizzle (963897) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029182)

FTFB

IBM released Eclipse for free, and it's killed off all the commercial Java IDEs out there. Sure, the source is available - but why isn't that seen as predatory? The net effect has been the same.

giving something away for free to create value for something else is absolutely predatory, that's why Internet Explorer and Active Server Pages where declared illegal in 1999, MS was split into two companines by the DOJ, and the use of windows carries a mandatory prison sentence to this day.

Re:BS (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029408)

IE has never been illegal. It's BUNDLING with a commercial product is illegal.

IBM sells WebSphere bundled with Eclipse-based IDE but so do a lot of other companies (including JBoss - a direct competitor of WebSphere).

I see zero problems with companies going out of business when their products are kicked out of market by open source products. Companies should WORK HARD to maintain competitive advantage over open source programs, and not just increase product version and bill customers for 'upgrade' (see: JBuilder).

OMG NO! Its the end of everything (4, Interesting)

0racle (667029) | more than 7 years ago | (#18028882)

Heaven forbid people make money on building products around a free piece of software while working within the guidelines of use and distribution of that software.

why it is not predatory. (4, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 7 years ago | (#18028884)

From the linked article: IBM released Eclipse for free, and it's killed off all the commercial Java IDEs out there. Sure, the source is available - but why isn't that seen as predatory? The net effect has been the same.

Well, tomorrow if IBM decides to change the fee structure and demand an arm and a leg or it thinks it should change the file formats to keep the competition out or decide to drop support for some API to maintain an advantage... Guess what? There is nothing to stop the customers/competitors to take the ball run circles around IBM. That is why Open source is not all that predatory.

Sometimes some people get a profound insight and that produces a view point that is strikingly different from the crowd. This article mimics the symptom, "being radically different from the rest" but without a cogent underlying argument that is the hallmark of a "profound insight".

Ideology vs Technology (2, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18028894)

Who cares why they open their source? As long as they release the source code, without restrictions that prevent the public from changing, revising, executing and redistributing it, people in the public can do whatever we want with it.

If selfserving companies (what other kind is there?) find it in their interest to open their source, then I welcome them joining the open source "movement". More source needs to be opened in the selfinterest of its originators. And more selfserving companies opening source will help convince others how its in their interest, too. Which will release more source.

What needs to die is the idea that open source is some kind of ideal. It's an engineering collaboration technique. It's like object oriented design. There are OOD ideologues, but they're harmless and lost in the roar of people using OOD to solve real problems. Some people are still arguing about the ideology of file vs project variable scoping. But practically no one lets that get in the way of writing code with well-defined interfaces for other code. Let's see open source outgrow the ideology, and just remain a stable way to produce and use software.

Tux Racer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18028896)

Don't worry about it, guys... Tux Racer is still as good a Halo-killer as any. :)

Tux Racer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18029072)

Tux racer......
Tux is racing for you bitch dog....

SING IT!!!

Ruthless and self serving behavior??? (4, Insightful)

leereyno (32197) | more than 7 years ago | (#18028904)

Exactly what part of "competitive marketplace" does the author not understand?

Ruthless and self-serving behavior is how businesses compete. No one is in business to help their competitors. No one who has to deal with the realities of the business world gives a rat's ass about the ideologies behind Free/open source software. The only thing anyone cares about is whether open source provides a better solution than the alternatives, or provides a similar solution at a lower price. IBM helps and promotes open source projects because these projects help IBM. This isn't altruism, but quid pro quo.

Capitalism is based on (3, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 7 years ago | (#18028924)

the knowledge and wisdom that being self-serving can help the community but the main motivation is that you are helping yourself. (Not that this works 100% of the time, hence laws&regulation.)

But isn't this same philosophy driving Open Source essentially? People give to the whole because they know it is cheaper to maintain and they get more (features, reliability, freedom, what have you) out of it than going closed source?

I am not so much bothered by big companies jumping in for their own benefit than a company like SCO and Microsoft behind it, who aren't satisfied with a piece of the pie, but want the whole pie, even if it means destroying the existing community - and those are the players that really aren't involved in the first place.

IBM has a right to try to make money and if there business is good enough that they entice people to spend that cash, they deserve it. Otherwise, it makes no sense for IBM to be in Opensource in the first place. And they have contributed enough to be seen and acknowledged as a general benefactor.

the bottom line (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18028936)

So, the open sourcing of some products helped lead to the demise of some good commercial products. Big deal. The relevant question is, does open source produce better software, better products after factoring in price and support, a more robust ecosystem, better response to the community or marketplace, more opportunities for innovation?

I think when you look at projects like Linux, Apache, and Perl, the answer is obvious. Probably Firefox as well (let's give it a few more years and see if they keep up). If you look at desktop Linux or video game software, the answer is not so clear (or maybe you get the other answer). So the overall answer is probably "it depends".

Summary: Financial Analyst Whining (1)

aldheorte (162967) | more than 7 years ago | (#18028972)

The gist of this article from what I could stomach seems to be financial analysts whining that some companies are releasing their general purpose software as open source, causing their competitors to drop prices on competing products, lose market share, or have to move onto other products. There may also be a whine in there about vendors not being able to sell their application server for a million dollars and then professional services to actually make it, you know, work because the competition is using open source software and only charging for the professional services.

To that I have to say, tough luck. General purpose software has the same problems as music and movies in that anything that can you can duplicate for essentially zero cost, someone else can, too. Obviously there is upfront R&D cost, but in general that cost is recouped after the first few sales (if an enterprise app) or first few shipments (if a retail app). What this amounts to is financial analysts whining that they cannot find software business models that print money at no additional marginal cost. Well, welcome to reality, where all generalized software is crap, it all has to be customized anyway, and people don't want to pay for generalized crap they can get for free in addition to customization.

There could be a point about possible antitrust violations where a large company makes something free by subsidizing it with retained capital or other products to drive a small software developer out of business (though this usually by classical definition requires that the large company then raise the cost beyond what it would have been once the smaller company is bankrupt), but otherwise, see whining.

The times they are a changing ... (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 7 years ago | (#18028994)

Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.
...
Bob Dylan (1963?)

More enlightening news at eleven.

CC.

Competition is the foundation of progress. (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029032)

From the linked article that is not slashdotted: (The other one is) In effect Open Source has become a free pass for all sorts of competitive actions that would once have been--at a minimum--roundly criticized. I don't argue that (for the most part) such actions should be universally deplored or prohibited. It's part of the way today's software world works, and in many ways it provides direct advantages to IT customers. However, don't mistake it for altruism--and thereby get all shocked and disappointed when the same companies take some other action that is nakedly self-serving the next week.

Competition is good. Self interest is good. Altruism is not all that good. I am not talking tounge in cheek or being sarcastic. I cant condense all the wisdom that the humankind has accumulated starting from the "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith all the way down to "Climbing the Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins in this reply which I have to finish before my build finishes in the next window. So mod me down as troll or idiotic if it is too cryptic.

apt analogy? (1)

Shotgun (30919) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029034)

Has the luster of true heros, who will run into a burning building to save a stranger or volunteer to be the mother/father/brother/sister of someone in need, been tarnished because millionair ball player lay claim to the title?

Wait, what? (1)

Derek Loev (1050412) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029056)

Companies are using products and ideas for profit and to increase image? Wow, I never would have imagined that could have happened.
Come on, anything that has influence will be used by the business world to increase reputation and income. It's just common sense.
I love OSS and what it stands for but we need to realize that a business's job is to make a profit, if OSS does that, then they will exploit it. It's just a fact of life.

The problem's not Open Source, it's abusers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18029088)

Abuse of the term Open Source was predicted a decade ago and the knowledge that this would happen drove a movement to have the term trademarked. Since that failed, about the only recourse against abuse of the term is for the government to prosecute abusers for fraud. That raises valid concern about the government restricting free speech and editing the dictionary depending on how the government decides to define "free speech". Remember that according to the government a kilobyte is 1,000 bytes, not 1024. However, if the government doesn't defend the term against abuse, then whoever has more money and advertising power gets to define the term, and that will probably be the abusers.

The actual Open Source movement is fine. The purists are still there.

  - Perpetual Newbie

It never had a Halo (4, Interesting)

starseeker (141897) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029112)

Not to sound like Stallman here, but there have always been two camps - those who think software should be Free as in "we should be able to do what we want with the code for moral/ethical reasons" and those who see practical benefits as in "when people can do what they want with the code everyone benefits."

I would expect most businesses are part of the open source camp, not the free software camp, and open source was always pragmatic. That's WHY it appeals to people where Free doesn't - because there's a definite concrete benefit.

Businesses as they exist in the US are by and large about making money, not upholding principles. Some businesses do both, but look at Google ("do no evil") and how they delt with China. Capitalism has its limits, and one of them is being socially aware - awareness of community responsibility and discharging that responsibility is always a short term loss for a long term gain (i.e. pay more to properly dispose of waste, lose the profit you could have gotten by keeping the $$ and dumping it in the river, but long term preserve the environment and the health of the people around you, avoid litigation and community ill will). Capitalism sucks at long term anything, which is why government needs to be different from and independent of corporations. That's why framing the free/open proposal as "you get a benefit/save $$ from doing this" rather than "you're morally obligated to do this - it's the ethical thing" is effective. It just so happens that releasing free software has immediate benefits AND benefits society, so PR can say the company is doing both. Sure, the ACTUAL reasons they did it might not deserve a halo, but getting outraged over them not being "genuinely committed to the ideals of Free Software" is as pointless as it is futile, in the business world as it exists today.

If people do the right thing, it's not very helpful to wonder if they did it for the wrong reasons. How can we know for sure, and what could we do about it even if we did know for sure and don't like their reasons? Insist they do the wrong thing?

Wrong! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18029970)

Free software clearly had a halo at one point. Just see this picture [stallman.org] .

Just like a non-profit organization... (2, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029148)

You know how people usually think when they see a company is "non-profit" that instantly makes them somehow better?

The same thing holds true for open source.

Note that I fully support open source (and would contribute if I could program anything more complicated than "hello world") and encourage others to use it...regardless, that still does not mean that open source is all green pastures and trippy skies.

The motivation to do something merely for the sake of doing it is fantastic...on the other hand, the potential of making millions and millions of dollars (or losing it, for that matter) is one hell of a motivater too. Granted, certain software companies are motivated in better ways than others, but there is something people often forget:

Just because a programmer works for a major software company does not mean they don't take pride in their work the same way an open source programmer does.

A corporate programmer is a whore. An open source programmer is a slut.

One does it for money, one does it for pleasure. The one doing it for money gets pleasure out of it, just in a different way than the one that is not motivated by money.

(To quote the great George Carlin on the subject of prostitution: "Selling is legal...fucking is legal...why isn't selling fucking legal?"...gotta love those multiple-meaning jokes:-))

Re:Just like a non-profit organization... (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029722)

You know how people usually think when they see a company is "non-profit" that instantly makes them somehow better? The same thing holds true for open source.

You're right, most people do assume open source developers are instantly better, just like most people assume being a non-profit instantly makes them better. Both are, of course, incorrect.

A corporate programmer is a whore. An open source programmer is a slut.

Most open source coders get paid (by a corporation) to develop open source code. Why is it that people assume open source, means non-profit? Do you honestly think most contributions to GNU/Linux come from hobbyists working in their spare time? A whole lot of people are paid to work on commercial enterprises that are built on Linux. They improve and fix it because they are being paid to. They are paid to because it is part of what needs to be done for the company to make money. Some of them enjoy it to and contribute in ways that don't directly benefit their company, but make no mistake, Linux has been a commercial venture for a decade now.

Re:Just like a non-profit organization... (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029840)

I'm not denying the commercial nature that Linux has taken, however I can assure you that Linux development comes more from the community in general rather than major software companies such as Microsoft, Apple, Novell, Norton, etc. yes I know most of those companies have little to nothing to do with linux, but you get the idea...There are far more corporations working on closed-source software than those that are working on open source software.

Perception Versus Reality (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029172)

...some in the industry are asking whether 'open source' has become a cloak used by IT vendors large and small to disguise ruthless and self-serving behavior.

Open source software is a more efficient development model that provides added benefit to users. It is a feature. It is a big feature, but that is all it is.

These reporters seem to have bought into age old propaganda that open source is about a bunch of communist hippies getting together to sing songs and code selflessly for the good of the world. It is a load of horse hockey. People have written code as a hobby for a long time. They open source that code because it benefits them. Companies have written code in order to get things done for a long time. They open source that code because it benefits them. Anyone who expects companies to open source code when it does not benefit them is smoking crack. Most open source coders are paid and not because companies are trying to do charity work to get good PR. It is a lot more effective to donate money to a children's hospital, or buy toys for orphans. They pay people to write open source code because they are not just developers, but users and as users it benefits them for the code to be open.

These "reporters" should really go polish their critical thinking skills, or perhaps look into the lucrative food service industry, where such skills are less important.

Article is down -- paraphrasing for you (5, Funny)

Bluesman (104513) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029194)


It's great when Linus Torvalds releases Linux as open-source, even though it's systematically destroying the competitive market for mid-level Unix OS's, because he's a nice, altruistic guy.

It's not as good when Sun and IBM open-source their Java IDE's, because it destroys the market for Java IDE's, because they're laaaarge corporations, and are only doing this to weed out smaller competitors.

And it's eeevil when someone open-sources something on a Windows platform, because they obviously are only doing it for the publicity, regardless of whether they have competitors or not.

But then again, Sun and IBM are directly competing with Microsoft, the most evil of all. And open-sourcing on Windows might mean more software gets ported to Linux.

But wait, we should ignore this benefit, because, again, these are laaaarge corporations and aren't part of the community. Nor are they completely altruistic, because they make money.

But I really do like Eclipse and Java.

(Damn it, I'm confused! Who am I supposed to hate here?)

Oh yeah, Microsoft SUCKS!

OSS - Benefit all, thats the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18029214)

OSS is not about people making money, or people not making money....its not about X doing Y with Z.....

Its about freedoms. Its something that can bring the community together. It is something people 1000 years from now will look back and say "that was the most important concept of the 21st Century"

What "ruthless and self-serving behaviour"? (1)

Tim Ward (514198) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029244)

Is it perhaps the same as:

"maximising shareholder value"

which is something that company directors are required to do by law??

(They are here. YMMV.)

spirit and letters of the law (2, Insightful)

sdedeo (683762) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029254)

I think people who are bashing the article because "hey, they're obeying GPL, what's the problem, companies are ruthless profit-making machines" are right in one sense, but I think are missing the point. The point is that GPL was originally intended to be a rather utopian project. Richard Stallman had ideological and moral goals in creating the GPL, and I think that people are correct in saying that the ruthlessness of the market has figured out ways to subvert that (see, e.g., the TiVo issue discussed above.)

I think it's an important lesson for programmers and activists in the years to come. Look, the basic point of GPL was a rather radical one: the intellectuals and programmers who held the skills necessary to build the software wanted to wrest some sort of control over their work from the bosses and use it to promote rather radical anti-capitalist ideas such as freedom-to-hack, etc. etc.. I think in many ways that goal has not been realized, and I think people who try such things in the future have to realize that you can't achieve such goals by clever licensing alone. The market will find a way.

Typical (1)

endeavour31 (640795) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029260)

Here comes the religious war. The holy and pure Open Source against the godless and evil closed source corporations. God forbid that any line between the two should be obscured or moved. We must have an enemy!!! /. regularly pillories MS for being closed and proprietary and now they are just cynically using OS for their own ends. Of course they are going to use business strategies that will increase profits and marketshare and OS has a lot to offer. Why not use it? And IBM as well??? Perish the thought that they are not altruistic on this. IBM does not embrace Linux because it is right - they do it because it fits their business strategy.

Lets not divide everyone into haves and have nots. Very recently anyone who adopted open source was welcome to validate it in the marketplace. Now an increasing amount of waterheads are focusing on purity.

This is a stupid argument (3, Informative)

pyite69 (463042) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029270)

One of the big benefits of the GPL is that it helps businesses to protect themselves from bad vendor behavior.

No, it is not a panacea. Anyone who thinks so will get what they probably deserve. However, it is certainly an improvement over what vendors of, say, closed-source accounting and CRM packages are able to do to their customers.

Of course, there will still be slimy business behavior - that is what capitalism is all about.

Silly open source...free is for kids! (1)

Voltas (222666) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029292)

How inevidable is it that corporations large and small will find ways to profit off of anything? Anything of "value"...someone will eventualy try to/will make money off of. ..this is...enevidable.

*not sure of anyone will catch my lucky charms pun*

Grandma says (1)

brewstate (1018558) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029300)

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Can we really expect OSS to be completely altruistic. Even within the Linux community there is a great deal of use without the contribution to back it up. How many service companies use Asterisk? Do they all contribute heavily?

Re:Grandma says (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029476)

Why should they?

I use the local park in my community, but have never once volunteered to go clean it up, or help rake the sandboxes, or whatever.

I don't feel guilty, it's there for my use, free of charge.

Companies aren't going to contribute to any OSS project out of a feeling of guilt or obligation. Companies that allocate resources like that don't stay in business.

The fact is, Asterix is free, and you shouldn't expect anyone using it to contribute anything.

NEWS FLASH (2, Funny)

nobodyman (90587) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029318)

Hold on now. You're telling me that, all this time, HP and IBM participate in open source game for their own financial gain ? How can this be?

Good! (1)

iamacat (583406) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029356)

It appears that open source is good for business, so we'll see a lot more of it in future. Even if the source is for a visual basic app talking to SQL server, you can still fix bugs in it when the vendor is no longer around. I don't think GPL is good for business in consumer apps, where users can not afford support or even want someone to poke around their computers. But I do believe more fair licensing is good for business there, and we'll see companies advertising that as an advantage of their product.

halo? (1)

ErisCalmsme (212887) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029364)

Who ever said open source software was created and/or used by angels? Or is the question whether people who code under the GPL are angels and the people who code under the BSD license are daemons?

OSS politics (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029398)

I want:
1) To have the source code to the application
2) If I can't, at least conform to open standards

I don't care if it isn't free as in beer, or promoted by a shill company, or coded in BF [wikipedia.org] by the devil himself. If I can tweak it that is good. If it interoperates, that is good.

Change (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18029420)

The software project has now left the garage, things are going to change. People, projects, etc.. may be left behind if they no longer fit in with the bigger picture. Furthermore the community itself will be altered and aspects of the community will seem to be abominations of the community we currently know. It sucks, but at the same time it is what everyone was working towards. Mainstream Open Source Software will be drastically different than it is now. What the Open Source Community needs to decide is what are the most important aspects that need to be preserved and what is it that can compromised on.

Then again all the software, developers, licenses, etc... are user driven, so I guess the big difference is that there will be mainstream OSS and fringe OSS. Of course we already have that, don't we. The hard part is going to be with individuals don't get paid for their work and don't have any satisfying type of regular employment/pay or when some large company finds a small project that mostly suits their needs and forks it defying the original developer for the sake of owning the development team.

I have a different view... (3, Funny)

Eric Damron (553630) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029432)

Is open-source software being used by vendors to gain advantages? I assume that's what was meant by "ruthless and self-serving behavior." Although I don't agree that gaining an advantage by releasing code to the world under the GPL can realistically be classified as "ruthless" it is self-serving. There is not much that a large corporation does that isn't. They exist, after all, to make a profit for their stockholders.

But let's look at what may be driving big corporations to embrace open-source: Microsoft.

Really, what choice do they realistically have? Microsoft uses dirty and illegal tactics. They leverage their monopoly products to such a degree that even large corporations know that they can't compete. Microsoft doesn't realize it but they are their own worst enemy. They are like the unsuccessful parasite that kills its host and therefore dies also.

The only choice the IT industry outside of Microsoft has is to ban together in a common strategy to slay Goliath.

Given Microsoft's continued anti-competitive tactics I agree. We should all work together to make Microsoft irrelevant. Don't support them in anything that they do. Don't use technologies that they develop. Let the Mono project die. Don't support it, don't use it. Use free (as in speech) technologies to generate active web pages. Never use ASP.net.

The first link was Slash dotted but I have a few comments about the second. It states:

"Imagine, if you will, that it's the late Nineties. A certain software company based in Redmond, Washington has recently released Visual Studio 97--thereby bundling together many of its development tools for the first time. Now imagine that the company decided to release those tools for free."

Microsoft has released some tools for free (as in beer) and have even allowed companies to view their source code with strict "no compile, "no altering", non-disclosure restrictions but this is not the definition of open source.

Free software as defined by the Open Source community is not about money. How long will it take for people to "get it?" Free software is "free as in speech." Is that so hard to grasp? It is free of restrictions of any kind except that the user may not apply new restrictions upon it. At least that was the intent. Microsoft and Novell may have found a patent loophole in the GPL v2 license. (The slime balls) But this loophole will be closed in GPL v3.

Asking the question : What would the reaction be the author states:

"I think we all know the answer to that one. As James Robertson over at Smalltalk Tidbits, Industry Rants notes: "...had Microsoft released Visual Studio as free software 10 years ago, that almost certainly would have been seen as predatory behavior."

Not if they had released the source code under the GPL. Again, keeping the source code proprietary and releasing only a free (as in beer) executable is a very different thing.

Alienate and Crush || Embrace and Destroy (1, Interesting)

Twixter (662877) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029566)

These are the two tactics that Microsoft, typically uses first the Alienate and Crush, and then if that doesn't work they move on to Embrace and Destroy. OpenGL is a great example. Alienate and Crush didn't work becasue it forced a developer to choose: OpenGL or Active X, and enough choose OpenGL that it made graphics card companies provide support for OpenGL. Once they adopted OpenGL support into Active X, graphics card companies had to only support one API: Active X. OpenGL died. Embrace and destroy.

With Open Source they are trying the same tactic, but the situation differers. Sure Open Source companies can make money. Nothing wrong with that. Maybe they even get free development as a result of being Open Source. Great. Let them sell support packages. But what will happen in the long run with open source is the reverse of OpenGL. If Microsoft Embraces Open Source, business will eventually be able to support Microsoft Products with an Open Source infrastructure. I don't need M$ Word anymore because Open office runs on Windows. Or Linux. It reads older formatted Word documents better than Word does. (because the open source communities have incentive to provide this functionality, and Microsoft has dis-incentive.)

C# and .net didn't and won't ever roll Apache and Java. M$ can support that platform and provide the tools in .NET that open source is slow to develop; like accounting software. I don't believe that Microsoft being a single company that operates though the lens of a Monopoly can possibly compete with thousands of developers adding in features they need in the way they need them. Look at Apache, Eclipse and NetBeans. The success of these products has spawned hundreds of other products that aren't even in adolescence yet, but already compete feature for feature with their commercial counterparts.

M$ is going to have to come up with a few new tricks if they want to win this war.

unprecedented evile's hired goons have 1 motive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18029602)

as in felonious softwar nazi gangster payper liesense hypenosys stock markup FraUD.

alternatively, many are joining the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. there's never any endless subscription scams or payper liesense fees.

from previous post: many demand corepirate nazi execrable stop abusing US

we the peepoles?

how is it allowed? just like corn passing through a bird's butt eye gas.

all they (the felonious nazi execrable) want is... everything. at what cost to US?

for many of US, the only way out is up.

don't forget, for each of the creators' innocents harmed (in any way) there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/US as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile will not be available after the big flash occurs.

'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi life0cidal glowbull warmongering execrable.

some of US should consider ourselves very fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate.

it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc....

as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis.

concern about the course of events that will occur should the corepirate nazi life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order.

'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

Nice problem to have (3, Insightful)

bitspotter (455598) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029672)

If Free and Open Source Software is getting so trendy that evil corporations are actually releasing code under bona fide licenses that grant broad user and developer freedoms, I'd tend to say that the opposite: open ideals are forcing corporate greed to lose some of its horns.

Microsoft Shared Source? No. Mysql? Sure. Tivo? Partially (it's essentially a GPL kernel and FOSS OS on top of a proprietary BIOS and hardware design).

Don't compromise the licenses, and don't let anyone get away with branding themselves "open" short of the licenses, and we will continue to see sociopathic business interests kept to a modicum of user accountability.

uh oh... (1)

Triv (181010) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029700)

...somebody set the Evil Bit.

--Triv

blah blah blah I hate Microsoft (1)

singingjim (957822) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029736)

More anti-Microsoft drivel. As if OSS ever HAD a halo, unless Bungie is using it in it's FPS engine.

Apple Changes APSL License (1)

BSDetector (1056962) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029926)

Interesting tidbit here:

http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?showtopic=3 2798/ [insanelymac.com] .

***
In an attempt to out-maneuver OSx86 kernel hackers, Apple has changed their APSL open-source license. Semthex, who has worked on a few of the more popular hacked kernels himself, found this passage in their new license: "This file contains Original Code and/or Modifications of Original Code as defined in and that are subject to the Apple Public Source License Version 2.0 (the 'License'). You may not use this file except in compliance with the License. The rights granted to you under the License may not be used to create, or enable the creation or redistribution of, unlawful or unlicensed copies of an Apple operating system, or to circumvent, violate, or enable the circumvention or violation of, any terms of an Apple operating system software license agreement." While the license only applies to source posted after this license modification, it will cover all sources beyond those associated with OS X 10.4.8. Another clever security change from Apple.
***

Makes me wonder why is it only Microsoft that ever gets mentioned negatively in this "impartial" Slushdolt world. Does Steve feed you all the Apple-Aid intravenously?

Slashdot is a waste of bits and bytes...

"Halo"? WTF? (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029986)

There never was a "halo" on OSS except perhaps in the minds of some semi-literate types. OSS is merely a development model, it has nothing intrinsically to do with the FSF or GNU or RMS.
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>