Open Source has outlived its usefulness as a term.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Jun 24, 2007 6:05 AM EDT |
The term "Open Source" was coined as a marketing term to help overcome common prejudices in the business community against free software. Among other things, it focused attention on the ideas of software quality and security (all bugs/holes are shallow when you've got many eyes, etc) more than on freedom. I'm sure that was a good door-opener. Now, however, most people out in the enterprise know that free software viable for serious computing. I believe that most large enterprises use free software to one degree or another. I also believe that many of them don't mess with the source so much as exploit the freedom to run their businesses as they need to, without interference from some software company that wants to rake them over the coals. |
| tqk Jun 24, 2007 11:03 AM EDT |
Quoting:The term "Open Source" was coined as a marketing term to help overcome common prejudices in the business community against free software. Among other things, it focused attention on the ideas of software quality and security (all bugs/holes are shallow when you've got many eyes, etc) more than on freedom.I agree, and further, I think all they were trying/intending to do was put a prettier face on Free Software. Perhaps they didn't expect business to just ignore the guy hiding behind the curtain, and they would eventually read the licence and understand just what it was they were playing with. Yes, it's free, and that means it's free for everyone, not just you! Feature! As far as I'm concerned, welcome back, OSI. You were useful in getting our collective foot in the door. Now, it's time for a little tough love educational effort. |
| Kagehi Jun 24, 2007 11:18 AM EDT |
Bah.. I use two items quite a lot that don't "conform" to their standard. POVRay and a telnet client called Mushclient. Both of them are as good as they are because the original people maintain true control over them, and require some sort of posting of the original license. I don't see a bloody problem with this. It helps, on those projects where you need stable code and some certainty of a clear original source, to have those requirements. Now.. *Free* is a term that is abused 100% of the time. Just try searching for anything using the term "free software" and 99% of the stuff you will get is either shareware with "free demos" or pages for proprietary stuff that offer some sort of free tools to go with it. There is **no** guarantee that even if the software is free, the source is open on any of it. The problem for the most part is that often its nearly impossible to find what you are looking for, because OSS projects are often so badly documented in some cases that you can't tell you found what you want, even if you do find it, or they don't use terms any place on the site(s) that let you find it without already knowing the name of what are looking for. Reality is, the term isn't specific enough for what the FSF type people like. So, come up with a different term that is, don't try to undermine people that have good reason, and often excellent projects, for not conforming. That's just bull, and doesn't help anyone at all. Its proprietary, closed source projects, where you can't even see *what* it is doing, let alone change the behavior, and where you have no options or choices that are the enemy, not someone that just wants to make sure there is an official version, into which the best code gets folded. |
| dinotrac Jun 24, 2007 11:42 AM EDT |
Kagehi - > There is **no** guarantee that even if the software is free, the source is open on any of it. Sure there is. If the source isn't open, the software isn't free. It may be offered free of charge, but that's a different story. That also gets to the root of the "open source" problem. By placing so much emphasis on the benefits of source code availability, ESR & Co. opened the door to open source pretenders. |
| tqk Jun 24, 2007 11:51 AM EDT |
Quoting:Bah.. I use two items quite a lot that don't "conform" to their standard.Who says that's a bad thing? Authors are free to use whatever licence they choose. Users are free to choose whatever software they want to use. All that both FSF and OSI are trying to do is promote "a convention." "When you say Free Software, we'd like for people to expect that you mean this." Ditto for "Open Source." Neither of them are trademarked. If my Mom loads *buntu on her box, she doesn't need to know what either of them mean. A developer who wants to re-use code does need to know, if only to stay out of court. |
| DarrenR114 Jun 25, 2007 6:30 AM EDT |
One of the comments to the original article displays a very common point of confusion: there is a presumption that Open Source and Free Software are not proprietary. This presumption is incorrect. Where there is a copyright, that software is "proprietary". Software licensed under most any of the OSI-approved or FSF-approved licenses are, by the very nature of licensing, "proprietary". Software packages, licensed under FLOSS licenses, are often developed by "commercial interests" (aka companies) for the purposes of fulfilling "commercial needs" (aka revenue). By that very nature, such software packages are considered "commercial" because they generate income. EnterpriseDB, MySQL AB, and Trolltech are all companies that have distribute software packages on a commercial basis, and yet, no one could realistically make a viable claim that PostgreSQL, MySQL or the QT libraries aren't "Open Source" or "Free Software". If the FLOSS community is to make any real progress in seeing further propogation of FLOSS software, then it is imperative that there be a general understanding of exactly what FLOSS doesn't stand for. "Commercial" and "Proprietary" are NOT two terms that embody "the enemy". If you've mis-used "Proprietary" or "Commercial" when you've only meant "closed source", then you are one of the guilty ignorant who needs to be re-educated or needs to re-think just what you really want from FLOSS. Licenses are a legal animal and the language of the law is precise. If you can't be precise in your meaning, then do the FLOSS "community" a favor and stay silent. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!