Cheapening Linux

Posted by tadelste on Mar 18, 2006 8:58 AM EDT
LXer; By Tom Adelstein 		Mail this story
Print this story

Whoever thought up the myth that more open source software made sense, didn't consider with what editors would have to content. Perhaps open source software lacks goodness. You could make an argument that many people have abused the term.

As I go through our submissions each morning, I see proprietary companies attempting to ride the wave of open source. The sheer volume of press releases annoys me. These companies have not embraced or understand the notion of free software in the sense of open code, communities of interest , support , stability and security.



Open code



A significant volume of press releases and articles speak of open code. Let's take Open Exchange's open source concept. Here's their idea of open code:



You can download Open-Xchange 0.8 for free at http://www.open-xchange.org. And install it in your environment under a free GNU GPL License. However, you won't receive some things that make the software easier to install, administer and use, namely the installation tools, the web-based administration console, certified technical documentation, certified upgrades and patches, a 5-year maintenance pledge. If you need Technical Support, you can purchase it for Open-Xchange 0.8 through the OX ONLINE SHOP.
In other words, you can obtain the packages they use from the free software community. However, the things that make the product really work are not "open".

I see this sort of thing continuously in other products. The companies have utilized components such as Apache, OpenLDAP, proFTP, Tomcat, PostgreSQL, Postfix and Cyrus IMAP. They write proprietary components so you can't utilize them without buying the product.

Communities of Interest

When some people talk about communities of interest, they refer to the communities that support free software products like those noted above. Developers and project members participate in those efforts as contributors. If a company wants to support developers by offering staff members, they do not restrict the project.

The open source pretenders see free software they can use to cut down their costs of research and development. They rarely contribute back. I understand this problem as well as anyone.

I struggled with people internally at a company I started that held a pretender philosophy. Internal people had invested money in the company and had fears that other companies would use the code developed in-house. They did not read or understand the GPL.

Support , stability and security

Proprietary companies have few eyes looking at their code. If they do not make it open how can a community of interest develop? So, such companies want the help of free software developers only to throw them a bone.

Other companies have submitted press releases to LXer saying they support Linux, Macintosh and Windows. They do not open their product code at all. How can I tell if the product has proper community support, stability and security.

I know of one company, for example that claims open source status and yet has a vulnerability they have not disclosed. If such disclosure became common knowledge, the company in question would have to fix the product. Unfortunately, they do not know how to fix the product.

Get Rid of the Open Source Label

Many analysts and commentators feel that GNU/Linux would have emerged without the terminology of open source. The founders of the Open Source Initiative just decided one day to form their initiative. They had no authority to do so except themselves.

Now companies like Sun, who has released many products into the free software community, have relied on OSI to say their CDDL license fits the definition of open source. The spirit exists but the communities are at odds. Would you rather have a company like Sun opening their code or some startup pretending to have the community's welfare at heart?

While I have concerns about the Solaris10 project, it fits more of the criteria of free software than others. Without the open source label, perhaps OpenSolaris would have used a GPL license instead. The public would not have confusion over the issues.



The OSS Label

I find the OSS label annoying. While popular with the press today, that same press heckled the notion not long ago. Now, they say people have rushed to the trend toward open source software . Maybe people have rushed to the trend of throwing people a bone or two. That's not what advocates had in mind.

Surely people will take this article and label it a rant by a fanatic with a vendetta. Unfortunately such critics do not understand some of the English language. They do not know the difference between someone marked by excessive enthusiasm for and intense devotion to a cause or idea and an advocate of an idea.



An advocate appeals or requests earnestly for a cause or offers something for discussion or consideration. If all writers decided to stop writing until they were certain they wouldn't offend everyone, then writers would stop writing. Maybe that's a good thing. Criticism welcome.

  Nav
» Read more about: Story Type: Editorial, LXer Features; Groups: Community

« Return to the newswire homepage

Subject Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
Why I think the OSS licenses are more relevant than the GPL jboyd 21 2,077 Mar 18, 2006 7:42 PM
nobody imitates failure grouch 2 1,867 Mar 15, 2006 7:29 AM
I'm missing the old voting system... rittmey 1 1,733 Mar 14, 2006 9:27 AM

You cannot post until you login.