totally missed the point
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Mar 05, 2007 7:04 AM EDT |
Nat Torkington's essay was about companies who make fake claims about having open source products. Both SJV and ESR went way off on some weird tangent about how the OSI is cool and the FSF are not. They both need lessons in reading comprehension. |
| DarrenR114 Mar 05, 2007 7:22 AM EDT |
But does the fact that a company doesn't release *all* of its software code into the FOSS wild make it non-open? I disagree with Mr. Torkington on that point. Software that has its code released beyond just its parochial roots is "open" or "free", period. This may not include every bit and byte, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily bad or evil. There may be a hidden NDA for a niche feature that hardly anyone will use. Case in point: StarOffice v. OpenOffice.org. When OpenOffice.org was first released to the world, there were parts of the StarOffice package that were not included and never were released. But that did not make OpenOffice.org any less free. I would not necessarily classify SugarCRM's claims to open source as fake. Can their code be used to create an ERP package, separate from SugarCRM's offerings? If so, then it doesn't matter that 25% of their codebase is not available to the public. It wouldn't matter if 75% of their codebase is not available. |
| tuxchick Mar 05, 2007 7:30 AM EDT |
At least that's an on-topic question! As Nat's article says: "Can you really call yourself open source if you haven't opened the source? I don't think so. There's a flood of "open source" companies selling things that work on open source but which aren't open source themselves." |
| DarrenR114 Mar 05, 2007 7:49 AM EDT |
TC - there's the rub: as I've stated before, I don't believe there is any such thing as an "open source company". There are companies that make use of FOSS in their business to varying degrees, but I don't believe that makes them "open source" - just smart. |
| jimf Mar 05, 2007 10:41 AM EDT |
> There are companies that make use of FOSS in their business to varying degrees, but I don't believe that makes them "open source" - just smart. Exactly... We can only say the released software is open source, or not, in either case, the company remains a proprietary entity. |
| dinotrac Mar 05, 2007 10:59 AM EDT |
>Exactly... We can only say the released software is open source, or not, in either case, the company remains a proprietary entity. Ooh -- You people is SO smart! |
| tuxchick Mar 05, 2007 12:41 PM EDT |
Either way, O Mighty Tabulators of Angels Dancing on Pins, the issue of companies claiming to be awesome kewl Open Source purveyors when they're really not is a growing problem, as Nat found out when he was scheduling for OSCON. Lots of them using Open Source as buzzwords instead of really doing it. So the meaning of "open source" gets diluted, to the point that when Nat asks Is "Open Source" Now Completely Meaningless?' it's easy to understand why he asks. "That's been the attitude that helped me select talks for OSCON--I only want open source products talked about. My rule of thumb is that the audience should be able to download, compile, and use the software that is talked about." http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/02/is_open_source_1.h... |
| dinotrac Mar 05, 2007 1:05 PM EDT |
>"That's been the attitude that helped me select talks for OSCON--I only want open source products talked about. My rule of thumb is that the audience should be able to download, compile, and use the software that is talked about." Even that can be tricky. SugarCRM, for example, has Open Source and extended versions. You can do as you wish (more or less) with the Open Source version, and the software is actually useful, though less capable than the other versions. So...do they pass the test so long as the conversation is limited to the Open Source version? |
| jimf Mar 05, 2007 1:38 PM EDT |
> the issue of companies claiming to be awesome kewl Open Source purveyors And when did companies not puff and lie their way to the max? If there's a real breach of GPL, just turn the buggers over the to FSF. They seem to be itching to bust the perps. |
| dcparris Mar 05, 2007 4:49 PM EDT |
Quoting:There are companies that make use of FOSS in their business to varying degrees, but I don't believe that makes them "open source" - just smart. AdaCore is, according to RMS, the only company he is aware of that is a 'truly' Free Software company. http://www.adacore.com/home/ I think he used to consider Cygnus to be another until they added non-free something or other into their business (I don't recall what it was). In my research, I've run across a handful of others as well. I wouldn't have a problem classifying them as "Open Source companies". |
| jimf Mar 05, 2007 5:09 PM EDT |
> AdaCore is, according to RMS, the only company he is aware of that is a 'truly' Free Software company. Just another one of RMS's 'made up' terms. If he is trying to say that the company uses only open... sorry 'free' software, then maybe that's valid. |
| dcparris Mar 05, 2007 6:31 PM EDT |
Well, that's the point I'm making Jim. Actually, I don't think RMS has ever referred to a company as a "Free Software company" per se, but rather that various companies adhere 100% to Free Software values, not releasing/using/etc. non-Free software. I may be wrong, but I think that's been his position.Quoting:So the meaning of "open source" gets diluted, to the point that when Nat asks Is "Open Source" Now Completely Meaningless?' it's easy to understand why he asks. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why RMS is so adamant about using very specific language in discussions about FOSS. In reading up on Postmodernism, much of it relies on 'redefining' terms and that according to your own reality. Since your reality is different from my reality, and it's all relative, well, nothing really matters. RMS keeps things on point by using a narrow set of definitions; you can't play musical arguments quite so easily. You can try, but then you lose him in the debate. One could argue that he narrows the debate to suit himself, but the truth is that so many people seem intent on redefining the whole debate by changing and mixing the terminology. RMS has always stuck with a specific set of definitions. It really doesn't make sense, from a strategic standpoint, to try to adapt to the new definitions. I generally applaud his refusal to chase moving targets. Now, if everyone used the same terminology to mean the same thing in the same contexts, on a regular basis, I think it would actually reduce confusion regarding FOSS licensing, etc. |
| vorbote Mar 05, 2007 7:37 PM EDT |
dcparris You make an important point. If there is something I can identify and relate to with RMS is his academic background as a scientist. Regardless of what most people may think about scientists and science; the practice of science it is not a religion nor the ultimate truth but rather a method of relating to reality and understand reality as it is under the light of available knowledge[1]. In order to accomplish such feat, people who are trained as scientists (RMS as a computer scientist, myself as a biologist) have to become aware of the need to carefully use semantical frameworks to communicate ideas, concepts and data with accuracy and precision. Each field of science has different different semantic frameworks, also known as terminology or *jargon* and the use of them by "non-initiated" people leads to misunderstanding or, even, outright subversion as you point out. The secret of diplomacy and communication among different cultures (be it among the Marco Polo and the Kublai Khan or some future human and someone from Alpha Centauri) is to be able to have a semantical communication framework. Revisionism is the art of subverting such semantical frameworks to the benefit of a few. E.g., Stalinism, Maoism, Microsoftism, ESRism, etc, etc. [1] And even try to understand God's will in his creation as Sir Isaac Newton and a friend of mine who is a molecular biologist did and does. |
| jimf Mar 05, 2007 8:21 PM EDT |
> his academic background as a scientist Interesting, but possibly irrelevant since RMS's 'user rights' are a philosophical/ethical/humanistic concept and not scientific. While he's obviously trying to apply his scientific training, often times it just comes off as demagoguery. |
| dcparris Mar 05, 2007 9:42 PM EDT |
Jim, you're right that RMS is not voicing his view of freedom from the perspective of Science (social science maybe?). However, vorbote's point about the need to communicate via a semantical framework is definitely relevant, especially to what I said. Vorbote is simply suggesting that RMS is using the semantical framework (From his scientific experience) to voice his view of software freedom. It is possible to redefine "freedom" to the point that, not only will I swear that I love Big Brother, but even that Big Brother keeps me "free". And whether Big Brother is symbolic of Gates or Stallman might very well depend on your definition of "Free". Anyone who has ever truly grasped the nature of Stallman's Free Software movement (as opposed to the old hacker community that nearly disappeared with the onslaught of the non-free development model) should reasonably know that Stallman has never considered the freedom of the developers to be as important as the freedom of the users. Still, some actually argue as if they never understood that point. It's one thing to disagree with RMS over whose freedom needs protecting. It's quite another to argue that RMS is trying to tell developers how to license their software. A person lacking the semantical framework that the initiated have access to is likely to argue for the developers' freedom (or to agree with such arguments) without even realizing that they have missed the frame of reference. This is exactly the kind of thing that causes confusion over the term "Free Software". |
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!