- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Time to Cull Proprietary Software from Open Source Branding
Roger Howorth wrote an article called Will Windows with Unix see off Linux? As an editor here at LXer, I have to read submissions even though they don't make the cut. Mr. Howorth's summarized the problems I have with an increasing number of articles I'm beginning to see. Mr. Howoth articulates the thinking of many proprietary companies testing the Open Source waters today when he writes: Firms switch to open-source development because they can keep enough control of the project while ditching most of the maintenance costs. And it's a trick that any organisation that hires software developers can play. Just identify open-source software that drives or could drive the business and get involved in its development. All of a sudden rather than contracting with a belligerent vendor to get flaws fixed or features added, you could help to steer those processes in a direction that suits you. Well put, ole chap. But, I appreciate something else you muttered even more, when you wrote: And such "dumping" of what some like to call intellectual property to open-source developers is not just being done by mid-sized software vendors like Autodesk: the mighty Sun recently turned its Solaris operating system into an open-source project. At this point, I start moving closer to the philosophies of Richard Stallman. Frankly, I don't see the benefit of keeping people unemployed because they will work for free in hopes that someone will recognize their skill and hire them. Either make the software free or call it something else. Marc Fleury of JBoss calls his company Professional Open Source and even trademarks the term. He's now in bed with Microsoft helping them recapture a market segment. I got pretty steamed at him when asked to do an article for Federal Computer Week. One of his hot points was "JBoss is not Linux". While I knew exactly what the JBoss people meant, I asked for an explanation. They want to run on different platforms and they don't want to have an identification with Linux - which of course is really GNU/Linux. Without RMS and Linus Would Open Source Exist?This is a personal view, but frankly I don't think we would see the surges in the free software market today without GNU/Linux. I realize other licenses exist and that BSD and Apache style licenses have use. But the Sun CDDL license fits more with Roger Howorth's world view of using the buggers to cut our costs. If someone wants to contribute software, let them make it GPL or otherwise, it shouldn't get the benefit of the branding. Opening source code alone doesn't give someone the benefits found in the GNU/Linux model. Frankly, I think lots of people are riding the coat tails of the GNU/Linux project. They use it to benefit while not really contributing back to the mothership. If you want to become known as open source, then it seems the code should benefit free software projects. If someone wants the brand, then they should pay the price by contributing a codec or code that makes GNU/Linux more compatible with proprietary hardware and software. Open for DiscussionA few years ago, I helped orchestrate the building of a Linux groupware system that worked with proprietary systems such as MS Exchange. The investors in that project did not understand the open source model and were afraid someone would get the secrets and take off with it. They wanted to protect some of the code. Well people did get the secrets and took off with them. We even had Non-Disclose Agreements and all other sorts of legal documents to protect the code. The people who took the code were Linux distributors. From where did the idea for keeping the main pieces of the code proprietary come? From Eric Raymond. My partner went to an Eric Raymond lecture and came back saying that we didn't need to open the code completely. Well, the part proprietary, partly free project never got the foothold that a company like JBoss did. According to the old school geniuses that populated the upper levels of management, the GNU/Linux guys in the shop didn't understand business. Getting close to a decade later, they're still hanging around the market, but they've not had the success that equaled their technology. I want to open the discussion about restricting people that can use the brand while the discussions on Version 3 of the GPL takes place. If we don't, I'm afraid the concept of free software could disappear. What do you think? |
Comments (22)
I don't like weird commercial hybrids
Iggy, how would you rate MySQL? They're releasing the source, most of their developers are on staff, but they sell a propietary license. Just curious.
Dave
Or Linspire, for that matter? At least according to Kevin Carmony, the only proprietary app Linspire has is the CNR client, and that's it. They polish the programs in their CNR repositories and make the source downloadable to anyone for free. They sponsor multiple FOSS projects, such as Gaim. Would you have them quit the market?
What is wrong with a " commercial hybrid"?
Open Source Software (OSS) can be used by any individual, organization or company as long as they respect the license terms.
A company is as free to use it as an individual.
Open Source Software (OSS) can be used by any individual, organization or company as long as they respect the license terms.
A company is as free to use it as an individual.
" commercial hybrid"?
It seems to me that a company or entity that has the best of both worlds should be able to produce the absolute best product in it's rank or catagory.
One would think.
As an example, Xandros; a fine commerical distribution that touts itself as the "real" drop-in replacement for XP does a pretty good job. Why only pretty good? It fails where many distros fail but fails almost completely where some succeed. Wireless connections.
Don't take my word for it. The forums at Xandros are littered with dead end posts about Xandros' failure to make many wireless cards work well. PClinuxOS picked up the card, Mepis and Ubuntu picked it up. Xandros found its place face down in the muck in this catagory.
I still say that if you possess the best of both worlds, your product should reflect it. As release of Xandros 4.0 hits the shelves, it has yet to achieve anything close to it.
It's even worse when you see a product that is failing in the marketplace (such as Novell's NetMail) being opened up as a last-ditch effort to turn abandonware into a viable product. Use the open source community's energy, but retain the rights to sell a proprietary version. Again, it's disgusting.
I think of Libranet when I read the first part of this paragraph. Not because it fit into the author's paradigm but because, to me, it was one of the few commercial Linux distributions that maintained an open source "feel". While doing that, it provided the community with a valuable tool that could generate the company an income.
I see nothing wrong with that. If I perceive an appropriate level of value, then I loosen the purse strings and dispense cash with abandon. For companies that fit the above mold, I not only withhold any support, I encourage sites like LXer to erect a "Hall of Shame" to house such miscreants and publish their misdeeds within. Lobby4Linux will beging doing so at the beginning of the week. LXer has continued to captue the attention of readers world-wide. They have established themselves as fair and level-headed in their editorials and accurate in their reporting. I believe they could erect this Hall of Shame in a manner that does not reflect wild-eyed zealotry.
It seems to me that a company or entity that has the best of both worlds should be able to produce the absolute best product in it's rank or catagory.
One would think.
As an example, Xandros; a fine commerical distribution that touts itself as the "real" drop-in replacement for XP does a pretty good job. Why only pretty good? It fails where many distros fail but fails almost completely where some succeed. Wireless connections.
Don't take my word for it. The forums at Xandros are littered with dead end posts about Xandros' failure to make many wireless cards work well. PClinuxOS picked up the card, Mepis and Ubuntu picked it up. Xandros found its place face down in the muck in this catagory.
I still say that if you possess the best of both worlds, your product should reflect it. As release of Xandros 4.0 hits the shelves, it has yet to achieve anything close to it.
It's even worse when you see a product that is failing in the marketplace (such as Novell's NetMail) being opened up as a last-ditch effort to turn abandonware into a viable product. Use the open source community's energy, but retain the rights to sell a proprietary version. Again, it's disgusting.
I think of Libranet when I read the first part of this paragraph. Not because it fit into the author's paradigm but because, to me, it was one of the few commercial Linux distributions that maintained an open source "feel". While doing that, it provided the community with a valuable tool that could generate the company an income.
I see nothing wrong with that. If I perceive an appropriate level of value, then I loosen the purse strings and dispense cash with abandon. For companies that fit the above mold, I not only withhold any support, I encourage sites like LXer to erect a "Hall of Shame" to house such miscreants and publish their misdeeds within. Lobby4Linux will beging doing so at the beginning of the week. LXer has continued to captue the attention of readers world-wide. They have established themselves as fair and level-headed in their editorials and accurate in their reporting. I believe they could erect this Hall of Shame in a manner that does not reflect wild-eyed zealotry.
Absolutely
I've been observing the trends, and over the past year I've had many of these same thoughts myself. "Open Source" projects that limit how, where, and when you can use their code is not only, as you put it, damaging to the brand, but it can pull resources away from projects more deserving of such public effort. I say more deserving because GPL projects do give so much back to the community.
Of late it seems like ESR has tried so hard to bridge the gap between the business world and the idealism of RMS that you don't know which side of that line he's standing on. How much of that's due to his own stance changing vs. the way he's phrasing the message I couldn't say.
Of late it seems like ESR has tried so hard to bridge the gap between the business world and the idealism of RMS that you don't know which side of that line he's standing on. How much of that's due to his own stance changing vs. the way he's phrasing the message I couldn't say.
The last I heard from ESR, he was claiming the GPL is no longer necessary - or even desirable. In my opinion, he's either confused or deluded.
I would say he was just looking for some publicity. A controversial idea would usually do the job.
Eric is no longer working with OSI and I'm not sure what he's doing. He made quite a contribution at one time and I respect him for that. Hopefully he's OK.
Good Call
Many of the look-alike licenses that sprung up recently roughly copy the GPL but leave aspects of the software rights exclusively to one company. Either that or they force any co-author to give up all rights to whomever. Definately not adequate recompensation for the efforts people would put in commiting software changes.
Developers that work on GPL projects are guaranteed that their works won't be abused in a licensing sense. To me it's always seemed much fairer to the contributors. It guarantees that should they have a falling out with the project maintainer, they're free to take what has been mutually created and work it toward divergent ends.
Developers that work on GPL projects are guaranteed that their works won't be abused in a licensing sense. To me it's always seemed much fairer to the contributors. It guarantees that should they have a falling out with the project maintainer, they're free to take what has been mutually created and work it toward divergent ends.
Software is similar to poetry, music and drama in that it is a form of writing. The author enjoys the copyright and as the copyright owner has the right to dictate the terms under which the work is licensed.
One may not like "look-alike" licenses, but the license choice was made by the author --it's their call. Your call is whether or not to accept the license; nothing says that you have to do so.
One may not like "look-alike" licenses, but the license choice was made by the author --it's their call. Your call is whether or not to accept the license; nothing says that you have to do so.
Open Source branding is impossible, maybe not desirable
The problem with branding is that it has to be simple and occupy one or at most only a few words in the mind of the consumer. The Open source methodology and its benefits was probably too complex to serve as a branding moniker even in a prefect world. Second since its inception Open Source has been hijacked by a lot of different people, companies and projects adding to the branding problem.
With that in mind I think the train has gone and using Open Source as a branding mechanism is futile.
In a way I think Marc Fleuri of Jboss is right in decoupling his brand from Linux. It makes perfect sense and it allows him to point to Open Source as one reason among other why his platform is world class. There is a lot more to Jboss' success than the fact it is open source.
In a way I think GNU / Linux and Open Source are better served as an underlying strong and critical enabler than something in and of itself. If we try to do the latter we get stuck with all the negatives where it does not result in a superior solution for reasons unrelated to GNU / Linux /Open Source.
Intel is vacating the Intel Inside moniker, maybe we need to grab the space and think more about GNU / Linux and Open Source as something inside rather than something in itself.
With that in mind I think the train has gone and using Open Source as a branding mechanism is futile.
In a way I think Marc Fleuri of Jboss is right in decoupling his brand from Linux. It makes perfect sense and it allows him to point to Open Source as one reason among other why his platform is world class. There is a lot more to Jboss' success than the fact it is open source.
In a way I think GNU / Linux and Open Source are better served as an underlying strong and critical enabler than something in and of itself. If we try to do the latter we get stuck with all the negatives where it does not result in a superior solution for reasons unrelated to GNU / Linux /Open Source.
Intel is vacating the Intel Inside moniker, maybe we need to grab the space and think more about GNU / Linux and Open Source as something inside rather than something in itself.
Not only is Open Source branding not impossible, it has already happend. The phrase "Open Source" is a trademark of The Open Source Initiative (OSI), http://www.opensource.org .
chappaquachap said, "The phrase "Open Source" is a trademark of The Open Source Initiative (OSI)"
You said that in another thread. It's still wrong. OSI attempted to trademark that phrase and it was rejected. They have a trademark on that O-shaped image with a keyhole in it alongside the words "open source". That is NOT the same as a trademark on the phrase "Open Source".
You said that in another thread. It's still wrong. OSI attempted to trademark that phrase and it was rejected. They have a trademark on that O-shaped image with a keyhole in it alongside the words "open source". That is NOT the same as a trademark on the phrase "Open Source".
Open source becoming a meaningless marketing gimmick.
It's just been CES, and the empty marketing has been flying around like crazy again. Everyone wants to claim that they use free/open source software, everyone needs to brag about the fact that they are using linux in one of their projects.
Usually they do use linux, they do use some free software, who doesn't these days? But while they are riding that marketing wave, while they are increasing their margin by saving on development, they have absolutely no intention of returning anything to the various communities they so actively profit from.
VWBinc is a very nice example of this, and one i have been following ever since i had an encounter with someone from cacmedia, a company that packages up mythtv, X and linux and claims that it's their work. Those two companies grab every single opportunity to cash in on the free marketing that seems to come with free software, yet they never have and never will contribute a single thing (feel free to google as much as you like, shouldn't take you more than 10 minutes).
There are countless others like vwbinc and cacmedia (browse linuxdevices for a bit), and they all brag about how they use free software at every single opportunity. But their use can only be categorised as abuse.
There is nothing that really can be done against them, it's free software after all, even parasites are free to use it, just like developers, just like users reporting problems and filing feature requests and whatnot, just like companies that actively contribute even if it's only in a very slight amount.
The only thing that can be done is reduce the noise those companies produce, reduce the amount of the free marketing they are allowed to grab at each and every opportunity.
This is where you come in; you need to be more critical in what you do and don't accept. You will not only be fighting parasites and keep free software from further descending into the marketing gangbang it seems to have become, you will also lift the standard of lxer.
And the fact that you, for instance, repeated vwb nonsense, but failed to echo the release of X 6.9/7.0 even once, means that you have your work cut out for you.
Usually they do use linux, they do use some free software, who doesn't these days? But while they are riding that marketing wave, while they are increasing their margin by saving on development, they have absolutely no intention of returning anything to the various communities they so actively profit from.
VWBinc is a very nice example of this, and one i have been following ever since i had an encounter with someone from cacmedia, a company that packages up mythtv, X and linux and claims that it's their work. Those two companies grab every single opportunity to cash in on the free marketing that seems to come with free software, yet they never have and never will contribute a single thing (feel free to google as much as you like, shouldn't take you more than 10 minutes).
There are countless others like vwbinc and cacmedia (browse linuxdevices for a bit), and they all brag about how they use free software at every single opportunity. But their use can only be categorised as abuse.
There is nothing that really can be done against them, it's free software after all, even parasites are free to use it, just like developers, just like users reporting problems and filing feature requests and whatnot, just like companies that actively contribute even if it's only in a very slight amount.
The only thing that can be done is reduce the noise those companies produce, reduce the amount of the free marketing they are allowed to grab at each and every opportunity.
This is where you come in; you need to be more critical in what you do and don't accept. You will not only be fighting parasites and keep free software from further descending into the marketing gangbang it seems to have become, you will also lift the standard of lxer.
And the fact that you, for instance, repeated vwb nonsense, but failed to echo the release of X 6.9/7.0 even once, means that you have your work cut out for you.
Agreed. I actually just wrote an opinion blog entry where I presented open source as a marketing campaign which may be what is causing this.
Re the comment from Libervis, "presenting open source as a marketing campaign" is not a new idea; indeed, the term "Open Source" was intentionally created as an alternative to "free software" as part of the campaign that resulted in the first release of the Netscape browser under an Open Source License; this happened in early 1998.
That version of the browser was called "Mozilla", and is the ancestor of what is today known as Firefox.
That version of the browser was called "Mozilla", and is the ancestor of what is today known as Firefox.
How about setting up a list of these abusive companies that would warn users to stay away and not to contribute with bug reports or code.
yet they never have and never will contribute a single thing (feel free to google as much as you like, shouldn't take you more than 10 minutes)......
Funny that you mention google, and not that you meant anything in particular by it except to name a means to an end. Google is one of the biggest offenders of all. I will not deny that they donated a substantial amount of money to various educational endeavors...but as Bill Clinton himself said of Microsoft, "paying millions means nothing when you possess billions."
And the Summer of Code can not be quietly dismissed either. However, we find it maddening that a company was formed and ultimately made billions of dollars on the back of GNU/Linux and will not do something as simple as provide Linux users with tools such as desktop search or Google Earth. Doesn't take them long to pump out stuff for Windows. Certified letters to Larry Page, one of them signed for personally by him, have went unanswered.
They asked him why Google couldn't give a bit back to the community. The silence told me more than any response ever could.
Funny that you mention google, and not that you meant anything in particular by it except to name a means to an end. Google is one of the biggest offenders of all. I will not deny that they donated a substantial amount of money to various educational endeavors...but as Bill Clinton himself said of Microsoft, "paying millions means nothing when you possess billions."
And the Summer of Code can not be quietly dismissed either. However, we find it maddening that a company was formed and ultimately made billions of dollars on the back of GNU/Linux and will not do something as simple as provide Linux users with tools such as desktop search or Google Earth. Doesn't take them long to pump out stuff for Windows. Certified letters to Larry Page, one of them signed for personally by him, have went unanswered.
They asked him why Google couldn't give a bit back to the community. The silence told me more than any response ever could.
helios:
Is http://code.google.com/projects.html insignificant? Also http://code.google.com/patches.html ?
I'm not a coder and haven't read anything before regarding code.google.com, so I don't have any frame of reference.
I'm not a coder and haven't read anything before regarding code.google.com, so I don't have any frame of reference.
And websites too
Thanks for the insightful article.
By following the line of reasoning, though, one would have to include websites such as Sourceforge, that provide a nice service to the community but have decided somewhere along the line to betray their origin by closing the souce.
Why has the Sourceforge fork (Savannah) not put enough pressure on the original site to force it to behave properly? Can the fact that the most popular repository of free software projects is in fact a closed source website be considered a defeat of the free software movement, or something acceptable?
By following the line of reasoning, though, one would have to include websites such as Sourceforge, that provide a nice service to the community but have decided somewhere along the line to betray their origin by closing the souce.
Why has the Sourceforge fork (Savannah) not put enough pressure on the original site to force it to behave properly? Can the fact that the most popular repository of free software projects is in fact a closed source website be considered a defeat of the free software movement, or something acceptable?
Untitled
T. Adelstein writes: "If someone wants to contribute software, let them make it GPL or otherwise, it shouldn't get the benefit of the branding. Opening source code alone doesn't give someone the benefits found in the GNU/Linux model."
The last sentence in that quote is very significant yet very often overlooked by such businesses looking to hitch a ride on the "Open Source Craze". There are a lot of businesses which take a cursory look at open source and see only a way to exploit it for lower maintenance costs. They may be free to do this, but it's not a very bright business proposition.
A business which "gets it" would understand that leveraging the benefits of the open source model goes far beyond simply jumping on the teeter-totter and letting the other guys do the work. By routinely and actively contributing to an open source project, a business multiplies its efforts to evolve that code to fit problems. By applying that project to customer needs, a business exposes the project to a wider audience and problem set. Feedback to the project helps that project improve.
The GPL, arguably the best-of-breed among open source licenses, does not distinguish among the users that it protects. This means that a business receives just as much protection as an individual by the GPL. A business which invests in contributing to a GPL project is assured that its competitors are precluded from taking those contributions and locking them up within some proprietary, secret derivative. This is why multiple competitors may contribute to a GPL project and all will gain.
It may be helpful to look at IBM as a corporate contributor to a GPL project, since they very publicly invested $1 billion in advertising Linux, even though it is freely obtainable software. IBM contributes to Linux, knowing that it also assists IBM's competitors, but knowing that IBM's contributions cannot be stolen by those competitors. Those contributions help IBM solve their customers' problems using Linux. Failing to contribute would result in a less worthy, slower advancing Linux that would cause greater costs to IBM than the contributions. Having Linux useful to a great many people helps get it exposed to more situations which in turn helps improve its ability to be applied to a larger overall group of potential customers. I can't speak for IBM but it appears, from IBM's point of view, this yields a much better base to which they can contribute to make it better fit the problems they see among their own customers. They can enlarge the "niche" that Linux fits so that their potential customer base expands.
Linux, GNU, and all GPL projects are really the "Stone Soup" method of building software. While you are not denied being served from the pot, the soup is made better by contributing.
Leaping back to the teeter-totter (called a see-saw in my part of the world) analogy, freeloaders who are not active in a project may one day discover they are left alone. Active participation helps keep a project alive. An active, advancing project is more likely to attract the interest of others, who may then find their own reasons for contributing.
Large freeloaders, in their selfish ignorance, may find that a GPL project takes a turn in direction that renders it unhelpful to them. Large contributors, acting in enlightened self-interest, may assist the project in better enabling them to solve their customers' problems. This leaves the contributor with a competitive edge over the freeloader.
The freeloader is prevented by law from taking the GPL contributions, making proprietary derivatives, and distributing those derivatives as solutions to its customers' problems. The freeloader is left with using the same base as its contributing competitor or creating its solutions completely from scratch. One way leaves it always following and the other way leads to higher costs and less robust software. Greedy exploitation leaves the freeloader disadvantaged.
Meanwhile, the contributor has gained goodwill among other contributors to the project and is more likely to be listened to when requesting modifications that more closely fit problems its customers encounter. The contributor feeds back bug reports from its customers to the project, leading to more robust software. Less time and developer effort is needed to support existing customers and more of each may be applied to expanding the potential customer base. Contributions to GPL projects are magnified.
It's not hard to figure out, at all. More contributions yields more in return. Freeloading will result in a project that is less suitable for the freeloader's use and may yield an abandoned, obsolete project.
I think this process will do some culling, over time. Masquerades don't last forever.
The last sentence in that quote is very significant yet very often overlooked by such businesses looking to hitch a ride on the "Open Source Craze". There are a lot of businesses which take a cursory look at open source and see only a way to exploit it for lower maintenance costs. They may be free to do this, but it's not a very bright business proposition.
A business which "gets it" would understand that leveraging the benefits of the open source model goes far beyond simply jumping on the teeter-totter and letting the other guys do the work. By routinely and actively contributing to an open source project, a business multiplies its efforts to evolve that code to fit problems. By applying that project to customer needs, a business exposes the project to a wider audience and problem set. Feedback to the project helps that project improve.
The GPL, arguably the best-of-breed among open source licenses, does not distinguish among the users that it protects. This means that a business receives just as much protection as an individual by the GPL. A business which invests in contributing to a GPL project is assured that its competitors are precluded from taking those contributions and locking them up within some proprietary, secret derivative. This is why multiple competitors may contribute to a GPL project and all will gain.
It may be helpful to look at IBM as a corporate contributor to a GPL project, since they very publicly invested $1 billion in advertising Linux, even though it is freely obtainable software. IBM contributes to Linux, knowing that it also assists IBM's competitors, but knowing that IBM's contributions cannot be stolen by those competitors. Those contributions help IBM solve their customers' problems using Linux. Failing to contribute would result in a less worthy, slower advancing Linux that would cause greater costs to IBM than the contributions. Having Linux useful to a great many people helps get it exposed to more situations which in turn helps improve its ability to be applied to a larger overall group of potential customers. I can't speak for IBM but it appears, from IBM's point of view, this yields a much better base to which they can contribute to make it better fit the problems they see among their own customers. They can enlarge the "niche" that Linux fits so that their potential customer base expands.
Linux, GNU, and all GPL projects are really the "Stone Soup" method of building software. While you are not denied being served from the pot, the soup is made better by contributing.
Leaping back to the teeter-totter (called a see-saw in my part of the world) analogy, freeloaders who are not active in a project may one day discover they are left alone. Active participation helps keep a project alive. An active, advancing project is more likely to attract the interest of others, who may then find their own reasons for contributing.
Large freeloaders, in their selfish ignorance, may find that a GPL project takes a turn in direction that renders it unhelpful to them. Large contributors, acting in enlightened self-interest, may assist the project in better enabling them to solve their customers' problems. This leaves the contributor with a competitive edge over the freeloader.
The freeloader is prevented by law from taking the GPL contributions, making proprietary derivatives, and distributing those derivatives as solutions to its customers' problems. The freeloader is left with using the same base as its contributing competitor or creating its solutions completely from scratch. One way leaves it always following and the other way leads to higher costs and less robust software. Greedy exploitation leaves the freeloader disadvantaged.
Meanwhile, the contributor has gained goodwill among other contributors to the project and is more likely to be listened to when requesting modifications that more closely fit problems its customers encounter. The contributor feeds back bug reports from its customers to the project, leading to more robust software. Less time and developer effort is needed to support existing customers and more of each may be applied to expanding the potential customer base. Contributions to GPL projects are magnified.
It's not hard to figure out, at all. More contributions yields more in return. Freeloading will result in a project that is less suitable for the freeloader's use and may yield an abandoned, obsolete project.
I think this process will do some culling, over time. Masquerades don't last forever.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
|
|
The idea of "using" the open source community as a source of free development manpower is disgusting.
It's funny that you mention groupware, because as a groupware developer I've observed this exact tactic in several projects in this area which only give lip service to open source. Open Xchange, Zimbra, and others, basically started with all sorts of existing open source components, then layered their own proprietary stuff on top. Without the open source components, their products are useless. Without their proprietary layer, their products are useless. Where is the benefit?
It's even worse when you see a product that is failing in the marketplace (such as Novell's NetMail) being opened up as a last-ditch effort to turn abandonware into a viable product. Use the open source community's energy, but retain the rights to sell a proprietary version. Again, it's disgusting.
Just open the source. Period. Let the open source community do what it does best: produce quality software efficiently.