Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

How Open Does Open Source Need to be?

Posted by timothy on Thu Jun 15, 2006 10:29 AM
from the there's-no-pleasing-some-people dept.
Businesses
mjhuot writes "Doug MacEachern, CTO of Hyperic and creator of mod_perl, responds to criticism by Tarus Balog, a maintainer of OpenNMS, that his company's recent open source announcement is nothing but a marketing ploy. It is starting the debate on whether or not just releasing some code qualifies an application as 'open source.'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

How Open Does Open Source Need to be? 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Use Free Software instead (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ckwop (707653) * <Simon.Johnson@gmail.com> on Thursday June 15 2006, @10:34AM (#15540358) Homepage

    Open source means you can read the source, much like an "open book exam" means you can read the book. The correct term for software that belongs to the community is Free Software. With Free Software, you are guarenteed to have the four fundamental software freedoms. With "Open Source", there is no such guarentee.

    By my definition, even Windows is Open Source. In principle, I can view the source code to Windows. It's difficult and I have to sign a whole bunch of documents but I could do it with sufficient patience. This is why I don't like Open Source as a term; it is far too misleading. In fact, it doesn't actually mean anything other than the fact there is a mechanism by which you can see the source code that doesn't involve getting a court-order.

    In contrast, the term Free Software has a very precise meaning and really should be trade-marked by the FSF. Then the FSF could only issue licenses to se the trade-mark where the software is licensed that protects the four freedoms. This way, companies couldn't profit from the name unless they labelled their products correctly.

    Simon

    • If you have to sign documents then it is not "Open". It might be available, but not Open. In technology Open means that it is made freely available for all to see. Such as ISO. Any standard that is published with ISO is concerned Open. Unless anyone can take the Windows source freely, it is not Open.

    • Re:Use Free Software instead (Score:4, Insightful)

      by eln (21727) on Thursday June 15 2006, @10:52AM (#15540523) Homepage
      Open Source is basically FSF-lite and was invented to make the whole Free Software thing more palatable to businesses. Unfortunately, as with many things made more appealing to business, the actual ideals of Free Software were utterly lost in the process.

      Free Software is about sharing. Open Source is about curiosity. I can do what I want with a truly Free piece of software, including repackaging and selling it. With Open Source, all I usually get to do is look at the code (curiosity), and if I see anything I want to fix, I usually have to give my fix back to the original owner.

      The power of Free Software is the idea of community development. When you force everyone into restrictive licenses to see your code, you are not only missing the point, but you're losing the single biggest advantage in opening your source code in the first place. At that point, it becomes a marketing scheme and nothing more.

      Unfortunately, most software companies are built around Intellectual Property. Trying to sell an idea to them whose central tenet is giving that Intellectual Property away without a lot of restrictive licenses is not going to get very far. So, in order to placate them, we come up with this Open Source idea, which may win the battle but loses the war.

      • With Open Source, all I usually get to do is look at the code

        Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. -- From the Open-Source definition [opensource.org].

        The difference between Free Software and Open Source is a matter of philosophy and intended goals. The difference between Free Software and Open Source is not what you are permitted to do with the software. Open Source Software is just as redistributable and forkable as Free Software.

      • I would have to say that every software company is based around Intellectual property. First there's knowledge of the code, and then there's the knowledge how to support and use the sotware. That is all any of these companies have. If Google open sourced all their code, how long would it take because some other company (MS perhaps), bought a bunch of servers, and started hosting a search engine that worked just as well as Google's. How long after MS open sourced (for real) their Windows code, would some

      • Re:Use Free Software instead (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Infonaut (96956) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Thursday June 15 2006, @02:35PM (#15542767) Homepage Journal

        Free Software is about sharing. Open Source is about curiosity. I can do what I want with a truly Free piece of software, including repackaging and selling it. With Open Source, all I usually get to do is look at the code (curiosity), and if I see anything I want to fix, I usually have to give my fix back to the original owner.

        There are something like 60 OSI-certified Open Source licenses [opensource.org], so discussing all of them as if they were the same only leads to confusion. In fact, the GPL is an OSI-certified Open Source license.

        Also, Stallman's arguments about the GPL providing more freedom than other licenses aren't shared by everyone. The BSD license and other academic licenses have no reciprocality requirement. In that sense they are more free than the GPL, which has a strong reciprocity requirement. One interpretation I've heard is that the GPL reinforces community freedom, while the BSD license reinforces individual freedom.

    • In contrast, the term Free Software has a very precise meaning and really should be trade-marked by the FSF.

      Actually, "Free Software" is just as misleading in the vernacular. Just as anyone who doesn't know the technicalities of "Open Source" might assume that they have unrestricted public access to any source code with that label, many people assume that "Free Software" means free as in beer.

      "Rights Free" might be a clearer term, or "Freedom Software"... nah, that opens up another can of semantic wor

    • The problem with the term 'Free Software' is it's very hard to hear the difference between a capital F and a lowercase f. And the FSF will never, ever get a trademark on 'free software' because there is absolutely no reason not to call zero-cost software 'free'--in English, anyway. If anything, they could go with a term like 'freedomware.'

      BTW, you're using the RMS definition of 'Free' but your own definition of 'Open Source.' By picking and choosing which definitions I'm going to use, I could just as easily
    • "Open source means you can read the source, much like an "open book exam" means you can read the book... By my definition, even Windows is Open Source."

      Actually, the term Open Source has a clear technical definition, which is available on the OSI website:

      http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php [opensource.org]

      In my opinion it is not as successful a definition as the 'four freedoms' used by the FSF, but Open Source is a less misleading term than Free Software for most people.

      For one, it has the advantage of actually so
    • Open source means you can read the source, much like an "open book exam" means you can read the book. The correct term for software that belongs to the community is Free Software.
      That's like saying that the correct term for a potato is "carrot". "Open Source" is not an incorrect reference to "Free Software", it refers to a completely different philosophy.
    • The de-facto definition of Open Source is defined by the open source initiative (OSI): http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php [opensource.org]
    • There are degrees of openness. Just releasing a DRM'd binary is more open than a purely hosted service. And many GPL projects don't allow anonymous write access to their CVS. "FSF kosher" is extremely open.

      The software's openness is governed by its license. We now have several standard licenses defining degrees of openness. I'd like to see one for each possible degree, with a trademarked name and logo (eg OSS-0, OSS-19) backed by tests in court. But we'd also need standard definitions of open projects, not
    • Free Software means you don't have to pay for the software, much like "free beer" means you don't have to pay for the beer.. The correct term for software that belongs to the community is Open Source. With Open Source, you are guarenteed to have the four fundamental software freedoms. With "Free Software", there is no such guarentee.

      By my definition, even Windows is Free Software. In principle, I can get Windows for free. It's difficult and I have to sign a whole bunch of documents but I could do it with su
    • Open-source is an industry buzzword. It means nothing. They've taken free software, lost our idealogy and the four freedoms, and our now selling it.

  • Starting the debate? (Score:3, Informative)

    by ronanbear (924575) on Thursday June 15 2006, @10:35AM (#15540361)
    I thought that one has been ongoing for years.

    There isn't one open source license. Some are more restrictive than others. Some are more open than others. People need to be more cautious in their use of terminology and should not use GPL interchangably with open source.

  • Open Source - Free Software (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gentimjs (930934) on Thursday June 15 2006, @10:38AM (#15540392) Journal
    If its "Open Source" than I, either a paying or non-paying customer, can get the source and re-compile it on my own.
    If its Free -and- Open Source, than some anonymous 12 year old can get the source, and re-compile it, without any licensing fees or issues.
    If its BSD/GPL-style-free, than said 12 year old can also re-distribute without sending in signed forms or paying anyone.
    Where is the confusion?
  • Can anyone give an example of a successful open source project which spent a good chunk of its early years as a completely proprietary software?

  • Um, use the definition, will ya? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Knuckles (8964) <knuckles.dantian@org> on Thursday June 15 2006, @10:41AM (#15540412)
    It's really easy to know whether "releasing some code" qualifies: read the definition [opensource.org]

  • Here we go (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Billosaur (927319) * <`wgrother' `at' `optonline.net'> on Thursday June 15 2006, @10:43AM (#15540429) Journal

    So, two heavyweights(?) in the OSS community are going to start having a little war over what "open source" really means, eh? Must be a slow news day.

    Open Source is what it is, and how "open" you want your software to be is your business. You can throw the whole thing open to anyone and let talented people take up the challenge to adapt and improve your code, or you can have one set of "open" code and one set of "closed" code, the former being available to anyone, the latter available for a price. No one is under any obligation, in either case, to use your software. If you want to charge for the "closed" version so you can actually make a living, where's the harm in that?

    In an ideal world, there would be no secrets. All software would be open and free to roam the Earth. We are a far cry from an ideal world; commerce dominates and servers and bandwidth cost money. Whether your OSS is "open" or "slightly open" doesn't matter much -- if you can't scrape up the cash to keep the lights on and the servers running, it doesn't much matter how cool your software is. All I can say is, leave it alone.

  • What's in a name? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Minwee (522556) <dcr@neverwhen.org> on Thursday June 15 2006, @10:43AM (#15540435) Homepage
    If only there had been some sort of definition of open source [opensource.org] then maybe we wouldn't have to have to start this debate now.

  • Adventures in Naming (Score:4, Funny)

    by B3ryllium (571199) on Thursday June 15 2006, @10:44AM (#15540445) Homepage
    "I know! Let's name him Taurus Balrog!!"

    "No honey, that's too cruel ..."

    "Okay .. er .."

    And there you have it. Taurus Balrog would be a cool name, though :)

  • Shareware (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rob_Warwick (789939) <warwickNO@SPAMapplefritter.com> on Thursday June 15 2006, @10:46AM (#15540457) Homepage Journal
    I don't get why he's upset about Shareware.

    Finally we come to the "shareware" model, which is now really starting to draw my ire. Popularized by SugarCRM, it is a "model" where some of the code is open, but to get the full featured version you have to pay, and the full version is not open. Remember shareware? You download a little app for free that does some things, but if you want to unlock all of the features you send the guy ten bucks? If this software was so good, then why hasn't a community sprung up around the free version and made it better?

    Shareware is a limited or expiring version of an application made available for free with the idea that you should be able to try the software before purchasing it. It doesn't have a thing to do with open source, it's just another way of selling your closed source software.

    If he wants to be irritated at software that claims to be open source but charges for advanced features, that's fine. But he doesn't need to get annoyed at shareware.

    • Shareware is a limited or expiring version of an application made available for free with the idea that you should be able to try the software before purchasing it.

      That's what the term has come to mean today, but that's really a demo, not Shareware. In the old days, when software was distributed on BBSes, Shareware was fully functional, and included a notice something like "If you find this useful, please send $X to the creator."

      With Shareware becoming Demoware, today that model is sometimes called

    • Actually Sugar isn't open. Read up on the SugarCRM vTiger dispute, and read the FULL sugar license. If you ever decide to subscribe to the Enterprise edition, you are then forbidden from ever running the Open Source version again, and you cannot import the Enterprise data into the Open Source edition. They originally released under the Mozilla Public License (which they renamed to the SPL, or Sugar Public License), then threatened legal action against the vTiger folks when they removed all the branding a
      • I'm sorry, I really don't see a lot fo difference between removing features from (say) Office Professional and selling it as Office Student Edition, and removing fonts from StarOffice and giving it away as OpenOffice.

        In both cases, you've taken a full product, removed some features, and make it available at a lower cost.

  • There is an official definition (Score:3, Informative)

    by Godji (957148) on Thursday June 15 2006, @10:52AM (#15540525) Homepage
    The term "open source" has an official definition right here: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php [opensource.org]

    Whether some software is open source is equivalent to whether it conforms to all points in this definition. There you have it, debate settled.

    It is an entirely different issue if this definition can be legally enforced; it cannot, as far as I know. So there is no mechanism preventing companies from making noise by falsely using the term. That is why one shuold always take an "open source" or "free software" claim with a grain of salt, and verify the claim carefully.
  • If said software can be embodied into the existing body of open code, without changing it's existing freedoms of use, then said code is open enough!

    If strings are attached, then it's not open.

    Done, next.

  • well... (Score:5, Funny)

    by revery (456516) * <charles@cac2GAUSS.net minus math_god> on Thursday June 15 2006, @11:19AM (#15540781) Homepage
    How Open Does Open Source Need to be?

    [Haj] You know... open.
    [Pin] But how open? It's not a black and white issue.
    [Haj] It should be open, like a door.
    [Pin] That makes no sense, Haj.
    [Haj] Sure it does. A door is either open or closed. There's no in-between there my color-blind friend.
    [Pin] Are you kidding me? Look at this door. It's closed. But if I pull it just a little, is it open?
    [Haj] Yes. It is open.
    [Pin] How about now, if I pull it some more, is it more open?
    [Haj] You can't be more or less open Pin... That's my point.
    [Pin] Look at the %^%@#@%# door Haj. Does it look MORE OPEN to you?
    [Haj] Well that's a different question isn't it. Does it "look more open"?
    [Pin] ...
    [Haj] I mean what if my eyes were closed?
    [Pin] Haj...
    [Haj] What if I was blind, Pin? Huh, what then?
    [Pin] ...
    [Haj] Now you're totally stumped, aren't you buddy? Stumped by my rhetorical questions.
    [Pin] ...
    [Haj] [in a girl's voice] What if I was blind?
    [Haj] I can't believe you don't have a response dude... Pin? whatcha doing with that ice pick?
    [the screen goes black and there is the sound of terrible things being done to someone's eyes]
    [Haj] I just want you to know, if you ask "does the door ~feel~ open", I'm not going to answer you man...
    [Haj] Pin... Are you still there? Hello? Anybody?
    • Can you acquire the sourcecode anonymously/without signing anything?
    • Can you compile the sourcecode into a full version of the binaries?
    • Does the sourcecode reference only same-level or more open sources?
    • Can you modify the sourcecode and deliver to others?
    • Can you submit your changes to the original/current authors for inclusion?
    • Can you redistribute/resell the sourcecode? Your modified binaries?

    Sticking to an earlier philosophy, sourcecode is just a list of steps to create a certain effect. By sharing this re

  • an analogy (Score:4, Funny)

    by acvh (120205) <geek@@@mscigars...com> on Thursday June 15 2006, @11:29AM (#15540902) Homepage
    I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. I immediately ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!"
    "Why shouldn't I?" he said.
    I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"
    "Like what?"
    "Well ... are you religious or atheist?"
    "Religious."
    "Me too! Are you Christian or Jewish?"
    "Christian."
    "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
    "Protestant."
    "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
    "Baptist."
    "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"
    "Baptist Church of God."
    "Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"
    "Reformed Baptist Church of God."
    "Wow! Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"
    "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"
    To which I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.
    • That is a good one. I think it explains the FSF and OSS movement to a Tee. Much of the internal fighing over Open Source is really on very minor issues.

      A company releases the source to their App. You can view it and change it for your own use but not distribute the
      App to anyone else, without permission. Vs. You can view it and change it for your own use and if you want you
      can distribte the app without previous concent

      If you want change you well need to evoke small changes not huge one. No matter how well yo

  • Take 'em both with a big grain of salt (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anthony Boyd (242971) on Thursday June 15 2006, @11:40AM (#15540980) Homepage

    Well, that's fun. Tarus basically gets on a soapbox and starts lecturing about how he & his company have been doing Open Source for, like, years. That young rascal Doug better listen to Tarus!

    Tarus is arguing from authority, if you know what that old debate tactic is. And to be honest, I give him some credence.

    But then Doug posts right in the comments, and basically explains that he's been doing Open Source for at least a decade -- before the term existed. And he explains that they're going to follow a GPL model, but they're going to do it on their own timetable, not Tarus's.

    Fun.

    Having said that, they're both getting things wrong, IMHO. Tarus is ascribing way more to Open Source than he should. For example, he says that a community must exist, contributing actively to the code. This is a fallacy on two points. First, that would immediately disqualify 90% of the projects on SourceForge, which are maintained by a lone hacker. But second, that's more of a Free Software, you-must-develop-software-the-RIGHT-way line of thinking. Open Source does not have these burdens -- it's just a flag people raise to say "you can get this source code." No more.

    And Doug clearly jumped the gun. If they're going slow & sure toward the goal of GPL, that's great -- just don't say you have something that you don't yet offer.

  • I have to say I agree with the author a bit about certain projects that are "open-source" but then have more advanced closed-source versions yet champion how open source they are and how great for the community that is. The given example SugarCRM is a perfect example.

    SugarCRM does offer an open source version of their software and it seems to be pretty solid. However if you look at it versus even the lowest paid closed source version very important functionality has been removed; namely Outlook support a
    • Actually although I do strongly believe in the "pure GPL" model, I also think that Outlook users and actually any Microsoft "freebe" user DESERVES to pay.
      There is no acceptable reason to use outlook or outlook express, and by using them people do help making the internet a less nice place.
      Making them pay is good.

  • The Debate Ended Ages Ago (Score:3, Informative)

    by NickFortune (613926) on Thursday June 15 2006, @12:39PM (#15541532) Homepage
    It is starting the debate on whether or not just releasing some code qualifies an application as 'open source.'"

    I haven't seen anyone else mention this so far, but wasn't that debate ended some time ago? I thought Bruce Perens' Open Source Definitition [opensource.org] was the final word on the matter.

    If it conforms to the definition, it's open source. By definition.

    If it doesn't, it's something else.

    This is not complicated.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.