Interesting Article about Open Source and the OSI

[David E Jones <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

I'm not sure if any of us can do anything about this, but it appears that enough people are getting upset about certain "open source" industry practices and abuses that perhaps the wheels will start to turn:

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS9666856083.html

If it were up to me "open source" would mean real community driven open source (ie software licensed ONLY under an open source license), and the other stuff would have to use a different name.

It's too bad that the industry doesn't cater to consumers as there are pretty active consumer protection groups that might get involved with this sort of corporate practice...

-David

Re: Interesting Article about Open Source and the OSI

[Hans Bakker <ma...@antwebsystems.com>]

In the Netherlands was even a company who said their products were 'open 
source'....You could buy the software and got the source with it. So it 
was 'open source' in their reasoning...

On Wednesday 27 June 2007 13:42, David E Jones wrote:
> I'm not sure if any of us can do anything about this, but it appears that
> enough people are getting upset about certain "open source" industry
> practices and abuses that perhaps the wheels will start to turn:
>
> http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS9666856083.html
>
> If it were up to me "open source" would mean real community driven open
> source (ie software licensed ONLY under an open source license), and the
> other stuff would have to use a different name.
>
> It's too bad that the industry doesn't cater to consumers as there are
> pretty active consumer protection groups that might get involved with this
> sort of corporate practice...
>
> -David
-- 

http://Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz support with competitive rates.

Re: Interesting Article about Open Source and the OSI

[Christian Geisert <ch...@isu-gmbh.de>]

David E Jones schrieb:
> 
> I'm not sure if any of us can do anything about this, but it appears
> that enough people are getting upset about certain "open source"
> industry practices and abuses that perhaps the wheels will start to turn:
> 
> http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS9666856083.html
> 
> If it were up to me "open source" would mean real community driven open
> source (ie software licensed ONLY under an open source license), and the
> other stuff would have to use a different name.

Our ASF colleague Gianugo Rabellino has brought this up last year and
proposed a new term "Open Development", see
http://feather.planetapache.org/2006/03/08/should-osi-redefine-the-label-open-source/
for more about it.

-- 
Christian

Re: Interesting Article about Open Source and the OSI

[Daniel Martínez <da...@paradisosistemas.es>]

Well, I am not indifferent at how the term is used. Open source is OSI
as free software is FSF :)

I am not familiar with SugarCRM but if they push you to show their
trademark is a real limitation in use and modification and I would not
call it open source.

For a clearer example of something-not-opensource you can see openbravo
(http://www.openbravo.com)

Open source (OSI) projects are short in terms of costs and times and
have good quality. That's why open source is cool and that's why
customers think good about open source. When you call open source to
your non-OSI-compliant project you do it because it is good marketing
but, IMO, it's a lie.

Chris Howe escribió:
> Being that this is a project that uses the Apache license, I would
> think those that participate would be indifferent how the term is used.
>  Those that choose to contribute under an Apache license are interested
> in the solution, not the politic.  Those that get upset are those who
> contribute under licenses where they are already restricting the user.
>
> If you want to get semantics involved, a SugarCRM type project is
> certainly an open source project.  It's just not a FREE AND open source
> project.  Those that are getting upset are trying to make open source
> ubiquitous with free.  Everyone has an agenda.  There isn't a "holier
> than thou" involved in this topic.
>
> --- David E Jones <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> I'm not sure if any of us can do anything about this, but it appears
>> that enough people are getting upset about certain "open source"
>> industry practices and abuses that perhaps the wheels will start to
>> turn:
>>
>> http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS9666856083.html
>>
>> If it were up to me "open source" would mean real community driven
>> open source (ie software licensed ONLY under an open source license),
>> and the other stuff would have to use a different name.
>>
>> It's too bad that the industry doesn't cater to consumers as there
>> are pretty active consumer protection groups that might get involved
>> with this sort of corporate practice...
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>>     

Re: Interesting Article about Open Source and the OSI

[Chris Howe <cj...@yahoo.com>]

Being that this is a project that uses the Apache license, I would
think those that participate would be indifferent how the term is used.
 Those that choose to contribute under an Apache license are interested
in the solution, not the politic.  Those that get upset are those who
contribute under licenses where they are already restricting the user.

If you want to get semantics involved, a SugarCRM type project is
certainly an open source project.  It's just not a FREE AND open source
project.  Those that are getting upset are trying to make open source
ubiquitous with free.  Everyone has an agenda.  There isn't a "holier
than thou" involved in this topic.

--- David E Jones <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:

> 
> I'm not sure if any of us can do anything about this, but it appears
> that enough people are getting upset about certain "open source"
> industry practices and abuses that perhaps the wheels will start to
> turn:
> 
> http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS9666856083.html
> 
> If it were up to me "open source" would mean real community driven
> open source (ie software licensed ONLY under an open source license),
> and the other stuff would have to use a different name.
> 
> It's too bad that the industry doesn't cater to consumers as there
> are pretty active consumer protection groups that might get involved
> with this sort of corporate practice...
> 
> -David
> 
>