Define open source

[prathapml]

Define open source

article

That headline sounds silly, doesn’t it?

But it’s an honest question. How much freedom must a software license give you before you think of it as open source?

Richard Stallman (left, from SoftPanorama) gives a clear, hard-line answer. He describes it in terms of freedom. The code must not just come to you free, he says, but you must be free to see it, you must be free to add to it, and you must also be obligated to give your additions back on the same basis as you got the original code. These four freedoms are embodied in the General Public License of Gnu.Org.

But that’s not the only way to define Linux. There are, in fact, a multitude of open source licenses, some of them very open, others less-so. As corporations move toward embracing the open source world, in other words, they need to read the fine print.

This is even true when reading the news.

Today Sun, for instance, is letting us all take a peek at the code for its new desktop Java release, code-named Mustang. But to get at it you must sign Sun’s Java Research License. Sun maintains control, not just of the original code, but any enhancements.

So, you going to go for it? Or are you going to keep your distance?

You and your company need to come to your own conclusions on all this. How much freedom do you demand in a software license before you consider it to be truly open source? And how much freedom is too much?

[prathapml]

I found these comments interesting too:

Comments »

Ok, here’s the scenario: You want to eat chicken. Farmer Brown and Farmer Smith both grow chickens. So you approach one, buy a chicken from him based on size, appearance, and price. Then you go home and eat your chicken.

Both farmers put effort into growing their chickens. Both have the same basic product. Your decision on which to buy from is based on the universal laws of economics, (ergo which is the best chicken for the cheapest price) and on your personality and your relationship with the farmers.

Now, should Farmer Brown be able to patent chickens, chicken raising, chicken growth, chicken feeding, and chicken sales? Can Famer Brown sue Farmer Smith because he has a similar product and uses similar methods to develop and market that product?

Microsoft and other big companies opposed to Open Source would have us believe that because programmers are using similar methods in developing their products, and have similar processes in their products which are Open Source, to those methods and processes of their proprietary software technologies, that somehow this should not be allowed. So because MS got away with patending their “chicken” and “chicken growth methods", now if someone else ever grows “chickens” again, they should be sued. The “intellectual property” pertaining to “developing” “chickens” is now viewed as solely the right of the one individual or corporation. They can then monopolize on “chickens” and become very, very rich. Hm it seems to me that these sorts of business practices went out in the Dark Ages.

Don’t buy into the big corporation’s finangling ways - they’re building sky castles and hoping to get enough buy in and political/legal clout to have their way and continue with their monopolization. It’s all legal loopholes and other BS.

The truth is, if you develop a good product, whether Open Source or otherwise, people are going to want to use it. There are Myriad ways in which to then make money from your work, besides just selling someone the right to use your software. What about advertising? What about service? What about customization? What about selling it very inexpensively? Etc.

Open Source’s ace in the hole is development and improvement. Proprietary technologies stagnate because they are closely held and cannot progress anywhere near as quickly as technology that is out there, available to everyone. Open Source apps can be taken and applied to all sorts of new technologies, thin clients, embedded applications, you name it. If there are problems, those problems can be fixed quickly and effectively. MS and other profit based corporations would much rather have slow technological development, with every ounce of profit for each development being squeezed from the public pocket, before then releasin the new latest and greatest, hopefully starting a whole new profit cycle. This is wasteful and foolish. Fight the power. Go Open Source - it makes sense.

Comment by Kamikaze — 11/19/2004 @ 7:42 am

Open source is what it is - a product with its underlying design free for all to see. This could be an full OS like linux or a mundane piece of javascript.

What you can do with a piece of open-source depends on its license. I like GPL because ensures code is given back to the commons, but I can understand why companies may choose a more commerical-friendly license (eg BSD for Apple OS X).

The license, generally, is most important if you plan on modifying the source code to suit your (company’s) needs. The license will spell out what you can and can’t do. If you just plan on using the software, then what matters most is that the software is open-source – since more eyes can check it for bugs and security flaws.

>> But that’s not the only way to define Linux

Actually, linux (the kernel) is bound to the GPL license, but I think you meant to say open-source 

Comment by Adrian — 11/19/2004 @ 10:05 am

Don’t these socialist OSS guys realize the party is over? They have pushed and threatened proprietary software so much with their socialist agenda, that now, large companies and opportunist companies, are pushing back with software patents and lawsuits. Socialized OSS claims to be on a mission to free software, but because of it, people are now are bolting down their software and other IP; erecting protection schemes around them; and sending out their lawyers. Socialized OSS has not freed software anymore than communism freed the Russians. Instead, it stands set things in motion, that will curtail the liaise-faire distribution of code, that used to, and still takes place among programmers.

Comment by P. Douglas — 11/19/2004 @ 10:43 am

I’d say access to the source code OF THE ENTIRE PRODUCT AND COMPILATION TOOLCHAIN is a requirement of open source. Compiling “open” source code with a “closed” compiler gives plenty of room for monkey-business. Also, hiding parts of the code for security or other reasons entirely invalidates the openness of the whole code for the same reasons.

I’d say that to be “open source", you must meet the above requirements, and that’s it. However, having access to the source is meaningless without the right to make modifications and make use of these modifications, so I’d say these are de facto requirements. Also, the right to redistribute your modifications is pretty much a must-have, so I’d include that in the de facto requirements. But I think you can stop there. The GPL’s obligation to license derivative works under the original license makes a lot of sense and works well, but it just isn’t a requirement. There’s no reason a BSD-style license, or public domain software cannot be considered open source.

Comment by ac — 11/19/2004 @ 3:03 pm

How many billion dollars does Bill Gates personally own? Is it 30? Is it 60? I forget. All I know is, I helped him, by debugging his high-priced but essentially beta-test level software at home. Did I “contribute” hundreds of hours? Over the past twelve years, that well may be.

I hope Open Source destroys MS. Ah, but alas, then those thousands of MS programmers, who make a lot less than Bill, will be out of work (like I was). I guess that will be the

new IT scourge: OpenSourceing.

Comment by Tom Trainor — 11/24/2004 @ 4:34 pm

Where is the limit on freedom?

You have to give back any innovations. I would rather give it away completely

Comment by Free — 11/25/2004 @ 4:37 pm