Management
Technology
- Applications
- Business Intelligence
- Development
- Hardware
- Mobile & Wireless
- Networking
- Internet
- Operating Systems
- Security Products
- Servers & Datacentre
- Storage
Toolbox
Training
Books
White Papers
Webcast
Resource Centre
This isn't “Open Source”
February 27, 2009
Posted by: Glyn Moody
As a kind of pint-sized free software fidei defensor I feel obliged to counter some of the misconceptions that are put about on the subject around the Web.
But I find myself in a slightly embarrassing situation here, in that I need to comment on some statements that have appeared in the virtual pages of Computerworld UK.
The piece is entitle “Open Sauce”, but it ought really be called “”Open Source””, since its author, Richard Steel, the CIO of Newham, seems to have such distaste for the concept that he can't bring himself even to write the words without sanitising them between the quotation marks.
He is reacting to the UK Government's Action Plan on open source, and I'd like to react to those reactions.
Mr Steel writes:
I don’t like the term “Open Source”. It’s misleading; what many people mean is “anything but Microsoft”; few businesses actually use open source directly – they buy software derived from open source that has been commercially packaged and sold with support, which, in practice, is little different to licensed software.
Well, no: there's nothing misleading in the term. It's tightly defined by the rigorous and well-understood Open Source Definition, which has nothing whatsoever to do with “anything but Microsoft”; indeed, Microsoft actually has some OSD-approved licences – the Microsoft Public License and Microsoft Reciprocal License: so does this mean that Microsoft is pushing “anything but Microsoft” too?
And what on earth does it mean to say “few businesses actually use open source directly – they buy software derived from open source that has been commercially packaged and sold with support, which, in practice, is little different to licensed software”?
Tag #ukgovOSS
Jump to page : [ 1 ] [ 2 ]
Follow highlights from ComputerworldUK on Twitter
Sign up for our Daily Newsletter
The UK IT News widget Get it for your site!
<<newer entry | back to blogs index | older entry>>
Advert
Email this article to a friend or colleague:
PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the recipient know who sent the story, and in case of transmission error. Both your name and the recipient's name and address will not be used for any other purpose.
- This article is now being printed.
What are your views on this subject? Use the form below to post a comment on this article up to 1000 characters.
Click below to add 'This isn't “Open Source”' to your blog.
If you do not have a ComputerworldUK Account and would like to use this feature, please Register.
If you are a registered, logged-in user, this will post the title and first paragraph of this story to your blog to share with your readers.
Advert
Newsletters
Our Daily & Weekly Newsletters highlight breaking news, vital issues, expert analysis and solutions to help you stay ahead of developments in the industry.
WHITE PAPERS
-
Legal risks: Employee use of the internet and email
Exploring the challenges facing IT Mangers today and vital steps to ensure safe internet an email use by employees. -
Phishing for victims
This White Paper examines the phenomenon of phishing. It explains the potentially catastrophic threat it presents to all kinds of organisation. Exploding some widespread myths, it lights up the murky waters where phishing first emerged and where it continues to evolve. But it also highlights what your business can do to blunt the threat.
About the author
Glyn Moody Glyn Moody's look at all levels of the enterprise open source stack. The blog will look at the organisations that are embracing open source, old and new alike (start-ups welcome), and the communities of users and developers that have formed around them (or not, as the case may be).
Comments received
Conrad Taylor said on Friday, 27 February 2009
I agree with you up to a point, Glyn. But it is not true to say that proprietary companies are not innovating. I am a graphic designer, among other things, and I have been impressed with Adobe's capacity for innovation in, say, InDesign.
Alan Bell said on Friday, 27 February 2009
there is an alternative to talking about "Open Source" and that is to talk about "Software Freedom". It is a bit harder to totally miss the point with that terminology. As time goes by I find myself agreeing more and more with Richard Stallman.
Richard Dale said on Friday, 27 February 2009
@alan bell
I agree 'Free Software' or 'Software Libre' are better terms than Open Source as their meaning is much harder to hijack. So I personally always use 'Free Software'.
On the other hand I really don't like the term GNU/Linux when talking about the combination of the Linux kernel and userland software. It is just so ugly. I rather use 'Linux Desktop' or whatever.
Names matter, and although I mostly agree with Glyn Moody, I think using those two terms is leaving us open to attack. 'Open Software' is too meaningless, and 'GNU/Linux' makes use sound like a Richard Stallman follower with no marketing sense.
Tommy James said on Friday, 27 February 2009
Surely this is not just a debate about open source licensing - important though that is.
It is about how the open source community can use the government's latest position -whether it means what it says or not - to win the cost-benefit argument for its products. Fundamental changes in the economy and IT landscape create an opportunity for open source as every item of IT spending gets scrutinised.
I'm optimistic. At a previous workplace, I tried to get my IT director to take a hard line on Microsoft licenses and he said they accounted for a tiny part of the budget, so why bother. I don't think he'll be saying that today.
Vadim P. said on Friday, 27 February 2009
Agreed.
On the other hand, these extreme views are needed, as Microsoft while on one side is appeasing and using oss (infamed tcp/ip stack they took from BSD, jQuery officially, probably more), they're also threatening it with patents and now suing (tomtom).
Glyn Moody said on Friday, 27 February 2009
@Conrad: I didn't say there was no innovation from proprietary compannies, just that the examples I gave were all from open source.
You're right, there is definitely innovation going on in traditional companies, but I was just countering the complete dismissal of open source here.
Glyn Moody said on Friday, 27 February 2009
@Alan: absolutely. But the question wa framed in terms of open source - or rather "open source" - and so I addressed it thus.
Glyn Moody said on Friday, 27 February 2009
@Tommy: Indeed, but when there's so much confused comment on the initative it's important to get the facts straight in terms of what open source can (and can't) do.
Glyn Moody said on Friday, 27 February 2009
@Richard: I think the best way is to use both, but according to circumstances.
Glyn Moody said on Friday, 27 February 2009
@vadim: I think *passion* is needed, but we must be careful to avoid crude extremism.
KRT said on Friday, 27 February 2009
I presume this is the guy at Newham who chose Microsoft over competing Linux tender alternatives on the basis of a study Microsoft carried out for Newham by Microsoft. Now is that a corrupt practice or what!
If you ask me, Newham council's councillors need to be surcharged for wasting public funds through contract fixing, like Maggie Thatcher did for City of Liverpool councillors some time back.
SIL said on Saturday, 28 February 2009
Well, you can hardly expect Richard Steel* to develop understanding of what Free Software means after his well-publicised roll-over some years ago, can you? But perhaps his rather lamely supported views will turn out to be helpful to Free Software as articles like this one point out his rather outdated views.
S
* - Does MS call him Richard Innovate, do you think?
Tommy James said on Saturday, 28 February 2009
@KRT
Steel actually got Microsoft to pay for independent consultancy. You might question how independent - but it was one of the big consultancy hosues - Deloitte I think. I seem to remember that part of hte reason Newham stuck with Microsoft was lock -in. That is not corruption. It is a fact of life that the use of open source can overcome. We don't help ourselves by throwing out stupid remarks about corruption. Newham have been pretty transparent in the way they played Microsoft to get the consultancy in the first place and in their fairly friendly relations with Microsoft subsequently.
ComputerworldUK Editor said on Saturday, 28 February 2009
Richard Steel has responded to Glyn's blog. Give it a read here:
http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=1926&blogid=6
canineEtoile said on Tuesday, 10 March 2009
@Tommy James
Ernst and Young were hired to produce an 'independent' report at Newham. The final report contained the same errors that were present in the original document supplied to them by their paymasters. It was a cut and paste job. Alledgedly.
James Stone: said on Friday, 27 March 2009
@Richard Dale: "GNU/Linux" may be ugly, but it's the term we have. If you want to use a more succinct name use simply "GNU" - seeing as the kernel is only a small part of the operating system. Use "Linux" to mean the kernel. "Linux desktop" is about as meaningful and useful as "Fish's Bicycle".
Yes, and I agree with Glyn Moody, "Open Source" in not to blame for people misusing the term. Its meaning is quite clear.