The Grumpy Editor's Obviously Incorrect 2006 Predictions

Posted Jan 6, 2006 15:50 UTC (Fri) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link]

From http://lwn.net/op/FAQ.lwn#site

Is the LWN site code open source?
Not yet. We do intend to release our code once it gets a bit more
"ready," has had one more security audit, and when we are in a position to
support it as an open source project.

It has said the same or close to it since well before LWN was a
subscription site. That's been a year and a half-ish. When I originally
subscribed, it had been there awhile, as I'd been visiting the site for
awhile and it had been there at least that long. I thought perhaps a bit
more time was needed when I originally subscribed, and besides, I wasn't
as concerned about my money supporting closed source, even if it was on
Linux, back then. That was some time ago, LWN has had the time, and the
code has not been forthcoming. Meanwhile, I've become more acutely aware
of how my choice of where I spend my money, along with the similar choices
of others, affects the world we all live in. I don't make choices for
others, but I DO make choices for myself, and I don't purchase NVidia for
a reason, and passed up on a Sony just this Christmas for a reason. LWN
knows all about open source, and promotes the practice daily in its words.
However, for over two years now, it has said "soon" when it came to
walking the walk. Well, "soon" I will find I am no longer able to support
them with my money, if something doesn't change, and /my/ "soon" isn't two
years or longer!

As I said, I'm not a site designer, so it's not that the code will be of
any practical use to me. It's the principle. The $60-120 I'd pay LWN
isn't much, materially, either, but it counts for me. How many others
might not speak up, but don't subscribe, either, or would subscribe at a
higher level if LWN put its actions where its words are? Likely not many,
but it's likely not just me, either.

This could come into even sharper focus if the proposed GPL3 includes the
possible web code clause. (The idea being, not all GPL3 code would be
subject to it, but if a site had a code download button and someone made
use of it, they'd likewise have to have that or a similar button on their
own site where the use was. That has been how the idea has been
described, anyway.)

Actually, what I'll likely do is resubscribe for 6 months rather than a
year, with an email to the effect that with regrets, I will find it
impossible to justify resubscribing after that, if the code hasn't been
made available. IIRC, my sub currently ends the end of February, so that
would give LWN until the end of August, more than two years after they
went subscription, and I believe well more than three after the "soon"
promise was originally posted onsite.

I'm not demanding what hasn't been already promised, and then only
demanding it in that I am choosing not to have my money supporting a site
that supports open code in words but has refused to do so in action.

Yes, it DOES mean that much to me!

Duncan