FOSS: War is over (if you want it) (451 CAOS) [LWN.net]

The 451 CAOS site has posted an analysts view of the state of open source. "In 2009 we have seen signs of push back from FOSS advocates in resistance to what they see as dilution of the open source brand. We are seeing increasing demands for the Open Source Definition, which defines open source licenses, to be applied also to development models and business and end user licensing strategies. A software project might be licensed under an OSI-approved license, but if 98% of the developers are employees of a single company there is a valid question as to whether that is truly an open source development project."

(Log in to post comments)

Why call it a war?

Posted Oct 8, 2009 13:24 UTC (Thu) by gbutler69 (guest, #54063) [Link]

Why do we need to call everything a "War"? It's not a war. It is a difference of values that we
choose to hold most dear. Personally, I prefer the GNU/FSF model and believe strongly in the
principles of truly "Free as in Freedom" software. I think this type of software creates the greatest
benefits for society as a whole and is something to be lauded. I often find myself in awe of the
many contributors to "Free" software.

That being said, at the end of the day, people have to eat. If a developer, group of developers, or
company (just another word for group of developers along with investors) is unable to "Eat"
based on a model of truly "Free" software then they have every right, and in fact, they have a
duty, to provide for themselves and their families in a way appropriate to their talents, interests,
utility of their productions, and demands of consumers.

Why call it a war?

Posted Oct 9, 2009 3:09 UTC (Fri) by dmag (subscriber, #17775) [Link]

> Why do we need to call everything a "War"?

Ok, I admit it's pretty over-the-top to call it a "war", but it feels like a war when the other side is using every "weapon" they have to stop/slow FOSS.

For example, Microsoft calling FOSS "communist" and "unamerican" (while they were funding development of GPL programs, such as Perl), Microsoft funding SCO, Microsoft threatening patents against Linux, etc. (I don't mean to pick on MS, but they are the first thing that pops to mind.)

For a while, this had the intended effect: I had a friend tell me that "Open Source could never be secure, and could never, ever be used by the military". He's a smart guy, but somehow fell for all the propaganda (another war term!). Luckily, the story has a happy ending: He changed his mind 6 months later, and now almost everything he does involves some open source projects, even his military projects.

> If a developer [..] is unable to "Eat" based on a model of truly "Free" software then they have every right [..] to provide for themselves and their families

Er, is anybody saying any different? You seem to be implying that Open Source is somehow taking away jobs. (Or that FOSS will put people out of work.)

The only ones who could "loose their jobs" are the 5% of programmers writing software for sale. Yes, it's hard to sell software when people are can get similar functionality for free. Then again, it was hard for the buggy whip manufacturers to sell their whips once cars came out.

We don't care about the collapse of the buggy whip industry because it was offset by the enormous business efficiencies (in all other industries) created by car travel.

I view FOSS like the creation of farming: Now instead of paying for software (foraging for food), we can spend our time/money on higher level things.

Another way to argue it: the only way to lose your job because of FOSS is to have a job that can be replaced by software. So you weren't really doing anything useful, were you?

Definition of software freedom

Posted Oct 15, 2009 23:22 UTC (Thu) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link]

> We are seeing increasing demands for the Open Source Definition, which defines open source licenses, to be applied also to development models and business and end user licensing strategies.

This desire (which has been increasingly evident ever since open source was coined) gives the lie to the whole motivation for diverging from the original free software term: it's evident that open source is no less amenable to poor definition and misunderstanding.

Those who do not learn from the Free Software Foundation are doomed to repeat their efforts.