Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
An Open Source Strategy for the Open Group
The Open Group, owner of the Unix trademark, has been working with Bruce
Perens to develop an Open Source strategy for the Group. Now a
draft strategy document is out, and the Open Group is soliciting
comments. "The Open Group is faced with challenges and opportunities
regarding Open Source software. Foremost is the organization's
responsibility to guide its members in use of, and participation in, Open
Source. Secondarily, as an organization we must catch up: we couldn't have
known that Open Source would be this successful, and it brings profound
changes to our main areas of practice: Open Systems and Standards. We must
now fully integrate Open Source into our operation. If not, it's time to
change the name of our organization."
(Log in to post comments)
Right. This calls for immediate discussion! Posted Jul 25, 2003 16:17 UTC (Fri) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] I [Bruce Perens] propose that five special interest groups be created within The Open Group, to deal with each of the three different manifestations of Open Source and how our organization should engage with them, and in addition with the special issues of standards, certification, and business use of Open Source. I'm sure some will argue that this is a significant step, but at this point a proposal to talk about the subject is underwhelming.
Re: This calls for immediate discussion! Posted Jul 25, 2003 16:32 UTC (Fri) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] Okay, perhaps I was a bit too sardonic; in terms of actions, he is proposing that the special interest groups do a bit more than talk:
Re: This calls for immediate discussion! Posted Jul 25, 2003 21:43 UTC (Fri) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] I imagine that by "Establish an 'OpenForge' portal for The Open Group and, perhaps, a SourceForge replacement," they mean a SourceForge-like service. Actually to replace sf.net would be an enormous job. But, maybe VA has offered or might offer to hand over the expense of operating it? I wonder what that really means.
Re: This calls for immediate discussion! Posted Jul 25, 2003 22:45 UTC (Fri) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] The complete quote regarding a SourceForge replacement (which is also mentioned earlier in the document) is:Establish an "OpenForge" portal for The Open Group, where all of the various Open Group projects that are available in Open Source will reside. This portal could also be expanded to host deserving Open Source projects on the outside.
Re: This calls for immediate discussion! Posted Jul 25, 2003 23:39 UTC (Fri) by Bryam (guest, #13331) [Link] Don't reinvent the wheel. Maybe OpenGroup could be do one offer for Sourceforge.net to VA Software? Or maybe VA could be bring Sourforge.net to OSDL or one "Sourceforge.NET Foundation"?
Re: This calls for immediate discussion! Posted Jul 26, 2003 0:41 UTC (Sat) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] > Maybe OpenGroup could be do one offer for Sourceforge.net to VA Software?They could just use the Savannah code base, org GForge etc. Ciaran O'Riordan
Re: This calls for immediate discussion! Posted Jul 26, 2003 0:55 UTC (Sat) by Bryam (guest, #13331) [Link] In this case don't maintain the 60.000+ projects hosted at SF.
Re: This calls for immediate discussion! Posted Jul 26, 2003 3:04 UTC (Sat) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (I'm having trouble understanding your sentences. I'm trying my best.)This document advises The Open Group to set up it's own project managment site. The code to run this type of site already exists. If they want the SourceForge code, they will have to pay for it and it won't be Free Software. If they want to stick with Free Software, they could use the Savannah code or the GForge code.
Re: This calls for immediate discussion! Posted Jul 28, 2003 0:04 UTC (Mon) by miallen (guest, #10195) [Link] Actually to replace sf.net would be an enormous job.The proposal was not to replace SourceForge but to provide a portal like SourceForge to host a few "deserving projects".
An Open Source Strategy for the Open Group Posted Jul 25, 2003 16:37 UTC (Fri) by southey (subscriber, #9466) [Link] A fundamental and key limitation that is ignored is how to deal with open source licenses. This effectively voids the value of Open Source so you are left with ruuning Open Source software on closed source.
An Open Source Strategy for the Open Group Posted Jul 25, 2003 18:59 UTC (Fri) by mdekkers (guest, #85) [Link] I don't want to steal Bruce's thunder (or anybody elses, for thatmatter), but I have seen document drafts that also discuss this floating around in some Open Group lists. So, something should come the way of Open Group members shortly, I think.
An Open Source Strategy for the Open Group Posted Jul 27, 2003 14:31 UTC (Sun) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] I know it's an overly long read but it does have a section on licensing,two thirds of the way down, it's titled "Special Interest Group 2: Open Source Licensing". The scary thing is that it mentions "A GPL-like license", "A LGPL-like license", and "A BSD-like license". Making up their own license would be suicide. Choosing anything other than the GNU GPL would be harmful. I've mailed them my thoughts on this. Ciaran O'Riordan
Nahh Posted Jul 28, 2003 0:24 UTC (Mon) by miallen (guest, #10195) [Link] The Open Group may be considered irrelevant to some but you cannot ignore that they have managed a few important standards processes. Namely POSIX. The broad changes in focus suggested will hurt their credibility with certain circles. They would loose members. I would rather see them continue to work both sides and release select information and help out with standards rather than being viewed as another whimpy Alliance, Foundation, League, whatever with no real influence with big vendors. I think this is a bad idea.
|
|||||||||||||