Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
Worlds collide in IBM-VA Software deal (News.com)
News.com reports on the deal (to be announced today) between IBM and VA Software.
"VA Software will move its SourceForge repository of open-source software projects to a foundation of proprietary IBM software, the companies plan to announce at the LinuxWorld Conference and Expo here. At the same time, VA will promote use of IBM's DB2 and WebSphere software for those employing a commercial version of the SourceForge collaborative programming software."
(Log in to post comments)
Sky Falling? Posted Aug 13, 2002 14:25 UTC (Tue) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] People got made fun of for saying that the sky was falling when VA started wanting to sell proprietary "enhancements" to SourceForge. It's just a small shift in business model, Eric Raymond assured us. VA maintains it's complete commitment to open source, and a committment to providing Sourceforge to the open source community.Now all those open source projects running on sourceforge are moving to a proprietary system. So what, many will wonder; best tool for the best job, it still supports open source, etc. I am going to say that we should worry that licencing restrictions are going to slip in giving companies ownership of pieces of those projects, or at the very least special exemptions from, for example, some of the restrictions of the GPL. You will make fun of me for being chicken little saying that the sky is falling. A year or two from now, we'll have to see what the *next* implausible thing that could "never happen" is, and then we can make fun of the people who predict that. In the mean time, if I had a project on sourceforge, I'd immediately move it somewhere else. (I never have been lead author on anything that big; all the small things I've written I've just maintained myself.) Sourceforge was an open source system to support open source software. It's now moving to a proprietary system. It's not the system that it was when people put their projects there. I hope that a lot of people realize this, and reevaluate whether or not the really *want* to have their projects there. If your project is truly pure free software, consider GNU Savannah, savannah.gnu.org Mind you, I hate to sound like an ingrate: I'm very happy for the support that IBM gives to Linux. But, on the other hand, Sourceforge has been a very central site for open source development. It's scary enough to have it controlled by one company-- but it's especially scary to have something that central not be open source itself. The development infrastructure is not support for open source, as IBM and other companies provide; it is the heart and soul. If that heart and soul doesn't stay relatively pure, then we will shortly find out that indeed all these companies supporting open source weren't interested in open source at all, but merely in a plausible weapon for dethroning Microsoft, to be discarded or destroyed when no longer expedient. Damn, I sound like a frothing at the mouth radical. Maybe I'm turning into one. Just a reaction to the extremism we see in our government and corporations on the other side, I guess. -Rob
Sky Falling? Posted Aug 13, 2002 15:10 UTC (Tue) by panic (guest, #3242) [Link] I agree, you sound like a frothing at the mouth radical. The database that SF sits on makes NO difference to whether or not open software development can continue on SF. It DOES make a difference when it comes to stability, support, etc. Right tool for the job, they know the job, they chose the tool. You the user have the privilege of not having to care how it works under the covers but these guys have to develop on it and support it. Cut them some slack.
Sky Falling? Posted Aug 13, 2002 15:59 UTC (Tue) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] You the user have the privilege of not having to care how it works under the covers but these guys have to develop on it and support it. Cut them some slack. Another way of describing it is: I the user have the freedom to choose the platform I'm comfortable with for storing my project. That's all part of "right tool for the right job". If somebody is not comfortable with storing their project on a proprietary system run by a private company-- that doesn't make them evil. Obviously, yes, open source develment *can* continue on a proprietary database. The question for each project to ask is if they want it to. My point is that as we excuse each bit of SourceForge slipping further away from open source and more towards proprietary on the basis that "they are supporting open source, give them a break" and "right tool for the right job", we kid ourselves that it won't slip further. Has it slipped too far yet? I'm not convinced that it has, and clearly you are convinced that it has not. But can we be confident that it will not slip any further? Assuming that, I think, is naive, and that was the point of my post. -Rob
I don't think they need all the software they host Posted Aug 13, 2002 15:20 UTC (Tue) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] I think that SourceForge will rather charge for their service than demand license changes or exemptions. If they charge $10 a year, they will lose old, unmaintained projects. If they ask for a license change, they will lose the most active and popular projects.I considered moving my project to sourceforge at some point, but now I have one more reason to consider alternatives.
I don't think they need all the software they host Posted Aug 13, 2002 16:05 UTC (Tue) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] I think that SourceForge will rather charge for their service than demand license changes or exemptions. If they charge $10 a year, they will lose old, unmaintained projects. If they ask for a license change, they will lose the most active and popular projects. I personally, would rather pay a yearly hosting fee for an open source project to a system that itself showed a true commitment to open source software, but that's just me. That way, you're paying for the real work and resources that are necessary to maintain the system-- not for proprietary software. A philosophical point, true, but on the other hand, half of the problem of corporate America is that people freely invest their money in things they would have philosophical difficulties with. If whether or not Sourceforge runs on a proprietary system is truly irrelevant to you, then your philosophy is different. That doesn't make people whose philosophy does suggest they should support open source systems over proprietary systems wrongheaded, it just puts them in disagreement with you. (Even though I sound like it I'm not really a true open source purist, although I'm slowly being pushed that way in reaction to increasingly heavy-handed tacticts from the other side. Mostly, I'm making the argument here in reaction to the arguement that open source pursits are wrongheaded and/or unreasonable; and, I started with a sky-falling slippery slope article that looks back at history to suggest people who claimed a falling sky in the past weren't as wrong as those who made fun of them thought.) -Rob
Worlds collide in IBM-VA Software deal (News.com) Posted Aug 13, 2002 17:47 UTC (Tue) by minichaz (subscriber, #630) [Link] DB2?! People I have met from IBM say it sucks and internally they use it as little as possible. If what VA are using now does not come up to scratch then why not look at opensource/free alternatives like SAP DB and others?Little changes like this are cumulative. Please at least _consider_ taking your project else where if you are currently using SourceForge.
|
|||||||||||