A think tank's view of free software

Posted May 9, 2007 18:42 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
In reply to: A think tank's view of free software by hans
Parent article: A think tank's view of free software

A lot of the companies Jon mentioned, like SugarCRM, should not really be referred to as Open Source at all. They use badgeware licensing.

Bruce

to post comments

A think tank's view of free software

Posted May 9, 2007 19:12 UTC (Wed) by hans (guest, #148) [Link] (2 responses)

Okay, let me clarify what I meant. I am in no way defending the sponsors of the event. However, I do believe that the commentary is misleading in that it ignores the fact that there were a large number of non-sponsoring participants who, in fact, are very much FOSS companies. There is no indication from reading the commentary that any other companies are involved other than the ones listed.

I don't think Jon intended to mislead anyone, but the phrasing of the commentary was nevertheless misleading, at least in my opinion.

A think tank's view of free software

Posted May 10, 2007 4:25 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] (1 responses)

> I don't think Jon intended to mislead anyone, but the phrasing of the commentary was nevertheless misleading, *at least in my opinion*.

Given that it's fairly clear that the sentence as written was an expression of editorial opinion, is it asking too much that you settle at "I disagree with you" without feeling the need to call LWN's editorial integrity into question?

A think tank's view of free software

Posted May 10, 2007 15:21 UTC (Thu) by hans (guest, #148) [Link]

Given that it's fairly clear that the sentence as written was an expression of editorial opinion, is it asking too much that you settle at "I disagree with you" without feeling the need to call LWN's editorial integrity into question?

No, in this case "I disagree with you" would not suffice. I don't disagree mainly with the opinions expressed, but with the presentation of the facts. Others may disagree that the presentation of the facts was misleading, which is why I added the phrase that you emphasized. But that is not the same as saying that I simply disagree with the editorial opinion.

Should I have used the phrase "borders on dishonesty", even though that was used in the original commentary? Probably not. Although that was my initial impression after reading the report and comparing to the commentary, upon further reflection I believe that it was a reckless accusation. But that does not negate the substance of my original criticism.

However, since I did not intend to start a flame war, and have neither the time nor the energy to maintain one, let me just leave it at this: I believe that the commentary does not live up to the excellent quality and high standards that we've come to expect from LWN content.

Okay?

A think tank's view of free software

Posted May 9, 2007 19:53 UTC (Wed) by mattflaschen (guest, #45185) [Link]

I think this should be emphasized. The key line in the report for me is: "This makes OSI the official keeper of the open source brand. However, many in the commercial open source world believe that their needs and concerns are not adequately represented on the OSI board." I interpret this (based on this report, but also the OSI mailing list traffic of late) to mean the group of companies approximately equivalent to DLA Piper and the Open Solutions Alliance (http://www.opensolutionsalliance.org/) may be considering co-opting the Open Source Initiative (and thus the Open Source Definition)'s role in arbiting the meaning of "open source". Already, SugarCRM and other companies are describing the MPL+Exhibit B license (e.g. http://www.sugarcrm.com/crm/SPL) as "open source" even though it has not been approved by OSI and on the face seems clearly non-compliant. I would ask that people use open source to mean the licenses (http://opensource.org/licenses/index.html) approved by OSI. Remember, we're the market they want to decide.