Gould: Oracle to Red Hat: It's Not Your Father's Linux Market Anymore

Mr. Gould:

I have been paying fairly close attention to open source software development (as software and as a movement or phenomenon) for something approaching 2 decades, and I have rarely known the term "proprietary" to be used the way you define it, whether in a commercial or open source context, with a single categorical exception: by senior executives or leaders of major software firms, or their mouthpieces, in an attempt to obfuscate or minimize the differences between their offerings and a perceived competitor's offerings, or more recently and commonly, to obfuscate any perceived benefits to open source software.

Examples of people who have gone to great lengths to attempt to redefine the term proprietary, as well as other terms crucial to the identity and benefits of open source software, include Steve Jobs, Steve Ballmer, Bill Gates, Scott McNealy, and of course, Larry Ellison. Usually (uh, actually, always), these re-definitions of key open source terms or concepts are crafted in a way as to render the term meaningless as a way of distinguishing between two or more options. Your re-definition of "proprietary" does exactly that. I assure you that the vast majority of informed people would agree that to be proprietary there must be meaningful constraints on the reproduction of a product that go beyond the mere manual effort required to replicate some small portion of the total work that went into the creation of that final product. In this context such constraints include legal constraints, obfuscation, and limitations on the availability of the source code.

Given the above, you should not be surprised that you may be accused of serving as a shill for Oracle or Larry Ellision, even if that was not your intent. Either way, this element of your piece draws into serious question your qualifications as a Tech Analyst, your analytical capabilities, your objectivity, or any combination thereof.