Why Open Source Will Rule

[Germ]

Eric Raymond: Why open source will rule
By Matthew Broersma ZDNet News
March 29, 2002

Eric Raymond believes Linux is on a roll.

Raymond is best known as the co-founder, with Bruce Perens, of the Open Source Initiative (OSI) to promote Linux and other "free" software to businesses in a language they could understand. The OSI has largely succeeded in its aims, Raymond says, with backers like IBM heavily promoting Linux and big companies adopting the operating system for both back-end systems and desktops. Raymond is also the author of The Cathedral and the Bazaar and other open-source texts.

http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupda...105560,00.html

[lost-and-found]

<Homer Simpson Voice>"mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....Open Souuuuuurrrrrceee"</HSV>

Hey, that's some great news for O.S. I have used linux for abou a month now. Hasn't crashed on me once. And I had to restart my windows PC twice already (this morning). When people see the 3 installation disks for Lycoris Linux, they're laughing and saying "haha, you need <b>3</b> disks for Linux? You only need 1 for windows" Later they walk away when I tell them that on these 3 disks I have everything I will ever need. From free OS to free Office tools.

[CMonster]

"rule?" -I'd be content just to see Linux as a member of Parliament

[linux_guru]

Rule ???

Micro$oft says: "Open Source is a destroyer of intellectual property."

[storm2k]

open source only works if people stop assuming that everyone else is looking at code (which is supposed to be one of the MAJOR selling points of the osi) and as more and more big holes start to appear in code (ala zlib, a huge security backpedal for a community that likes to think itself invaunerable), the idea of open source itself will start to take on water.

other thing imo is that it's kind of hard to encourage you to write some new and knock em dead software if i'm just gonna go change a few things in the code and redistribute it. and even though things like the gpl should prevent this from happening (without me at least acknowledging you), but we all know it happens anyway. no developer/company who spends a boatload of money and time developing their software wants to release it to a community that will turn around and send it on without proper acknowledgement. also, there are a lot of people who do not get this idea that just because something isn't released under the gpl that it's evil microsoft influenced licenses. who wants to develop anything if the armchair open source cops (most of whom have never written a line of code in their lives) are going to bash it as evil and immoral or something because it's not gpl'ed..

honestly i support a kind of limited open source model, kind of like apple attempted with its darwin development (although that wasn't THAT open, but the idea was there). i think this will allow the true merits of open source to continue, namely the abilty for other coders to see someone's code, to contribute their ideas and fixes and to say "hey this doesn't work" or "hey this will let someone hack your customer's computers" and to let new and innovative ways of doing computer stuff continue, but will let the software author keep all of their intellectual and proprietary rights to the software. i think if an author wants to let someone else adapt and redistribute their code, that's fine, but the choice should remain with them. if they don't, they shouldn't have to feel the sting of the armchair os cops berating them for not following their beloved gpl. now the downside to this is that it would give people the right to charge whatever they want for software, HOWEVER, i think it's the kind of encouragment that most companies would need to develop software for a platform like linux on anything other than the high end server platform, where most software is proprietary anyway, gpl be damned.

now of course i stand to take a lot of flack from this idea, mostly from the limited few who have felt extremely antagonized by my views on linux and open source in the past, but i will stand by what i have written as a FEASABLE means to balance the idea of open source with the reality of commercial software development... in my mind anyway...

[SpookyEddy]

I agree with the above sentiments from everyone

Just a few of my own ideas

Quote:

and as more and more big holes start to appear in code (ala zlib, a huge security backpedal for a community that likes to think itself invaunerable)

Well the zlib double free bug actually affects a whole load of OS's including CISCO firmware & MS. I think its better that the bug gets detected in an open source environment than stays hidden in a closed source system, but thats just IMO.

Quote:

just because something isn't released under the gpl that it's evil microsoft influenced licenses.

[CMonster]

Quote:

other thing imo is that it's kind of hard to encourage you to write some new and knock em dead software if i'm just gonna go change a few things in the code and redistribute it. and even though things like the gpl should prevent this from happening (without me at least acknowledging you), but we all know it happens anyway.

You really need to sit down for 30 minutes and read the GPL -actually the GPL insures the right that you have to copy, make copies, and redistribute GPL/open source software. You can also change the program and redistribute it -but you must pass on the licensing rights.

If you are worried about writing a "killer app" and getting paid for it then write it closed source and distribute it under a different license -there are quite a number of licensing models. Software does NOT have to be opensource or GPL to run on Linux .

[pbharris]

Quote:

Originally posted by CMonster


<snip> quite a number of licensing models. Software does NOT have to be opensource or GPL to run on Linux .

really good point CMontser - I sure don't expect someone to spend a year writing a program and then release it under GPL and not get one cent for it. I am ahppy to purchase software for Linux.

But when you grab a program off that is GPL'ed, spend a few hours putting your own custiomizations in and then try to make big $$ off what is basically someone elses work then that is wrong. And *THAT* is why the GPL exists.

[storm2k]

no it doesn't have to be open source, but the whole point of that guy's article was that being open source is what's propelling linux and downing microsoft, and what i had to say is a reaction to that. i think that in his mind, anything that's not open source is evil, gpl or no gpl...

[CMonster]

Yeah, Perhaps that is his mindset. I like both models.