Slashdot Log In
IT Giants Accused of Exploiting Open Source
Posted by
Zonk
on Wed Jun 01, 2005 05:20 AM
from the do-your-own-work dept.
from the do-your-own-work dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A top European Commission official has accused major IT players such as IBM, HP and Sun of using the open source community as mere subcontractors rather than encouraging them to develop independent commercial products. Jesús Villasante, head of software technologies at the commission, said: 'The open source community today [is a] subcontractor of American multinationals. Open source communities need to take themselves seriously and realise they have contribution to themselves and society. From the moment they realise they are part of the evolution of society and try to influence it, we will be moving in the right direction.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
The Inverse (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Inverse (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:The Inverse (Score:5, Insightful)
Open source is the ultimate communist and ultimate capitalist tool.
On the one hand, successful open source development relies on the nature of man to contribute to a work without expecting a return - doing it just for the good of the community.
On the other hand, the GPL/LGPL/etc make it plain that, while you can sell open source software, you must also make available the source code, and anyone who purchases it now has the same rights as you do, and can give it away.
Communism: The community helping the community, for the sake of the community. Capitalism: The perpetual search for the cheapest solution.
Parent
Re:The Inverse (Score:4, Informative)
This is 100% false. Open Source relies upon the nature of markets: contributing to the market with the expectation of equal or greater returns.
Open Source isn't about altruism. Open Source functions because I have a need for software that doesn't exist, and I write that software (or portions of it). I expect my contribution to be used and improved on by others. Those improvements commonly occur in ways I either didn't expect, couldn't do myself, or simply didn't have the time to do. Those improvements may not even take place in the program that originated the code, but rather are implemented with pieces of my code that are put in unrelated software to which I later get access. Software that I wouldn't, or couldn't, have created myself is now available to me.
This expectation has been borne out unfailingly over the years.
That my contributions make the world a better place is a secondary concern. It's not that I don't care about making the world a better place, but normal rules of classical economics (i.e. the Invisible Hand) ensure that outcome. Which brings me to Free Software.
Even Free Software, which is driven by philosophy, isn't at all related to Communism. Free Software is driven by the idea that, with the unspoken assumption that software plays a central role in modern society, no one should be beholden to the providers of software. Free Software strives to make the world a better place, but it is no more Communism than the desire for political Freedom is Communism. Both Free Software and the desire for political Freedom draw from the same source (pun intended).
Parent
Re:The Inverse (Score:3, Insightful)
A: A fascist who thinks he's an economist.
-Old Joke
I'm not sure how one can compare anything as democratizing as Open Source with a system as control oriented as Communism. Propriety software is a much better fit for Communism than Open Source. The great unwashed users of proprietary software have little say or ability to alter second rate software from the unresponsive bureaucracies deep within the Kremlin of Redmond. Transparency and flexibility are traits found in free markets a
Re:The Inverse (Score:3, Insightful)
Communism != Planned economies. Just because the Soviet Union and other states had planned economies it doesn't mean that you should confuse the two. Marx believed that true communism would mean that the state would eventually wither away...
Re:The Inverse (Score:3, Interesting)
And that's why companies are going to run screaming from the GPL.
Not sure if this is FUD, so someone more knowledgable, please step up here.
From what I have heard ESR/RMS are considering requiring companies who derive revenue from GPL'd code (Amazon & Google for example) to provide a revenue stream back to the authors. This is a terrible idea... it sounds like a way of limiting the usage.
If so, I think the "Free" might go out of "Free Software
Re:The Inverse (Score:3, Informative)
If so, I think the "Free" might go out of "Free Software."
You're right, it is FUD - read this [columbia.edu]
Re:The Inverse (Score:3, Insightful)
Requiring payment even from for-profit uses of GPL software goes against freedoms 1 and 2 [gnu.org]. RMS is nothing if not consistent, and he has never expressed dismay at people making money off of free software before.
Re:The Inverse (Score:3, Insightful)
That's one thing that is going to change with GPL v. 3.
If that's true, all the Linux servers in the company I'm working for are going to be replaced by BSD in a matter of days.
Re:The Inverse (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The Inverse (Score:5, Informative)
That's right. Hardly a day goes by without IBM phoning me up, telling me what I have to write next, what coding style I must use and what format to use for the documentation. And they get really, really snotty if I blow the arbitarily short deadlines they set. I wouldn't be so bad if they didn't make me spend most of my day sitting in endless tedious meetings, and dealing with political crap that my boss can't be bothered to field because I'm only some scummy contractor...
I've done actual, real world subcontracting. That's a little unfair to some of my employers since I've had some good bosses, but but I've also had gigs that weren't far off what I described above.
I've written some open source software too. The experience is very different. I do what I want to do, according to my deadlines and my techniques. I write stuff that I will find useful, or in order to learn how do something. If other people find my work useful, that's how I measure the success of my labours.
I've been a subcontractor and I've coded open source. The two experiences are very different.
Parent
Hmph (Score:5, Insightful)
People write code because they enjoy it.
99.9% of the time what they do has no meaningful impact on 99.9% of existance.
People who write code because they think they're going to change the world never do.
--
Toby
Bah to your 'Hmph' (Score:5, Insightful)
Richard Stallman might disagree with you.
Parent
Re:Bah to your 'Hmph' (Score:5, Funny)
I'll take "How to know you're on the right track" for $1000, Alex.
Parent
Re:Bah to your 'Hmph' (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bah to your 'Hmph' (Score:3, Funny)
>Richard Stallman might disagree with you.
Might? Richard Stallman might think he's changed the world???
I think we can all agree that RMS believes he has changed the world.
-Adam
Re:Bah to your 'Hmph' (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, without Richard, we'd be stuck in the 80's or early 90's where all software is commercial crap, shareware crap, and all of the power over computer users would belong to big companies - forever locking them in and controlling their computer usage.
I'd say he changed the world more than say, a random prime minister of some country did.
Parent
Re:Bah to your 'Hmph' (Score:4, Interesting)
I can only guess that you where not around in the 80s. Not all software in the 80's commercial or shareware. There was also a ton of FREE SOFTWARE around before RMS started his religion. Think GCC was the first free c compiler? Look up small c sometime.
RMS didn't change the world. The real truth is if it was not for Linux there is a very good chance that RMS and GPL would be a footnote.
Parent
the hand which feeds you... (Score:5, Informative)
Open Source Community Likes This (Score:4, Insightful)
When you write software for pleasure, you like others to use it.
When others make loads of money from it, the feeling is mixed.
Everyone for themself (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone who contributes to open source has their own adjenda. Private individual programmers may just love using the community software, business may just love the low price tag. Who can complain when everyone (open) wins?
__
Laugh Daily funny free videos [laughdaily.com]
Re:Everyone for themself (Score:5, Interesting)
But what would stop you getting the sources, incorperating their improvements into your code, adding a new feature that people will want, but not enough people to justify the company developing it, and releasing it yourself, for free? Or even just taking the Open source code and releasing it for free, changing for support? Then the company is left changing for the same (or less featureful) product you are now giving away.
Open source cuts both ways. They can base their commercial app on your code, but you can base your code on their commercial app.
Swings and roundabouts really.
Parent
Re:Everyone for themself (Score:3, Interesting)
The BSD people are very aware of this, and work their collective behinds off to keep software free. But it's a trap for the unwary.
Remembe
He's right, but it doesn't matter (Score:3, Informative)
I guess an analogy is two fish swimming in a stream - at the moment the shark of big business is swimming alongside the remora of open source in the same direction, but should things change, both will take their gained advantages from the arrangement and swim away in different directions once more.
However corporations package it, the community is strong to its principles and will not be subverted for capitalism. Contrary to what Villasante says, the open source community does not need to actively work to achieve social change - by its very nature any success it will accrue will do that job for it.
The hand that feeds them (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, although the multinationals do have a lot to thank the OSS community for, I think the OSS community has a lot to thank the multinationals for in return. Take Open Office, where would that project be without Sun buying StarDivision in 1999 and open sourcing StarOffice 5.2 in 2000?
Personally I feel that the current relationship is symbiotic and works well. Sure in the future the OSS community should probably become less reliant on the multinationals, as long as they don't bite the hand that's fed them.
Re:The hand that feeds them (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
BS (Score:4, Informative)
Sun opened StarOffice in an effort to depieve MS of their monopoly. They also supported Linux for quite some time thinking that much of the sale would be in the MS market.
OpenOffice/StarOffice is making inroads into industry. It is obvious that this idea is working the way that Sun meant it to. The Linux route, though, has been killing Sun as well as Windows. They never thought that Linux could compete in numbers (financial or benchmarks).
With all that said, I do use and like kword. But every so often I use OO as it gets the job done nicely.
Parent
Re:The KDE runtime (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I enjoy my linux desktop best when I use wmaker or enlightment. But I will load Firefox and konqueror and not
Re:I HATE KWord (Score:4, Interesting)
LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!
I hate the software and avoid it because it crashed the first time I used it. And again. And again. It crashed whenever I wanted to change the typeface in a document. In other words, I had to conciously try to avoid the problem area every time I used the damn thing and it *still* crashed.
That was a pretty fundamental bug to have slipped through testing. What did it say about the rest of the product? Not something I'd want to have to rely on.
It was the equivalent of coming to a job interview with ketchup stains all over your shirt. You can change the shirt if it affects your ability to do the job, but the fact you didn't bother in the first place gives a bad overall impression of your attitude/abilities.
You know something? If I had a good reason to, I'd probably have given it another go by now. But I have OOo, MS Word and LaTeX, and I can't be bothered. Yeah, I'm human; KWord failed me repeatedly when I didn't have time to waste, and unless there's a compelling reason to give it another go, I'm not wasting time with it.
Parent
basically for the programmer... (Score:3, Insightful)
The side effect is that the code is also usable by third parties, even competitors (remember who ships samba with their unix products, or who ships linux with their hardware).
meh (Score:5, Funny)
Here is my analysis of open source... (Score:5, Informative)
A common misconception about open source is that because it is "free" it is somehow a charity operation where programmers work bene-vola because they want "to contribute".
This is, however, wrong. When Adam Smith said: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest", he was accurately describing a world in which self-interest creates mutually-beneficial structures.
Open source contributors are attracted for different reasons, depending on how far they understand and identify with the technology at hand. We can identify the self-interest of each role, while seeing that the overall structure serves everyone:
* "Users" will evangelise (seeking security in the company of others using the same technology).
* "Power users" will help others who have problems (seeking the kudos that comes from helping others).
* "Pundits" will discuss the technology in public forums (seeking the fame that comes from being able to accurately identify trends and future winners).
* "Insiders" will take on parts of the testing process (seeking better familiarity with a technology that may become an important part of their skill set).
* "Players" will delve into the technology itself, taking on smaller roles in the process (seeking the kudos and fame that can come from being on a winning team).
* "Key players" will take on major roles in the project (seeking to impose their ideas, turn a small project into a major success, or otherwise earn a global reputation).
* "Patrons" will provide financial support to the project (looking to sell services, often to the users, that require the technology to succeed and be widely used).
The naive view of open source focuses only on the players, ignoring the wider economy of interests. A successful open source project must attract and support all these classes of people (and others, such as the "troll", who vocally attacks the project in public forums, thus stiffening the resolve of the users and pundits who defend it).
Thus we can understand the needs of each role:
* Users need a pleasant and impressive product so they can feel proud about showing it to others.
* Power users need forums and mailing lists where they can answer questions.
* Pundits need pre-packaged press releases, insider tips, and the occasional free lunch. Some controversy also helps.
* Insiders need regular releases, frequent improvements, and forums where they can propose ideas for the project.
* Players need extension frameworks where they can write their (often sub-standard) code without affecting the primary project.
* Key players need badges of membership, and access to the right tools and support.
* Patrons need a high-quality and stable product that supports their services and additional products.
The only people working full time, and usually professionally, on an open source project are the key players. All the others will take part in the project as a side-effect of their on-going work or hobbies.
While a traditional software company must pay everyone in this economy except the users, an open source economy must only pay the key players, who make up perhaps 2-5% of the total. Further, the key players will work for significantly less than the market rate, since they also derive a real benefit from working on successful projects, which I call the open source "payload". The most important part of a future programmer's CV is the section titled "Open Source Projects". This is the payload. It translates directly into dollars, proportional to the impact and importance of the open source projects involved.
When compensation plus payload does not cover the cost of working on a project (in terms of loss of compensation for alternative work), the key player will suffer "burnout" after 12-18 months, more or less depending on the person's tenacity.
I believe the article 100% (Score:4, Funny)
ps - funny, not troll.
oh dear... (Score:5, Insightful)
We have to work like this. (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know who in the EC wrote the directive but it certainly does NOT encourage open source developers to become more indepentent. It scares developers into only developing under the protection of their feudal lord (ie, a large company who can afford and is interested in wasting money on patents and patent litigation)
Socialist vs. Capitalist Temperment (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's leave aside the fact that this paradigm has always been a crappy one. You can't look at this situation in isolation. It makes a difference for example what the laws are and who, in practice, gets to make them. It makes a difference what the labor and widget markets are like, and whether the skills needed to compete really are commodity skills. It makes a difference how the boss treats the workers in general.
Leaving aside the fact that such a paradigm pretty much leads to pointless arguments based on incompatible assumptions, the the fact that it does incite these arguments is instructive. How you react to it depends on whether you are socialist in temperment or capitalist.
The Socialist temperment in its extreme form automatically looks for an fixates on anything smacking of inequity. The Capitalist temperment is quick to dismiss the possiblity that inequity can exist; any economic transaction is in their view tautologically fair.
Breaking the Code (Score:3, Interesting)
He Said:
He Meant: He Said: He Meant: He Said: He Meant: He Said: He Meant: He Said: He MeantOr am attributing to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity?
I actually read the article, and I agree with him (Score:5, Informative)
I actually went and read the article, and (surprise, surprise), Villasante is really not saying what Slashdot reports that he's saying.
If you read the entire article, he's not specifically complaining that corporations are abusing the free coding of open source. What he is saying is that the corporations who release open source are also very responsible for lobbying for a lot of things that are later likely to inhibit open source development in the future. His working example is the European intellectual property legislation, that would ultimately inhibit open source in the wider view but is still being campaigned for by the likes of IBM and Sun.
His point is that open source is the future of the software industry for Europe, yet by putting these laws in place that will give more power to the multi-national corportions, Europe is inhibiting its own future software industry.
He's suggesting that open source developers are happily working with these corporations at ground level, but the same organisations might ultimately lead to a less productive open source model. This is what he means about the open source communities not taking himself seriously.
I'm inclined to agree with him in many respects. Being able to develop in conjunction with businesses is a win-win scenario in terms of actually getting software developed, but we shouldn't necessarily ignore what else these businesses are doing just because they're cooperating in one aspect.
Yes, so what? (Score:3, Informative)
If I hire you as a sub-contractor, what you write isn't your property, it's mine. If, OTOH, you are an open-source programer, then what you write is shared by you and me. And if, as is normally the case, the code is made publicly available, it could be considered a charitable contribution, just as if you requested that some or all of your paychecks be sent to UNICEF or something.
Admittedly, current accounting practices aren't set up to handle these types of values transfers, but that doesn't mean that they aren't occurring.
A matter of participation (Score:4, Insightful)
The words of a bureaucrat (Score:3, Insightful)
Ask the OS developers (Score:3, Insightful)
They can't expolit me ... I'm in a UNION! (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe Villasante should get together with Enderle and decide whose FUD to believe.
Open Soiurce gets what it deserves (Score:3, Interesting)
Open Source was a reaction on the, from an american view-point "too business unfriendly" Free Software, to get acceptance from and win supporters among businesses and thus make the free software more popular and ubiqous.
However in taking the descission to promote the licenses this way, one did not only distance oneseleves from the idealistic Free Software advocates, but also from the leftists, who, in the rest of the world aren't as few and unimportant as in the US. I think that one could argue that this descission was taken on a bit too US-centric arguments.
As if (Score:4, Interesting)
If the problem is truly that IBM and the like are selling branded Open Source, and people are buying it, then the GPL will lubricate the production of competitors for 'IBM Open Source.' If this official somehow wants society to realize that IBM software isn't so different from, say, Debian software, well then I hope he's got the cash to market to the purchasing managers.
I contend that the "Open Source Community" is taking itself seriously, which is why more and more of these programmers are becoming subcontractors. Hell, a lot of the kernel work is done by people paid by big companies to do so. If it appears to be a complete mess, its because, in part, it is so. Amatuers and professionals alike can write software; by saying something close to "you want IBM Open Source" IBM is putting its professional word behind the software. Open source is not a centrally planned economny, no matter how many people have told you that the GPL reeks of socialism and that RMS echoes the rhetoric of famous Communists.
Re:Getting sick of European leaders trashing Ameri (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm also getting sick of people on Slashdot trashing America.
I'm also sick of people on Slashdot trashing Slashdot (figure that one out).
There really is nothing quite like sitting at dinner with an American girl explaining to her dining companions, all or almost all American, what a bunch of heathens we are, and how much we could learn from those overseas. What really bothers me is that this is intended to somehow exempt them from judgement. Americans explaining how dumb their countrymen are really do not sound any more intelligent for having done so.
Parent
I agree (Score:4, Insightful)
All of our transatlantic problems are because of that simple quandry. Europe sees that America's trade policies are trashing its way of life. But Europe doesn't have to follow them. Europe doesn't have to have giant economic growth and doesn't have to try and become a unified alternative to America. Those are European decisions, not American ones. IF Europe wants to have a slower economy and fall behind economically but have more social stability, then let it.
What I hate is blanket statements. Americans are a bunch of heathens that should be more integrated with the world. Americans don't understand foreign countries. Americans are stupider than their more civilized European counterparts. I mean, America has more people in more countries, both in businesses and in the military, then no nation in the world has ever had. America leads in many areas of research, has a robust economy, and yet, we're "stupid".
Look at how much Europeans trash Texas. I'm no fan of that whole Southern Texas thing, but, if Texas were a country, it would be comparable to many European States in terms of economic activities. It's certainly larger!
Parent
Re:Getting sick of European leaders trashing Ameri (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Intelligent Design (Score:3, Insightful)
How can you get anyone on the right, or the left to agree with you? ;o)
The overarching assumption of our time is that all change is the product of, and requires intent; if the intent is not in man, it must be God's. In our post-Christian [European] era, that which is not the product of the 'will' of a corporation must be that of a state entity, or else explicitly goodwill of a collection of individuals.
Natural selection is n