Slashdot Log In
OSDL and The Free Standards Group to Merge
Posted by
Zonk
on Mon Jan 22, 2007 06:32 AM
from the straightforward-names-say-it-all dept.
from the straightforward-names-say-it-all dept.
Andy Updegrove writes "On Sunday afternoon, the Free Standards Group (FSG) signed an agreement to combine forces with Open Source Development Labs (OSDL) to form a new organization — The Linux Foundation. The result of this consolidation will be to dedicate the resources of the combined membership to 'accelerate the growth of Linux by providing a comprehensive set of services to compete effectively with closed platforms.' Jim Zemlin, currently the head of FSG, will lead the new organization as its Executive Director. The new organization will continue to support Linux in a variety of ways, including by providing economic support to Linus Torvalds and other key kernel developers, managing the Linux trademark, and providing legal protection to developers through such initiatives as the Open Source as Prior Art project, the Patent Commons, and the Linux Legal Defense Fund. All in all, a tall order, but eminently possible given its membership: The Linux Foundation's founding members will include every major company in the Linux industry, including Fujitsu, Hitachi, HP, IBM, Intel, NEC, Novell, Oracle and Red Hat, as well as many community groups, universities and industry end users."
Related Stories
[+]
Questioning the Linux Foundation's Credentials 94 comments
nadamsieee writes "Neil McAllister has posted a provocative article titled Questioning the Linux Foundation's credentials. He questions the motivations behind the newly formed organization. Quoting: 'But wouldn't it make more sense to call the merged organization the Open Source and Standards Lab, or the Free Software and Standards Group? Why did they have to go and call it the Linux Foundation?' McAllister then goes on to explain why he believes that 'the Linux Foundation isn't any kind of philanthropic foundation at all[,] it's an industry trade organization.'"
This discussion has been archived.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.
Oh fer chrissake (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Oh fer chrissake (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Oh fer chrissake (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I would have said Firefox, personally, but to explain why I'd have to make statements that could be construed as negative to Linux, and I'm not fool enough to do that on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh utter nonsense. It was more to do with customers saying the software they use must support it than the ODSL. Sure you could argue that the ODSL pushed the format to customers, but saying the ODSL was responsible? Naw.
Ophirkrysache (Score:2)
I can't find anything in parent post to agree with, and I did try to. Really.
I couldn't even find agreement with the spelling in PP's subject line.
I don't see anything negative about this merger of OSDL with FSG. Both have become increasingly focused on Linux; their interests have been converging for some time. Overtly recognizing this will allow the new Linux Foundation to speak with clear authority. That will increase the signal to noise ratio, decrease the opportunities for third parties to FUD the m
Bad or good idea (Score:5, Interesting)
a) A standards group must be independend. The FSG loses its credibility.
b) Patents risks cannot be combated with baseless tinkering and playing nice. Give a credible lobby group 1 million to build up an equivalent movement in the US as in Europe and US software patents will be gone within 3-4 years. In Europe they continue to exist because of the weakness of US advocats and their waste of money in superficial reform proposals (red herrings). Software patents are of abolutely no use. It is time to prepare a soft landing in Alexandria "to promote the sciences and the arts".
c) If you want patents to cause no harm and pose no risks let them lapse.
d) The strong US bias is a problem which will be regarded as a risk in the rest of the world, also given the insecure US legal situation (patriot act, DMCA etc.).
It is a good idea for these reasons:
e) A Linux foundation now represents "Linux" (the trademark, the founder, the LSB, perfect).
f) The package of services looks complete and gives certain gravity to the project.
g) The name is very catchy
What do you think?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For anti-software patent advocacy that groups would be real poison. Linux Foundation in favour of useless patent shield red herrings [ffii.org], this will make advocacy easy for patent agents which fight for their vested interests very well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OSD + FS != Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
All the world's NOT a Linux Box.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> many board rooms.
Just have a look at Firefox. I used Mozilla Software long before it was usable. I also installed every alpha version of Firefox, reported bugs. But the solodarity thing does not work. Mozilla Foundation is now very rich and can fund developers or attract m
Re:OSD + FS != Linux (Score:4, Interesting)
That's because Linux has become the de facto standard open source OS. If you check the press release, it's an agglomeration of companies that's funding the whole thing. What they want is a neutral platform which can be used by everyone. On one hand, the "other" GPL OS would be the Hurd, still in its infancy after a long gestation. OTOH, there are the BSD alternatives, but these are too divisive to be used as a standard. Since the BSD licence allows anyone to close the source, no corporation wants to fund a collaborative effort to develop a BSD OS.
Of course, the OS is just part of a software system, but it's a basic part. Without an independent OS, everyone would become Microsoft or Apple developer. The idea isn't to make the world a Linux Box, but to make it stop being a Microsoft Box.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I hoped that FSG as going to involve into "POSIX Next Generation". I'm not sure this merger helps this or hurts this yet, but at the very least, I suspect it weakens the trademark of Linux to mean "Linux compatible technology" ins
Re: (Score:2)
Why not...? (Score:2)
Free Software is represented by much more than Linux. In the operating systems area (well, Linux is just the kernel but let's not detail this too much) there is the BSD (having the same general market niche), there are several research operating systems, some real time, some very small, and so on.
On the application side, there are plenty of implementations for integrated development editor (Eclipse),
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Keyword is "Standard" (Score:2)
And which of these would you choose as a standard?
I find it funny that one of the criticisms people often make against Linux is "too many choices". But when someone says "OK, let's agree to a standard", people start complaining against that. Let's face it, once you agree to a standard, it becomes exactly that.
I think it's a big step forward that the industry (repr
Re: (Score:2)
I use Linux because it Just Works, but I prefer NetBSD because it's More Standard and Less Bloated compared to GNU.
(then again one could prolly get NetBSD's userland running on Linux/glibc?)
-uso.
Re: (Score:2)
Linux: Foundation Software (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux is the Foundation Software of the future.
OK, so now (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft already is its own standards committee. Thanks for playing, though.
Good Move (Score:5, Insightful)
This new name spells it out in clear text, which is great for all of us that don't use Linux; be it Solaris, BSD or whatever. It also means that OSDL will lose part of its meddling ability because its now in the open that it only exist to promote Linux and not other open source systems.
I love it, I wish more organisations and companies did the same; no more hidden agendas.
What about the other Free and Open Standards? (Score:1, Redundant)
Meh. What about BSD, the embedded systems like eCos/RTMS? GNU in general runs everywhere. MacOS X is based on Open Source.
Why only focus on Linux? OSDL used to be a bit Linux-biased but now this is just ridiculously narrow in scope, Linux just isn't suitable in every environment for every task.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? After all, differently from the other examples you cited, Linux *is* being used in every environment for every task.
When you choose a standard, the basic fact is that there can be only one, by definition. Of course, they could have different standards for different applications, but it only stands to reason that it's better to have the most general standard for as many applications as possible. Since Linux is the most widely used open s
Re: (Score:1)
Because the people behind this organization want to gain mainstream support, and they know that's something they will never be able to achieve if they take a UNIX-encompassing view.
Sun is already backing Solaris and it has much more weight to throw around than these organizations could ever dream of; I doubt they need to promote OSS as benefit to their operating system, especially considering that, in practice, Solaris is an enterprise platform that usually runs very heavy, very proprietary apps.
OS X has
Re: (Score:2)
People will buy a brand they've heard of, wether it's suitable for the task or not.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought they stood for free and open source software and open standards.
I guess that was wrong. At least they are being honest now, all they care about is Linux after all
Load up all the eggs in one basket. (Score:1)
A decentralized OS community is a strong one. An OS community where all the projects are crowded onto one or two servers (i.e. sourceforge) is one that is easily taken out by big competing entities (i.e. Microsoft)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Audio Interview with Jim Zemlin (Score:1)
Uh-oh (Score:3, Funny)
Rock -n- Roll (Score:1)
I love it...
Long Live Linus!!!
And feed him good for his work!!!
Thanks Linus!!
You've made my life better.
Thank You... and all the companies that have supported you.
I will direct my money in your direction.
Thank you all.
One cause, one direction, one goal!
Good day!
Other systems using Linux standards (Score:2)
However, it might not be so bad. Other systems are free to support "Linux standards". It might even be both closer to reality and good for a marketing perspective. At least the proprietary Unixen are increasingly sold as "a better Linux".
And it is worth remembering that Linux itself started of openly implementing Unix standards, not just the "neutral" Posix, but also th
Pros and cons (Score:2)
But on two levels I don't, primarily for a simple reason of naming -- Linux is not the the be all and end all of free standards (FSG) or open source (OSDL) -- Linux is a result of both.
My first objection is systems based. Assume I and a group of my peers develop the world's greatest new open source archit
Linux Foundation Champion... (Score:2)
but it's not dead Jim! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have just illustrated why Linux continues to languish in adoption by the general public. It isn't a kernel it's a freaking political ideology! Someone's choice of operating system shouldn't be about "winning". Someone isn't a "Microsoft employee" just because they chose a different OS than you.