OpenBRR Launches Closed Open-Source Group

An anonymous reader writes "eWeek is reporting that SpikeSource co-founder and CTO Murugan Pal and the Open Business Readiness rating have launched a new initiative designed to maximize open-source software knowledge across organizations. While they are targeting corporate and Wall Street CIOs and IT directors as members, the current plan is not to open membership of the new OpenBRR Corporate Community to all, but to offer it on an invitation-only basis 'to ensure that only trusted participants are coming into the system,' Pal said. This would allow members to discuss sensitive issues and share information without having to worry that it would be made widely public, he said."

Non-MS Open Source

to ensure that only trusted participants are coming into the system

Is this just a more polite way to say they don't want MS to join?

Re:Non-MS Open Source

14-year-old Lunix fanboys to join. Or Bruce Perens.

It's a fine line...

Isn't that a bit oxymoronic?

I guess the idea sounds kind of cool... "What if we could build ODF without Microsoft hijacking it?"

But isn't it a bit oxymoronic, and perhaps counter-productive, to do open source work behind closed doors?

Re:Isn't that a bit oxymoronic?

But isn't it a bit oxymoronic, and perhaps counter-productive, to do open source work behind closed doors?

Not so. This is not too different from the way Debian has a debian-private mailing list, which is open only to those who have been admitted to the project as full Debian Developers. Debian does that for protecting personal info (like vacation notices) and financial information. I am not sure that they are protecting the same type of information. However, sometimes things just have to be done behind closed doors. Hopefully, they will keep it as open as possible.

"Closed" Open Source

So it's only available to the people they want it open to? Isn't that how "proprietary" is also defined?

Re:"Closed" Open Source

"Open source" implies .... wait for it ... open source code! Nothing else. Many OSS organizations -- like Debian -- also have an open and democratic development methodology, but this isn't required.

I could get ten (or a thousand) of my best friends together, lock ourselves in a garage (warehouse), put a sign on the door that says "Windowz userz keep out!" and produce some piece of software, and then release it under the GPL without telling anyone about HOW we went about making up the code. Any internal documentation, functional specifications, etc., wouldn't need to be open. It's just the code that's protected under "open source." You can develop the software in any way you choose.

Not all open source projects have to be Debian-like. That's just one way of developing; not everything has to be done like that. There's nothing in the OSS licenses themselves -- we can argue philosophy until we're all dead, naturally -- that prevents OSS development from being just as much of a "sausage factory" as proprietary development.

Headline doesn't reflect article.

"Closed Open Source!"

When what really happens is that a set of industries try to meet up to discuss their common interests and how they can get it throug open source projects.

An example would be banks getting together to discuss how they would link up to each other's ATM's securely without having to use closed software.

Doesn't this defeat the purpose of open-source?

I don't know what they're trying to accomplish with this, but here's on statement that explains it:

Enterprise and corporate CIOs are faced with many product choices and alternatives, as well as with making decisions about new and legacy solutions, so being able to privately share information on these subjects is important, Pace said.

I do not see how this Pace guy can jump to that conclusion. Wouldn't it make more sense to have as much input as possible about possible software choices? Limiting discussion to an elite "in"-group will only inspire the commercialized corporate culture we are seeing today; exactly the opposite of what open-source is trying to accomplish.

Ok, so they make this point:

The guiding principles of this new community will be trusted, dedicated and self-moderated communities for sharing business-oriented open-source software information.

Okay, so reliable peer review--at least, this is what I think they're trying to say--is important. However, they are basically closing themselves out to everything else. If anyone disagrees, could you please explain why?

OpenBRR? Closet hippies...

Meanwhile, at the OpenBRR secret lair...

Stodgy CEO: "Close that door, Johnson!"
Johnson from Spike: "I'm on it, Sir. Its closed."
Stodgy CEO: "Now pass me those sandals. Do they have that Grateful Dead tie-dye in XXL?"

Closed Open Source

Before people start barking about open source being "closed", lets remember a little book that we all should have read. It was written by a bard named ESR, and is named "The Cathedral and the Bazaar". It tells a story about how many open source projects are, and still are, closed in the development process. These days, many are more transparent, but there is more than one closed one lurking about.

Good Grief

Open-source does not imply or require open development. An entity (compant, group, person) can develop a project behind closed doors, without any outside influence, and release the source code under the GPL, and it works. Others can tinker with the code all they want, but the original creator(s) are not required to accept any outside code into their project. If I decided to take the Linux 2.x kernel and start developing it away from the way Torvalds' team goes, not incorporate any future changes crafted by the present kernel team or anyone else, and create my own operating system based around this new kernel fork, as long as I make the source code available for free, I am within the terms defined by the GPL. Open-Sourcedness (is that a word) does not wrest control of the project away from those who create it. It just allows anyone else to use the code and benefit from someone else's experience and work to make whatever the thing is work better for them, improve upon the work, etc.

Summary: My code can still be my own under the GPL, but you can also make it your own, provided you follow the rules.

*yawn*

This would allow members to discuss sensitive issues and share information without having to worry that it would be made widely public

Blah blah blah. Suits make a big deal about keeping secrets when they don't have anything special. People with actual money-making ideas are too busy implementing them to worry about if their "secret" is kept. (Hell, most of them patent it, which is the exact opposite of a secret since the invention is then published in its entirety.)

Geez... can we go back to the 19th-century way where the owners didn't have to pretend they knew the first damn thing about how their company works? Now that they do, they come up with all kinds of ridiculous horseshit like this, which all has to be kept secret from our proletarian ears.

Very bad idea to flaunt non-publicity in public

'to ensure that only trusted participants are coming into the system'

Sounds like they took a bad clue from the guys of Stanford. There really is no legitimate reason (outside of bragging) - the "trusted participant" part is just a red herring if they intend to be "open". If anything it should advertise to steer clear of this organization and disregard what will be blackbox ratings.

This would allow members to discuss sensitive issues and share information without having to worry that it would be made widely public.

Somehow I dont think they're talking about financials here, and wanting to pull a Sveasoft style act - all the bad parts, none of any relevant or good.

St. Trinian's!

If the phrase "closed open shop" drift through your mind, you know what immediately came to mind. For those not in the know, "St. Trinian's" was a series of old, extremely dodgy TV movies involving sex, drugs, alcohol, high explosives, hockey sticks and an extremely violent school that would put several unintended meanings on the US phrase "no child left behind".

In one, where they completely fail to grasp the notion of a union, they end up deciding to form a closed open shop. The parallels between this and OpenBRR are unmistakable.

Confusion about "free" and "open", here?

Open source is not the same thing as free software, right? Open source software could even be much like any proprietary software. Remember, we want free software!

morons

Oooh look the boys are making a public announcement of their secret clubhouse. Are YOU cool enough to be invited?

Cue the openBBR invitation spoolers and the "oooh if anyone has an invitation hook me up" posts.

Clarification...

We welcome many of your comments listing the positives and negatives of the private mailing list to discuss industry vertical issues. At this moment we are open to both options, and in the process of compiling the feedback from CIO and Enterprise Architect type members of the corporate community. Corporate CIOs want a peer level forum to discuss common issues and leverage open source to solve their business problems. Hence, the proposal from OpenBRR's corporate community. If all the participating members want this to be an open forum we could keep it that way. It is a community driven initiative, more like a social networking group and the policies will be steered by the members. In addition, all the contents will be licensed under creative commons.

Re:FP?BS

Isn't your reply narrow minded in the interpretation of closed == "invitation only"? That is assuming you did read the FA? Microsoft has screwed up HTML, java and a bunch of internet protocols in an attempt to subvert developers into making MICROSOFT COMPATABLE products. Screw the fact that microsoft "extensions" don't work with the rest of the universe, usually add nothing to the feature base and corrupts the expansion of standards already implemented. Microsoft calls the shots. Ya I'M All For That. Cause I'm Living It.

Re:Oh no! Open source code made widely public!

Or at least not grasping your concept of it. Face it, not all uses of Open-Source software fall under GPL guidelines. It's important to remember that major software such as OpenSSH and OpenSSL are licensed otherwise and may be used for proprietary applications.

Re:Oh no! Open source code made widely public!

I'm not sure that you're grasping the nature of business.

This isn't a collection of nerds high on jolt and twinkies - this is a group of serious boardroom-type suits.

What theyr'e trying to do if figure out how Open Source can HELP them, and how they can "sell" the use of open source to their PHBs.

To do that, theyr'e gonna have to discuss a whole bunch of business concerns, and for it to be usefull, they're also going to have to get into some aspects of their companies that they will NOT want to become generally known.

Yes, they're looking after their own interests. Some of that is going to be how to figure out how to get feature X, Y or Z into the next relase of whatever 2.3.

But a lot MORE of their interest is in their businesses, and they want to discuss it with others who have the same problems and concerns, not a bunch of techies.