OSDL and The Free Standards Group to Merge

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."

Oh fer chrissake

So rather than two organizations working towards open standards, we get one organization working towards competing against Microsoft. Brilliant. Where ODSL actually had some credibility while forcing Microsoft towards more open document standards, this new "Linux Foundation" just begs to be ignored as a competitor. Efffing brilliant.

T]he mission of the new organization is [to] help Linux, the leading example of the open-source model of software development, to compete more effectively against Microsoft, the world's largest software company.

/smacks head on desk

Re:Oh fer chrissake

The more we tighten our grip the more software will fall through our fingers. ....Oh wait, which ones are we Linux guys again, Rebels or Empire?

Re:Oh fer chrissake

Microsoft is the Empire. Apple is the Rebels. We are the Ewoks.

Bad or good idea

That is a bad idea for several reasons:

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?

OSD + FS != Linux

It keeps amazing me over and over again how "Open Source Development" and "Free Standards" somehow miraculously always seem to transform into "Linux" ...

All the world's NOT a Linux Box.

Re:OSD + FS != Linux

"Open Source Development" and "Free Standards" somehow miraculously always seem to transform into "Linux"

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.

Why not...?

Why not the Firefox foundation? Or the OpenOffice.org foundation?
      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), tens or hundreds of languages/compilers, plenty of Office clones or wannabe, graphic manipulation programs, and so on - in a list longer than a day of fasting.

      And all of this takes the name of "The Linux Foundation"? :(

Linux: Foundation Software

Is this a step in the direction to making Linux the defacto standard on which to build all future software? Such a platform will be needed one day, as security and reliability become all the more important, reinventing the wheel at this level will be no more.

Linux is the Foundation Software of the future.

OK, so now

So now, Microsoft should form it's own Commitee of Standards. Just to be fair, don't y'all agree?

Good Move

This is a good move, for the rest of us. Both these organisations where pretty much a Linux-only club; to say the least, at least extremely Linux-biased.

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?

JUST Linux?

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.

Load up all the eggs in one basket.

Subject says it all.

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)

Audio Interview with Jim Zemlin

Novell Open Audio plans to release an audio interview with Jim Zemlin about the merger at http://www.novell.com/feeds/openaudio/?p=127 [novell.com]. --Ted Haeger

Uh-oh

Stallman's not gonna like this. They forgot to call it GNU/Linux...

Rock -n- Roll

Linux Rocks!!!!

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

Like everybody else here, I thought it was strange to give up the cross-platform independence of, in particular, the Free Standards name.

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 the Open Groups Unix98 [wikipedia.org] set of specifications (which was basically SysVR4). Whenever there wasn't a very good reason to do otherwise, Linux would follow Unix98.

I assume other organizations can take a similar stance towards the Linux Foundation.

Pros and cons

I like this on one level: developing a stronger group with a unified vision and goal promoting open source development and free standards -- because those two are key to a non-corporate dominated future.

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 architecture -- that is not Linux. Will the Linux foundation support the open standards and open source efforts by making it easy to hook to it, etc.? Or am I and my peers now competitors?

The second is lesser because without corporate financial involvement, the proprietary solutions will always win by virtue of deep pocketbooks, lobbying, etc. So there has to be corporate buy-in in order for an open source approach to be viable in the future But Fujitsu, Hitachi, HP, IBM, Intel, NEC, Novell, and Oracle and have all been both black hats and white hats in the "Open Source" arena, so I have a level of distrust in their backing of a "single" organization under a single OS titled name.

My thoughs only. What do you think?

Linux Foundation Champion...

will be a lone geek with a sleek black impervious computer with a turbo boost and advanced artificial intelligent (for the 80's) that sounds like William Daniels.

Poor is good. Big makes easy targets.

One of the most effective things about Open Source and Linux is the small targets they have traditionally represented. Now I'm not advocating that Linux/Open Source/Free Software stay small and underground. I would love to see widespread adoption. I only wonder how the larger target is going to fair out. Companies like Microsoft can go after a slam dunk target and really hinder Linux/Free Software in more effective ways when it's consolidated instead of being represented by small, fragmented entities. Case in point: The only reason SCO went after IBM was because they had money. Notice that SCO didn't bother with Open Source Development Labs and kernel developers, which are poor for the most part. I echo the sentiment about keeping the various bodies separate and focused on their respective tasks. Hopefully their interests won't ever be in conflict with each other so they can continue to be effective.

"Full Disclosure" anyone?

Umm... can I get a "Full disclosure.. Slashdot is owned by the artist formerly known as OSDL" Zonk?

Standards? Hah!

The Free Standards Group is now for Linux only? What a freaking joke! Is the Linux community so insecure that it needs to have exclusive standards? Is its self-esteem so low it cannot stand to share a file system hierarchy with BSD or Solaris? What a bunch of stupid lusers...

but it's not dead Jim!

BDS is not dead yet!

Re:Sign of industry maturation

am also unable to be objective, as a holder of nearly 4,000 shares of LNUX.

Wow, I hope you didn't buy before 2002! LOL

Re:This old tune

This is perfect - this new 'Linux Foundation' has the oomph to say 'If you want the protection of the OSDL, you now have to adhere to the LSB! If you do not accept distro-independent packaging, you will not get our lawyer-umbrella!'

Re:Sign of industry maturation

I have written two MBA dissertations for Fortune 100 executives, for cash, with my name nowhere appearing, nor the nominal author's name or institutions to be disclosed, as this is a gray area, ethically.

Gotta love it. What is an academic-career-killer for the rest of us is an "ethical gray area" for the Moneybags.