Open Source Community's Double Standard 336
AlexGr writes to point out a really good point Matt Asay raises in his CNET News Blog: Why do we praise closed source companies who open up a little bit, but damn open source companies who close down a little bit? "Deja vu. Remember 2002? That's when Red Hat decided to split its code into Red Hat Advanced Server (now Red Hat Enterprise Linux) and Fedora. Howls of protest and endless hand-wringing ensued: How dare Red Hat not give everything away for free? Enter 2007. MySQL decides to comply with the GNU General Public License and only give its tested, certified Enterprise code to those who pay for the service underlying that code (gasp!). Immediately cries of protest are raised, How dare MySQL not give everything away for free?"
Re:Human Nature (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not the product of their mind, not the product of their efforts.
It's the product of many peoples minds and efforts.
The administrators of the projects should be appreciative of that fact.
It is not their property. Laws can say what they want, lawyers and contracts and twisting of justice aside, it simply isn't theirs.
When open source organizations try to close access and extract money from people, they become malignant, corrupt, thieving organizations.
Declaring that it's legal for someone to do this doesn't change the fundamental nature of what's going on.
The misplaced sense of entitlement these organizations display is truly disgusting.
We did not cry out because RH charged for RHEL (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, a product my company created required 80+ hours of testing for minor version changes in critical software components. With 5 people on staff, that was an incredible expense, therefore we craved stability. Then, RHL was gone. *poof* just like that. We thought we could count on them and they changed the game on us.
I don't dislike RedHat's new business model, but I felt that after such a sudden and unexpected change in their support policy I could not trust them any longer. Later that year Ubuntu came out and I began experimenting with it (and debian). Now I have Ubuntu LTS which is supported by the vendor for 5 years, and I can call the nice guys in Montreal whenever I have a problem.
Re:Human Nature (Score:5, Interesting)
Organizations have a lot of inerta. It takes a concerted effort to restructure.
When a closed source organization starts becoming more open, it took a lot of hard work and restructuring to make it possible.
When an open source organization starts closing things up, it takes a lot of hard work and restructuring to make that possible too.
Which means the people at the helm are working hard to start hoarding things they were given in trust for the public good.
It reveals that the organization has a poor moral character.
Re:The blurb is actually pretty accurate (Score:3, Interesting)
There's lots of them, actually (Score:2, Interesting)
As always you fall into the trap of thinking people (normal people, you know, out there in the real world) somehow subscribe to your unquestionable religious techno babble rather than simply wanting to use their computers to get work done. "Freedom" as promoted by people like you must be absolute, expressed in pure black and white. Reality is much more complicated than that, and the more you "evangelize" this type of argument, the less people will sign up for your nirvana.
As for your always tiresome prediction that "M$" is about to go under, good luck. It's going to take a lot more than silly little lie-infested lists [slashdot.org] and wasting your time preaching to the choir.
Why don't you spend 1/10th of the energy you expend on FUD'ing Microsoft by lobbying OSDN (or OSTG or whatever it's called this year) to open up the software that hosts the vast majority of free software projects in the planet? Now that would be a worthy cause.
If its open source and I contributed where my $$$. (Score:1, Interesting)
Now, I have no incentive to support your open source code at any level.
Thank you very much, F**K OFF.
(ding my Karma down again, cuz i know what i dont like)
Re:The blurb is actually pretty accurate (Score:2, Interesting)
You are correct and are completely dodging what parent is stating.
Parent is stating that it is unethical for RMS to say that people shouldn't be allowed to charge for software; not that he is not free to do something other than what RMS wants.
The inherent flaw in the thinking is that all freedom is equal and that freedom means equality. What is freer someone's "right" to free software or my right to charge for it if I want? They are obviously not equal and yet they are both free. It all depends on your own prejudices and values. For instance, I believe that software should be free or not-free dependent on the author so the latter form of freedom is more free to me but not to someone else. I also believe that if they want said software for free that they are free to write it themselves which is freedom (though they will soon find that their time is not free, even to themselves) and they'll probably end up wanting to pay me for it.
Re:Why do we praise slave states (Score:3, Interesting)
Witness the latest Fox news-style false-logic bomb being lobbed at the FOSS community. The stupidity of this argument is mind-boggling. It uses loaded terms to imply some logical (and therefore moral/ethical) disconnect in people's behaviour, then uses that to buy acceptance for the very thing we despise the most.
Why do we applaud companies who open their code? Because we like Free Software. Why do we disparage those who take steps to close down their code? Because we like Free Software.
There is nothing inconsistent about this approach. Most people's reaction to MySQL AB's tempest in a teacup was driven by a few 'journalists' who grossly misrepresented the issue (Zonk, I'm looking at you, too). Now I'm beginning to think there might be some method behind their flame-baiting. This feels far too much like a one-two punch to me.
As far as RedHat's restructuring goes, it was mis-handled and RedHat rightly had to eat some crow before they set themselves to rights again. Were they measured against a higher standard? Yes. It was a standard that they set for themselves when they portrayed themselves as a FOSS standard-bearer.
Let me also point out the difference between GPL compliance and supporting FOSS. The GPL (and its sibling licenses) are the single most significant expression of support for the Four Freedoms. But there are other approaches, and one's responsibilities extend beyond that license. Like every other legal document in the world, the GPL has flaws and loopholes. I cannot respect someone who adheres to the letter of the GPL while at one and the same time subverting the Four Freedoms. So when a project backs away from it, they tend to get closely scrutinised.
But let's be clear: MySQL AB passes that scrutiny. Mis-reporting notwithstanding, they continue to show a healthy respect for Free Software and the GPL. I can't say I hold the people who distorted what they did in the same high esteem, mind you.
I have one last thing to say about this cheap-ass excuse for journalism: I don't give a flying woohoo whether Linus agrees with you or not. That's a logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority. Linus, who I am sure is a nice person, and who I know to be a good project manager, is just a guy. Someone with whom I happen to disagree on a number of issues. This kind of rhetorical approach is reminiscent of that kid in high school who was always ingratiating himself with the coolest guys and agreeing with everything they said. Message to the Matt Asay: we all hated that kid's guts. So cut it out.
Re:The blurb is actually pretty accurate (Score:5, Interesting)
OK - I write this wonderful program, spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on testing and design and create it in such a way that the vast majority of users don't need any support. That's great, that's the holy grail of programming.
And I'm supposed to run this company how?
Re:The blurb is actually pretty accurate (Score:3, Interesting)
MySQL's source is as open as before (Score:5, Interesting)
To all Slashdotters,
Your comments are appreciated and we take your input seriously. Just to make sure that all facts are correct: we have not closed the source. MySQL continues to be GPL as before.
We have only made a change in relation to binaries. Community binaries are available as before, MySQL Enterprise binaries are provided to our customers. We are highly grateful both for those who count themselves as users and those who count themselves as customers. And the binaries are produced from GPL source code so of course you are all in your full rights to modify, compile, redistribute etc. as before.
The rapid innovation rate in and around MySQL is very much a reasult of the product being licensed under the GPL. Look for instance at MySQL Cluster and MySQL Proxy which are innovations from us, or at the SPASQL modification made by Eric Prud'hommeaux: http://www.w3.org/2005/05/22-SPARQL-MySQL/XTech [w3.org]
I look forward to more of your comments and suggestions.
Marten Mickos, CEO, MySQL AB
No, it's called Zealotry. (Score:1, Interesting)
a) you have no real power
b) there is a third option, to do nothing at all
c) what is the reward? In business it is money.
It is not called Shaping.
It is called Zealotry.
Shaking hands with your supposed "enemy" for a token gesture and then hanging your "ally" for doing something they see will allow them to survive in the marketplace. Something that, ironically does nothing to further your supposed "cause".
You moralize while simultaneously forgiving the large abuses and crucifying the small; rewarding the token gestures and ignoring the large sacrifices.
Re:Mod parent up please (Score:3, Interesting)