Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business Software Linux

OSDL and The Free Standards Group to Merge 97

Posted by Zonk 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OSDL and The Free Standards Group to Merge More

OSDL and The Free Standards Group to Merge

Comments Filter:

  • Oh fer chrissake (Score:4, Insightful)

    by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Monday January 22, 2007 @06:47AM (#17709196)
    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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The word "Microsoft" doesn't appear in the press release or anywhere else I can see on the linux foundation website, you appear to be quoting the opinion of the NYT journalist directly or via consortiuminfo.

    • Re:Oh fer chrissake (Score:4, Funny)

      by bigtomrodney ( 993427 ) * on Monday January 22, 2007 @06:56AM (#17709232)
      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?
    • Where ODSL actually had some credibility while forcing Microsoft towards more open document standards
      Errrr. Exactly where was this happening?
    • "Linux, the leading example of the open-source model of software development"

      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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by blowdart ( 31458 )
      Where ODSL actually had some credibility while forcing Microsoft towards more open document standards

      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.

    • 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

    • I disagree. Forming a single entity allows for greater unity in the Linux community. It will also allow for Linux to better compete with Microsoft, since the two largest sources of corporate support are now united. I look forward to seeing what benefits come from the creation of the Foundation.

  • Bad or good idea (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Elektroschock ( 659467 ) on Monday January 22, 2007 @06:49AM (#17709208)
    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?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by irlkersten ( 953385 )
      a) A standards group must be independend. The FSG loses its credibility.
      Yay! It'll be like a Micosoft sponsored survey :-P

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by doti ( 966971 )
      I think that e) belongs to the "bad idea" group.
      • Politicians need someone to talks to. But who represents Linux? Difficult. Invite Richard Stallman or Alan Cox? No the best idea but it happens all the time. Linux Foundation sounds to an uninitiated reader as the name of a benevolent organisation behind Linux development.

        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:1)

      by jo42 ( 227475 )
      Where does one signup to join this new religion?
      • In fact it reminds me more of a kingdom. The Linux trademark here ressembles an empire crown. When Linux Foundation controls the Linux trademark would it be willing to let an initiative "Eurolinux" lobby against software patents? I think the GPLv3 addressed the problems with patents but what about the Linux trademark? Will I have to rename my new "Elektrolinux" distribution to "Elektrognu" because the Linux foundation does not like me and I criticised them in public? Or because I don't adhere to certain FSG

  • OSD + FS != Linux (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Daeron ( 4056 ) on Monday January 22, 2007 @06:51AM (#17709220)
    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: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I agree. But you have to admit that free software can appeal to more people when it is united under a common name that is not "FOSS" or "FLOSS" or "OSDL" or whatever. If we need something central to channel the efforts of the OSS community and expose more of the general public to the benefits of OSS, then it may as well be linux.
      • Then why not Firefox? Firefox has a market share in the public eyes (what Joe Sixpack would use) much greater than Linux (with all its variants like Lindows, Gentoo, Knoppix and so on) compared to Windows 98, Me and XP.

    • Re:OSD + FS != Linux (Score:4, Interesting)

      by mangu ( 126918 ) on Monday January 22, 2007 @07:16AM (#17709288)
      "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.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by g2devi ( 898503 )
        But you're missing a key point. Most of FSG standards are implemented on BSD, MacOSX/Darwin, and Solaris too and many can be migrated to Windows too. By labeling this as "Linux", it's essentially saying that all others need not apply unless they do things the Linux way.

        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:1)

        by PzyCrow ( 560903 )
        The problem is that GPL and GNU was created (and much work went into it) with the explicit purpose of promiting freedom. When GPL, GNU and Free Software is suddenly transformed into Open Source and Linux it is a huge disservice to those people who created GNU for the simple reason that most Linux based systems doesn't respect or promote the freedoms that GNU was created to promote.
    • Have to admit, I was thinking the same thing. Granted, I use Linux and tend to think about it when I hear about Open Source but I know that's just me, there's a lot of people who think Firefox, BSD, and even little gems like Audacity. The name alone is going to hurt them I think. Linux is a wonderful face of Open Source but certainly not the one I'd use to portray ALL Open Source/Free Standards. Why not something like, "Free and Open Group," or "FOG?" I dunno, just off the top of my head.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by PenGun ( 794213 )
        Linux is free software. Open sores uses free software for it's own often less than free purposes. Oh why do I bother, it's just the top of your head, Anything in there?
    • Don't worry, I heard a rumour that there is another foundation, operating in secret, somewhere in this universe, set up as a check to this foundation should it become too powerful.
    • All the world's NOT a Linux Box. ...yet. ;)
    • I think they've just decided to acknowledge that Microsoft is not going to support open standards, Apple and Sun don't need foundations devoted to them, and BSD folks will probably support the Linux Foundation anyway.

      Linux was the final piece to a completely open system; the community is vital and committed; and the name, as far as branding goes, sounds like a cross between "lean" and "sex". No recursive or double-recursive acronyms, a theme of pragmatism as the motivation for open-source development -- Lin

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by arkaino ( 972287 )
      That indeed is the best example one can find for a "funny && sad" thing at the same time.
  • 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),

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by rumith ( 983060 )
      They're not saying they're going to support every single FOSS piece of software written. There is Mozilla to guide Firefox, and OOo to watch over OpenOffice, and Apache foundation to support Apache webserver and a ton of other projects. So why not a foundation whose goal is SPECIFICALLY to help Linux [the kernel and everything LSB-related] evolve? I can't see your point.
    • 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

      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)

        by dosius ( 230542 )
        Why, NetBSD of course - they don't pay lipservice to standards but are actively aiming at being a free AND fully POSIX-compliant OS and seem to be headed more in that direction than Linux or GNU (I am recognizing here Linux distros' dependency on GNU).

        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:1)

          by PenGun ( 794213 )
          Yeah NetBSD is gonna let me accelerate my games and throw HDTV to my Sony. No. Standard is nice but the real world is the real world.

            Because Linux _is_ the standard *nix I can get Nvidia blobs to sully my purity and crank my video. As there is FreeBSD support one might be able to hack up something but then NetBSD would be sullied and perverted ;).
    • > 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.

      It may not have been good for you, but I feel like I need a cigarette after reading that.

    • I also can't understand the naming. Free and open standards are one of the most important things today a organisation like the "Free Standards Group" could do a great job in this area. Now merging this into a "Linux Foundation" just doesn't fit.

      >Free Software is represented by much more than Linux.

      If you want a Foundation which cares about Free Software in general why don't support one of the Free Software Foundations? They exist exactly for this task. I don't know where you living but today you can

  • Linux: Foundation Software (Score:4, Insightful)

    by POds ( 241854 ) on Monday January 22, 2007 @07:16AM (#17709290) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • So now, Microsoft should form it's own Commitee of Standards. Just to be fair, don't y'all agree?
    • So now, Microsoft should form it's own Commitee of Standards.


      Microsoft already is its own standards committee. Thanks for playing, though.

  • Good Move (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FullMetalAlchemist ( 811118 ) on Monday January 22, 2007 @07:26AM (#17709318)
    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.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by PenGun ( 794213 )
      The hidden agendas are all in your mind. It makes perfect sense to bring this under one "Linux" roof then the vestigial OSs can wither and die at their own pace. OSS my ass.
  • 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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mangu ( 126918 )
      Linux just isn't suitable in every environment for every task.

      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

    • 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)

      by Bert64 ( 520050 )
      Neither is windows, but microsoft are pushing it into every orifice...
      People will buy a brand they've heard of, wether it's suitable for the task or not.
    • No offense meant to any of the non-Linux free software crowd, but...

      Maybe they only care about Linux?
      • Huh.

        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 :(
  • 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)
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by DogDude ( 805747 )
      I think you're wrong. I don't know what you mean by "taken out by big competing entities" is supposed to mean. Companies can compete with each other, but I don't know what "taken out" means. More importantly, this kind of thing is sorely needed. The current state of OSS is a mess. There are no standards, and every system is some hodgepodge mix of lots of competing products, none of them working together well. Right now, I can call Microsoft, and get them to sell me all of the software my business need
  • 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 (Score:3, Funny)

    by reacocard ( 1043858 ) on Monday January 22, 2007 @08:26AM (#17709522)
    Stallman's not gonna like this. They forgot to call it GNU/Linux...
  • 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!
  • 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 th
  • 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 archit

  • 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.

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

Slashdot Top Deals

We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan

Close