Updates from May, 2007 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Roberto Galoppini 12:09 pm on May 12, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Open Source Links: 12-05-2007 

    Alan Shimel Should Stop Talking About Snort’s Licensing – Thomas Ptacek and Alan Shimel keep discussing about GPL compliance.

    Open source is bad for vendors – Yet another Dana Blankenhorn suggestion.

    Unisys shows acceptance of open source in biz application – It is still the Open Source Economy, System Integrators!

    OpenOffice.org in Education: A Roundup – a roundup into a set of references that could easily and quickly be investigated, by Ross Brunson, Linux Solutions Specialist at Novell.

    The Japanese government looks to go open source – The Japanese government said it wants to decrease its reliance on Microsoft as a server operating system platform.

    FSF still working to achieve Apache license compatibility for GPL 3 – The Free Software Foundation is working hard to establish compatibility between GPLv3 and Apache License.

    Technorati Tags: Apache, Commercial Open Source, FSF, GPLv3, Japan, OpenOffice, Snort

     
  • Roberto Galoppini 6:52 pm on May 7, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Open Source Google: Queplix CRM 

    Steven Yaskin, Queplix Chief Technology Officer, asked me to review his recent creation, an Open Source Customer Care web application named QueWeb Customer Care, made available also for download (requires registration) under an MPL + attribution license (QPL license).

    To boldly go by Cadigan

    Queplex was announced on the 23th of April, and apparently is the first commercial software built on Google Web Toolkit – an open source Java framework designed to deploy AJAX applications – chosen for the following reasons:

    Writing dynamic web applications today is a tedious and error-prone process; you spend 90% of your time working around subtle incompatibilities between web browsers and platforms, and JavaScript’s lack of modularity makes sharing, testing, and reusing AJAX components difficult and fragile. GWT lets you avoid many of these headaches while offering your users the same dynamic, standards-compliant experience. You write your front end in the Java programming language, and the GWT compiler converts your Java classes to browser-compliant JavaScript and HTML.

    I went through the live demo available on line – just in case I suggest you to read the brief guide for the demo, it might help – and it looks fancy, but I didn’t go much further than having a look at it.

    Queplix adopted the product specialists model, selling value added services for data conversions and it looks like if it is going to start a partnership program based on a new upcoming product:

    QueWeb Professional (scheduled for Q3 2007), for IT consulting companies and Value Added Resellers (VARs) serving customers with verticalized or specialized solutions. Features a QueWeb OS download along with a set of proprietary development tools, including: QueDesigner to more easily customize, configure, integrate and build additional functionality; and QueCrawler to “crawl” through company legacy metadata and extract business objects for the replication of existing business processes and GUIs.

    Queplix involving VARs might start its own marketplace, and opening to a Split OSS/Commercial products business model, who knows.

    About Commercial Open Source, I disagree with this pretty bold statement:

    Queplix is the only enterprise-level commercial open-source vendor

    As far as I can see they still have to work on creating and leveraging their own community – as others like MySql and at some extent Alfresco are trying to do now – but… is Queplix willing to abandon the corporate production model?

    Technorati Tags: Queplix, commercial open source, google web toolkit

     
    • Steven 11:49 pm on May 7, 2007 Permalink

      Roberto, thanks. As always, this was a very insightful and informative post with good comments. Let me try to explain the comment “Queplix is the only enterprise-level commercial open-source vendor” if I may. We were not trying to offend anybody, just merely describing that we are coming from the other side of Open Source vendors’ spectrum: Queplix started as an open source solution for enterprise in 2003. As such, we did not have the community and huge following as other open source companies have (as you rightfully sited Alfresco and Sugar); but instead we focused on adoption of our product within enterprise. It was not until we had a dozen of Fortune 500 companies with global deployments and stable revenues that we decided to create a community around our product. As you noted, this community is just starting up, while our product development is being actively fueled by our enterprise customers. That is what prompted our marketing people to say that we are very proud of being first widely adopted enterprise solution in customer care. Let me know what you think.

    • Roberto Galoppini 10:23 am on May 8, 2007 Permalink

      Steven, thanks to join the conversation.

      I believe you at Queplix are totally right being proud of enterprises’ adoption of your product, and I also believe that your VAS proposition basically based on conversions pays.

      Reading others’ opinions, today I created an account to access properly the download area, reporting:

      Choose between two Windows Installer programs: Full Installer with a complete stack of software required for QueWeb Open Source edition or the Light Installer if you already have installed JBoss and MySQL. Software included in the Full-stack Installer: QueWeb Customer Care OSS edition, MySQL©, JBoss© and Java© binaries.

      For other deployment options consider upgrading to the Enterprise edition with support for BEA©, Websphere©, JBoss and Orion© as well as running on the latest Oracle©, MS SQL Server©, DB2© and Sybase© versions.

      Could you possibly make clearer the difference between the Open Source Edition and the Enterprise one? It might greatly help users and potential customers, and I could also update my business model considerations.

      About building communities I believe it is much easier in the infrastructural arena, but both marketplace and franchising approaches can greatly help.

      I hope to hear back from you.

    • Steven 4:45 pm on May 9, 2007 Permalink

      We believe we came up with the actually different approach to the open source model. This approach was more of a natural progression for Queplix, since we did not create it, but rather our customers demanded it. Queplix solves a specific problem – we eliminate specific pain points that exist today in our industry niche, which is Customer Care. Queplix founders (including myself) spent many years working as consultants for the major companies working in CRM and Service, implementing proprietary software such as the siebels and vantives of this world. Being consultants, we were always between the hammer and the hard place, since vendors produced bulky and rigid products while customers demanded more custom things. We were walking the thin line between losing the vendor’s support and failing the implementation. Without disclosing any names, I can tell you that I worked for 3 out of 5 BIG consulting companies for over 12 years, with the same result – while we had more than half of the projects go live, corners were cut, support was limited and future upgrades required millions in additional consulting fees. That was all too familiar CRM world dominated by big and proprietary technology vendors.

      In the recent years however, the consolidation among the big CRM vendors was predominant and following the IT sector collapse in early 2000, a lot of smaller and successful CRM vendors were disappearing for various reasons (i.e. Quintus, Vantive). This left hundreds of medium and large corporations left with the proprietary, closed solution, which was heavily customized, deeply entrenched within the company, and something on which the company spent millions trying to make it satisfy at least 80% of their requirements and no vendor. What are the customer’s choices? Continue running legacy solution until it crashes and burns, while slowing down entire infrastructure and creating a security threat by not being updated by the vendor anymore and still not satisfying most of the existing and new requirements. Second choice – dump everything they have built, write off millions spent on existing solution and buy a new solution, not unlike the previous one; go through adoption of new rules, data migration, user training, deployment, etc. etc. In other words forgo entire investment in previous system and make a new investment in the same type of a product, only more expensive. Some tough choices.

      Most of the companies running legacy CRM solutions are still running them, as they are unaware of the third choice. Queplix was created by CRM consulting veterans with one simple idea: allow companies to maintain their investment into legacy systems, while not requiring them to migrate to yet another closed product; in fact, we almost eliminate the migration all together. The solution is QueWeb on open source platform, coupled with the powerful business transformation engine that identifies all business objects in the legacy system and extracts them to the open source platform. QueWeb is distributed today through two channels: one for small to medium companies that have no CRM in place, as long as they buy into open source paradigm they can use and customize QueWeb any way they want. The out of the box features are abundant for SMB. The second channel is large enterprises with existing legacy systems: we convert these systems into QueWeb using our QCrawler and QDesigner tools. The conversion is almost entirely automated and it eliminates data migration, redoing all customizations and even mimics the screens. We convert all entities, business objects, custom developed VBA scripts, stored procedures, etc. everything that belongs to the customer, without taking a line of code from the legacy system itself (which is impossible anyways since it is closed). At the end, we save the investment made into legacy CRM and eliminate the possibility for the customer to be in the same bad position ever again. We have done over 12 such large migrations for large enterprises, migrating various enterprises from Siebel, Vantive, Avaya, Quintus and others to QueWeb in a matter of weeks. Nobody is safe anymore in the legacy world . We are finalizing the conversion drivers now for Peoplesoft and starting to look at Remedy and other similar proprietary vendors that still exist today.

      Now, the difference between our enterprise and open source editions is simply in number of pluggable functional modules, enterprise edition more modules that we believe apply to larger companies (archiving, survey, customer portal, dealer portal, change request, HR, etc.) Both solutions are identical in terms of underlying technology – which is J2EE and Google open source engine (GWT). We offer legacy conversion for enterprises with different levels of SLAs and support (we or our partners always offer to support 100% of all QueWeb systems).

      Third version, QueWeb Professional, which we are planning to release in Q3 of this year, will be targeted to our VARs and integrators. It will add the above mentioned QCrawler and QDesigner integrated development and conversion tools. These tools will NOT be open sourced however and this is how we plan to continue our growth. Our believe is that software we develop and promote should be open source, but we will charge developers and analysts for the usage of our design and conversion tools, which they can use to convert legacy CRM and, in the future, any proprietary software to our open source model, generate a business application and then resale it.

      Would love to know your opinion on this, as this is something of a totally new approach to open source. To make it easier to analyze, we proved this approach by converting a dozen Fortune 500 companies in Europe and US in the last 2 years from various legacy CRM systems to QueWeb, all with global deployments in thousands of users. One more comment: Queplix had been mostly under the radar of media and current hype around the open source for few reasons: we are still a small company and we never raised VC funds, focusing on the core development. We can successfully sell to large companies since we resolve their paint point; this does not require large marketing expenses on one side, and allowing us to distribute QueWeb under the open source license to smaller companies on the other side.

    • Roberto Galoppini 8:57 pm on May 11, 2007 Permalink

      Hi Steven, thank you very much for your long comment, here some few spare questions. Quoting you:

      Now, the difference between our enterprise and open source editions is simply in number of pluggable functional modules, enterprise edition more modules that we believe apply to larger companies (archiving, survey, customer portal, dealer portal, change request, HR, etc.) Both solutions are identical in terms of underlying technology – which is J2EE and Google open source engine (GWT). We offer legacy conversion for enterprises with different levels of SLAs and support (we or our partners always offer to support 100% of all QueWeb systems

      What about making available a product comparison chart?

      Third version, QueWeb Professional, which we are planning to release in Q3 of this year, will be targeted to our VARs and integrators. It will add the above mentioned QCrawler and QDesigner integrated development and conversion tools. These tools will NOT be open sourced however and this is how we plan to continue our growth. Our believe is that software we develop and promote should be open source, but we will charge developers and analysts for the usage of our design and conversion tools, which they can use to convert legacy CRM and, in the future, any proprietary software to our open source model, generate a business application and then resale it.

      I totally follow your line of reasoning here, it makes perfect sense to you keeping proprietary tools enabling the delivery of added value services. Doing that you are not upselling your community, and you are (honestly) providing causes for effects. Tools could greatly help your partners to manage customers’ expectations. Your channel can’t be deeply involved with your (upcoming) community, channels love marketing shortcuts.

    • Joe Austin 12:24 am on February 11, 2011 Permalink

      Queplix Virtual Migration Manager Reduces Data Migration Time from Months to Days – Cuts Costs by up to 75 Percent – http://bit.ly/goaN2Y

    • Roberto Galoppini 9:51 am on February 11, 2011 Permalink

      Readers would better check out a later blog post about Queplix, explaining why they didn’t go open source eventually.

  • Roberto Galoppini 7:37 pm on May 4, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Italian Open Source Evangelists: Rufo Guerreschi 

    Rufo Guerreschi is a political activist, an open source a free software evangelist and entrepreneur, who recently established am association – the Telematics Freedom Foundation – for the enforcement and extension of democratic and communication constitutional rights.

    I asked Rufo, who I personally met about four years ago when he was looking for advices on free software licenses, to join the conversation to tell us more about his new activities and licensing proposals.

    How did everything start?

    I discovered free software as I started drafting grant proposals at the World Citizen Foundation in New York in early 2001. It’s goals were to develop democratic organizing software that would enable citizen-controlled global constituent processes, eventually leading to a world democratic order. It became quickly obvious that the use of proprietary software and software patents to support such processes would have in many ways limited the democratic effectiveness of those processes. During several conferences about e-democracy in the following year, I met Richard Stallman. We met many times after that, and I believe we have built a solid discourse on political phylosophy based on shared ethical goals. More recently I have become involved with proposals, through the Telematics Freedom Foundation, on how the free software movement can concretely extend copyleft freedoms in the era of shared remote software applications.

    How did you get involved with free software from a business point of view?

    The reason that brought me to found Partecs had the objective to create a sustainable community of client political organizations which, within total freedom, would contract us to extend and modify an initial platform for their unique needs. Originally, it wanted to be a non-profit organization, but we thought it would not have appeared as a credible provider of technology to large mainstream political organizations. Also, it would have been undemocratic for such software to be sustained by donations, as donors would have had an indirect control on the features of those tools. Members of democratic political organizations should get used to paying for democratic tools, otherwise others will on their behalf, acquiring in many ways and indirect but powerful influence on those organizations (i.e. GoogleGroups).

    The “personal itch” this time was a political one, not a developer’s one like for others.

    What does it mean to you being an Italian Open Source Entrepreneur?

    Italy places huge obstacles to any innovative work in IT in general. This dramatic situation extends to so many areas for such long time, that it has generated a large amount of cynicism even in young people. Such decline is so engrained and in the interest of so many people in power positions, that I foresee that Italians will end up mostly “making cappuccinos for the Chinese people”; which is not such a bad destiny on the medium term.
    Italian and European governments should decide to actively defend both their economic interests and ethical principles by directly countering software patenting and proprietary software practices. That, I think, would be its best hope to revive a software industry, which consists of mostly of little more than foreign proprietary software reselling and low-skilled integration services. Such revival would bring with it all other market sectors, whose innovation increasingly relies on software.

    Rufo you are preparing a political agenda here, don’t you? 😉 On a more serious line I agree with you, we need governments better prepared on “technological issues” that can affect dramatically IT business.

    Tell us something about your recent initiative about Telematics

    We have a feeling we may be on to something very innovative and important. After a preliminary analysis, we may have found a way for the users of any given telematic service, built using FLOSS, to deploy an effective, verifiable and democratic control over their relevant shared hardware and software systems. Concurrently, it may also create a way in which a viable “copyleft” economic model to sustain the joint creation This may as well as creating a sustainable econo-system for the expansion of those tools.

    Thank you Rufo, and please keep us updated!

    Technorati Tags: Free Software, Telematics, Partecs, Sammondano, Guerreschi

     
  • Roberto Galoppini 8:32 am on April 14, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    GPL: OpenLogic experts say yes, Moglen thanks giving a speech 

    OpenLogic yesterday announced the results of a survey regarding the draft of the GPL v3, showing that OpenLogic Expert Community members are positive about the most recent draft of the GPLv3.

    Forty-five Expert Community members corresponded, many of whom participate in more than one open source project.
    — 50% of the respondents said that they believe GPLv3 is good for open source. — 29.5% are not sure — 15.9% said they do not believe GPL v3 is good for open source However, respondents also have concerns about provisions of Draft 3. — 57% were concerned about provisions around patent issues — 57% were concerned about provisions around digital rights management — 43% were concerned about provisions around the use of GPL-covered programs in consumer devices Of respondents that are working on GPLv2 projects — 71% would be in favor of some or all of these projects moving to GPLv3 — 77% thought that it would take a year or less for their projects to move to GPLv3 once the final version of GPLv3 was released.

    Eben Moglen, co-author of GPL v3, will participate in an OpenLogic webinar on May 17 to talk more about the GPL v3 and what it means to enterprises.

    Technorati Tags: GPL, GPLv3, OpenLogic, Moglen

     
  • Roberto Galoppini 5:48 pm on April 11, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Second Life: the practical developers’ guide to Second Life Client 

    With the new year Linden went (partially) Open Source releasing its Second Life client with a GPLv2 license with a FLOSS exception. In the meanwhile later was created the first “open source” Second Life server. Few days ago Peter Seebach wrote an insightful post on hacking Second Life client that I warmly recommend to anyone interested in the subject.

    started!10, 9, .. ignition! by bryan campen

    NASA within the CoLab initiative is taking second life seriously, with a classroom-course facilitated virtual build of the International Space Station in Second Life. The project is aimed at catalyzing the volunteer community, and teach them about the ISS, space sciences, and technical skills.

    If you are interested just in knowing more about on line virtual worlds read this mini-guide.

    Technorati Tags: virtual world, second life, open source, NASA, floss exception

     
  • Roberto Galoppini 10:24 am on April 4, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Open Source Licensing: is StillSecure trying to redefine Open Source? 

    I already mentioned StillSecure releasing Cobia, a security platform that they call “Open Source”, redefining the meaning as reported by the license FAQ:

    Is Cobia open source?

    The definition of “open source” is evolving as companies create new licenses or add “riders” to OSI licenses such as the GPL. Some believe that open source means it must be one of the OSI compliant licenses (GPL, Mozilla, Apache, etc.). We’ve found what is most important to a majority of open source software users is that open source software is free of charge and include easy access to source code. Cobia software meets these requirements through our community license structure.

    Shift Shift Freedom by aliceinreality

    Being compliant with OSI or FSF definitions is mandatory if you want to call open source or free software your products, wehther or not you like OSI and FSF licenses’ approval processes.

    Thomas Ptace at matasanochargen blog wrote a post entitled “Questions for StillSecure About Cobia” raising some issues about Cobia’s restrictions about redistribution and asking them to stop calling Cobia an open source product or fully complying with the OSI definition.

    Reading the license I found things like this, not really open source style indeed:

    2. GRANTS OF RIGHTS

    (a)From original developer. Subject restrictions in Section 2 of this License, the Original Developer grants you a non-exclusive, worlwide, royalty-free license:[..]
    (iii) to Distribute Unmodified Code, but only if:[..]

    B. You do not embed, integrate, bundle or incorporate the Unmodified
    Code with any other product or good (whether tangible or intangible)

    Alan Shimel, Chief Strategy Officer of StillSecure, replied:

    1. Is Cobia open source? The not so short answer Thomas, is that if you are a strict constructionist and believe all open source must have an OSI approved license, than I guess you can say it is not open source. Me personally, I don’t like strict constructionists in my Supreme Court judges and I don’t deem software open source or not by a strict construction of whether or not an OSI approved license is in place. Thomas, I don’t say this flippantly either. We thought long and hard about licensing and this issue around Cobia. Here is the story. We believe and our research proves it, most people consider software open source if the product is free to use and it includes the source code. I think only purists will get hung up about the OSI stuff.

    I wouldn’t describe myself as a purist, but I as Thomace I firmly believe that outsiders need incentives, and such license can be an obstacle to firms’ participation.

    Alan added also this:

    Thomas, todays commercial open source business model isn’t the open source model you grew up with. I am glad you brought up both Snort and Nessus. Go ask Ron and Marty if they were starting today if they would do it under GPL from the beginning again. If they are being truthful, they would tell you no way. The idea we are trying to get across here is that if you are using Cobia for your own use in your network and not reselling it or packaging it for profit, it is free and open. If you are going to use it for profit, why should we not share in this? Someone has to pay the bills here.

    Success story like Snort are a typical case of open source community-based product that turns in a proprietary product and I can’t believe they might get there without going that way. As a matter of fact, many open source firms are giving away software “for free” getting advantage of positive externalities and contributions.

    StillSecure can choose its way, I can’t say anything about that, but they can’t pretend it to be the only way.

    Technorati Tags: Commercial Open Source, StillSecure, Cobia

     
    • Nick G 3:01 am on January 7, 2008 Permalink

      Robert,

      I think a lot of people would agree that open source should be about giving back to the community.
      Most of us use open source software every day, without even thinking about it (yes even windows users). And it sure would be nice to see people contributing back to the community…

    • Roberto Galoppini 8:47 am on January 7, 2008 Permalink

      I definitely agree with you Nick.

      I am volunteering by OpenOffice.org community from more than five years now, and it has been also an interesting professional experience that I would recommend anyone in the field.

  • Roberto Galoppini 4:46 pm on April 3, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    (almost) Open Source Security: StillSecure takes off the wraps and tell us about Cobia 

    Yesterday StillSecure, a firm founded in 2000 specialized in creating secure network infrastructure software, announced Cobia, an (almost) open source modular framework for networking and security.

    Christian Koch, Network Engineer at a technology infrastructure services company, said:

    The convergence of networking and security is increasingly requiring administrators to deploy solutions once and then redistribute them across the network as needs evolve. Cobia is the first real option for those who understand the benefits of using an open, modular, software-based approach to networking and security, and how it enables users to take advantage of advances in general computing hardware to dramatically decrease cost of ownership.

    Currently the Cobia platform is in the beta phase, and apparently its community, currently reaches over 1,000 users involved.

    There are two Cobia licenses, the community one, named after the company StillSecure Community License 1.0, is not approved by OSI and I believe it doesn’t qualify, since it requires you to sign a Contribution Agreement if you distribute modified version of the software.

    Mitchell Ashley, StillSecure CTO, summarized Cobia characteristics as follows:

    1. Cobia is a software platform for networking and security.

    Cobia can operate on a variety of hardware platforms (Intel/AMD) including off-the-shelf servers and computers, hardware appliances, blades such as blade servers and blades within network infrastructure gear.
    2. Cobia is plug-n-play network and security modules.

    [..] Cobia is all about modularity, right down to its software architecture. Cobia Modules for networking and security are available today on the Cobia site. Additional modules are under development and as the Cobia community grows, I anticipate there will be a variety of people creating modules for Cobia.[..]

    7. Virtualizing the network.

    [..] Cobia ushers in virtualization for networking and security right now. Today, you can run Cobia as a VMware instance on Windows or Linux. Download Cobia from the site ready to run in VMware.

    Technorati Tags: commercial open source, security, cobia, stillsecure

     
  • Roberto Galoppini 11:45 am on March 30, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    GPL: Linux’s father is pleased, and Google doesn’t see any problem. Everyone is happy? 

    The GNU GPL draft for the long-awaited third revision has now been read by a multitude of people, and all changes went under deep scrutiny. The blanket prohibition on DRM has been removed, and the SaaS loophole has not been fixed. As a result both Linus Torvalds and Chris DiBona are happy.

    chooseChoosing sign by elston

    Today reading Fabrizio Capobianco’s post, I understand there is a “minority” that is not welcoming all these changes. Before Funambol wrote the Honest Public License people at Affero worked on the Affero License and also my friends at Partecs spent some efforts to find a countermeasure at the service loophole.

    Congratulations to the Free Software Foundation for daring, choosing is always difficult and I believe that it wasn’t easy to take an unpopular decision, but I guess they had to.

    Changing topic: Will OSI eventually be able to sort out what to do with the attribution thing? They were supposed to close the issue within February.

    Post Scrittum: Steve Mills, IBM Software General Manager, and Matthew Szulik, Red Hat CEO, are happy too. The former said:

    At some point you become so shrill and beyond what’s required that you lose the audience and the audience moves on to something else. We’ll have to see what finally evolves through the [GPL] process, it’s going through an update and the Free Software Foundation has a particular view of free software. Free software is a wonderful thing but there’s also a business model.

    while the latter said:

    I think the draft we saw last night was much better than the earlier drafts, especially around patent infringement and TiVo-ization.

    Technorati Tags: GPL, GPLv3, Affero, OSI, FSF, attribution

     
  • Roberto Galoppini 6:22 pm on March 29, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    GPL: OSI’s President blesses GPLv3 draft 

    Michael Tiemann, President of the Open Source Initiative, today posted about the last draft of the GNU General Public License, just released by the Free Software Foundation.

    As result from the FSF Press Release changes include:

    tiemannTiemann by pdcawley

    • First-time violators can have their license automatically restored if they remedy the problem within thirty days.
      .
    • License compatibility terms have been simplified, with the goal of making them easier to understand and administer.
      .
    • Manufacturers who include the software in consumer products must also provide installation information for the software along with the source. This change provides more narrow focus for requirements that were proposed in previous drafts.
      .
    • New patent requirements have been added to prevent distributors from colluding with patent holders to provide discriminatory protection from patents.

    Tiemann commenting the draft wrote:

    I have read the newly released draft of GPLv3 carefully, and I believe it is a stunning accomplishment. (Disclaimer: not only am I no Einstein, I am also not a lawyer. However, my 20 years of experience with free software, the GPL, and 18 years of commercial experience should count for something.) My reading tells me three things. First, the GPLv3 is familiar; it is not as if everything we know must be relearned. Second, the GPLv3 deals with corner cases which, if left unfixed, will collapse, taking all our good work down with them; collapse is bad enough, but predictable collapse is shameful. Thirdly, the GPLv3 reaffirms that in spite of all the growth and all the success that the free software movement has enjoyed these past 20+ years, the goal of the Free Software Foundation remains centered on software freedom, and that the only prohibition they uphold is against those who seek to undermine such freedom. It is encouraging to see an organization maintain principle in the face of prosperity.

    This morning, with GPLv3 on one monitor and the OSD on the other, I read a license that should have no trouble achieving OSI certification. Based on my reading, I encourage the Free Software Foundation to submit their final draft when they are ready so that the whole open source community can review, discuss, and recommend to the OSI board whether they, too, see what I see. If so, we should see a much-needed update added to the roster of OSI-approved licenses, and we will be in a position to encourage those whose business depends upon fairness to offer them a licensing choice that is both sound and safe.

    Technorati Tags: GPL, GPLv3, OSI, FSF, Tiemann

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel