Open source software has existed for many years. But we have only had a common definition and term for 10 years. We know this, because it was only in April 1998 that publisher Tim O'Reilly hosted a summit for the authors of several well-known software packages -- including GNU founder Richard Stallman, Perl author Larry Wall, Linux creator Linus Torvalds, and Python author Guido van Rossum. Common to all of these authors was not just the quality and popularity of their software, but also the fact that they distributed them free of charge, including the source code.
O'Reilly realized that for all of their personal and philosophical differences, there was something common to this group, and he asked them to find common ground. At the conclusion of this meeting, the group announced that all of these packages, as well as many others, were all "open source" software -- programs that would be distributed in both binary and source form, and whose use, modification, and redistribution could not be restricted by their authors.
The person who announced the summit results to the world, and who helped to write the definition of "open source," was a programmer named Bruce Perens. Perens was already known as the author of BusyBox, as well as the second leader of the Debian Linux project, following Debian's founder, Ian Murdock. Perens quickly became known not only as a top-notch programmer, but also an articulate advocate for open source software. He publicly criticized large companies that were trying to enter the open source space, but whose licenses weren't in keeping with the spirit (or the letter) of the definition. In recent years, Perens has held a number of positions, ranging from HP's open-source strategist to the editor of a series of books on open-source topics published by Prentice Hall.
Several days ago, I received e-mail from Perens, asking for help in getting him onto the board of the Open Source Initiative, the foundation that approves open source licenses. I have been using open source software for years, but I never knew how this organization worked, or who its board members were. Perens argued in his e-mail message that a growing number of open source companies, rather than individual developers and thinkers, have been on the OSI board in recent years, and that he would like to stop this trend. Signing the petition does not count as a vote for Perens on the board, but merely indicates to the board that the community would like to see him included.
I knew that this request wasn't a personal one, given that he and I have had very limited contact over the years. And indeed, it seems that Perens sent his request to a large number of people, many of whom have responded. There was even a Slashdot posting about his letter, in which he responded to a very large number of comments and questions.
Ten years after the term "open source" was coined, it seems to be a growing and unstoppable force, in business as well as academia. However, this means that there are a growing number of interests, many of them commercial, that would like to lead the open source community in directions that not everyone wants to see. Perens warns that while it's unlikely that Microsoft could be appointed to the board this time around, it's a possibility next year, or the year following that -- and while Microsoft is not the only company that has a great deal to lose from open source competition, it is known to be aggressive in its tactics.
This raises the question of how the open source world can and should govern itself. To date, a self-selecting board has served the interests of open-source software. But is it possible that this system could be hijacked by commercial interests, that would then extend the definition of "open source" to include Microsoft's "shared source" license, or one like it? It seems unfeasible to have truly democratic elections in the open-source world; not only would we have to debate who is eligible to vote (programmers? users? leaders?), but the process would undoubtedly be ripe with fraud.
How should the OSI board be selected? Should companies have a say in its composition? How can we ensure that this organization, which has the sole authority over what is and isn't considered "open source," remains true to the cause?
Comments
Add CommentBy on Mar. 20, 2008
Why does there need to a single body in charge of the movement? Shouldn't it be like source code? Release it for all to see and then let people decide what they will and won't use?
By on Mar. 20, 2008
I think the this is not about being in charge as such but more about how the movement is "represented" and "co-ordinated" i suppose. Interesting questions.
By on Mar. 21, 2008
Reuven, this is posted as anonymous while I am waiting for my login permission to get through the my spam filter. You have some facts from 10 years ago wrong. The meeting where Open Source was founded was not hosted by O'Reilly, but by VA Linux Systems around February 1, 1998. I wasn't there, but Eric Raymond invited me in the next day. Christine Petersen of the Foresight Institute (a nanotechnology organization) suggested the name "Open Source". I had created the Open Source Definition as the Debian Free Software Guidelines in June, 1997, and adapted them to the Open Source purpose just by changing the name. Only Debian developers were contributors to the Open Source Definition, on the debian-private mailing list, not any of the folks you mentioned. The O'Reilly conference you are thinking of happened later. All of this is confirmed in the Wikipedia article about me, and you can write me at bruce at perens dot com or call (U.S.) 510-984-1055 for further confirmation. Thanks! - Bruce Perens
I confirm the above post. - Bruce
By on Mar. 21, 2008
Until Microsoft contributes one million lines of usefull code under GPL, it should be excluded. When it does (not says or promise), then - welcome (i.e. never).
By on Mar. 21, 2008
I don't think voting would work, but authenticity could be confirmed by something like CAcert.
By on Mar. 21, 2008
>> Until Microsoft contributes one million lines of usefull code under GPL
They'll just publish the crud that has fallen from their projects (vs. the crud still glued in there) or from companies they have bought (probably DOS stuff) and slap GPL on it. Remember 100 million USD will buy an awful lot of monkeys and typewriters (no offense meant) and not be felt on their bottom line.
I am not sure what their reasons would be for doing so, but Microsoft has surely thought out carefully if and when to dump GPL code.
For example (and to get serious), they would benefit from GPL dotnet code if it gets more people to contribute to it since they can always keep for themselves such improvements and close off extensions/integration, eg, the way Novell likely sells any interesting mono or mono-based code to Microsoft as necessary giving Microsoft free proprietary reign over such code.
They would also get a bunch of people to invest time into dotnet. Gaining mindshare, which on average grows demand for anything dotnet. Also, there would be more people that would depend on dotnet. Ultimately, these things would increase the value of dotnet itself and with it Microsoft related assets while also strengthening related MS monopolies.
Any dotnet app would be easier to port to Windows/Vista than other types of apps so that any good apps (hopefully, from MS pov, a dotnet app) would be found on Windows too making it less likely users would want to try something like Linux.
They can also start a decoy dotnet project to throw people off (possibly this also describes mono, though by proxy). Maybe the code would implement functionality in a particular way, as per some particular interpretation of a standard, but likely to change in a future standard or inconsistent in subtle ways from MS's interpretation and implementation. Ie, they could guide the GPL implementation into being noninteroperable with closed monopoly MSware.
Oh, and the developers coding in dotnet would be more likely to step on a legitimate Microsoft owned patent claim if they spent the days stepping into dotnet. These traps would be set to explode in the future at a key moment. Would companies wanting the cool apps FOSS devs sweated making (assuming these are dotnet apps owned by companies friendly to Microsoft) risk the FOSS version, or worse the FOSS version of it on Linux, when Microsoft would have a closed version on Windows that would not have MS patent problems and would actually interoperate with other Monopoly-ware? Not likely.
Well, in a nutshell, this describes some of the more important reasons why I don't waste energy/time on things like mono apps when the time is better spent actually making *Linux* awesome and more widely used.
-- Jose_X
Share Your Comments
Trackback URL
http://ostatic.com/trackback/158653