Who Should Lead the Open Source Community?
by Reuven Lerner - Mar. 20, 2008Comments (7)- Related Blog Posts
- Open Source: More than a License
- Sun Exec Proposes Software Freedom Definition and Vendor Scorecard
- Are There More Open Source Moves on Microsoft's Radar?
- CPAL? What's That?
- AGPL Gets OSI Blessing
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?
Share Your Comments
