☞ Early Standardisation

  • In the debate about open standards at the Cloud Summit on Tuesday, one speaker argued powerfully that standards follow innovation rather than delivering it, an observation that those of us with involvement in the world of standards have long understood. Early standardisation indicates there are vendors attempting to lock a market, and that’s exactly what lay behind the formation of WS-I in 2002. Now that web services are generally marginalised in favour of REST, WS-I has packed up shop and archived itself at OASIS. Good move.

☞ Logical Core

☞ Getting Real

☞ Pips From The Open Core

☞ Proof Points

  • Very significant initiative. The fact it’s under the Apache licence makes it highly reusable, and the diversity of the participants combined with open governance gives confidence it can evolve freely and openly. Most interesting is the NASA comment that their work was a response to Eucalyptus choosing to decline input from NASA because it would harm their (open core) business model.
  • Monty Widenius makes a good attempt to define an “open source company” in the face of the dilution of the term at the hands of besuited open core corporations.

☞ Regulate?

☞ Open Core Case Study

  • While their marketing guy may claim “that overall, Sugar 6 is an open source product from an open source company”, it’s hard to see how they are anything other than a proprietary software company who share some code with a related open source project. Claiming to be “an open source company” seems an unacceptable use of the open source brand to me. Open Core is bad for you.

☞ Easy Access

☞ For A Topic That’s A “Futile Debate”, A Lot Of People Seem Interested

  • Pamela picks up both my article and Mark’s and asks the obvious question. For the record, Mark is wrong to assert that I think only copyleft licenses are proper open source licenses. As for the “what does freedom mean” question Pamela is asking, that one will run and run and is at the root of the division between the BSD-ish and GPL-ish approaches.
  • Open Core Is Not A Crime
    “I appreciate why advocates of software freedom are wary of open core. It does perpetuate proprietary software licensing, and it does so via open source. But that does not make it a crime. And a considerable amount of code has been contributed to the commons by open core vendors. Meanwhile even those that would wish to do something to remedy the situation are without the means to do so. Hence the endless and futile debate.”

☞ Moves and Translations