Blogs

FOSSBazaar is no longer being updated. The information on this site is preserved for your convenience but may be out of date. Please visit Linux Foundation's Open Compliance Program for current information and activities.

OSCON Day 1: Participate08

Phil's picture
I had the pleasure of attending both the morning and afternoon sessions of Participate08;  A one day "summit" hosted by Microsoft in coordination with the O'Reilly OSCON.  The morning session was quite interesting to me.  It had less to do with "Open Source" per say, and more to do with "distributed innovation" models, or "User Innovation Networks" as they are termed by some.

Steven J Vaughan-Nichols Blogs about Open Source Best Practices

Phil's picture
I've just read and posted comments on a very good blog post written by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols located here.  Steven makes the point that the best-practices for managing FOSS are fundamentally no different than those for other software assets.  I make the point that the goals of the policy and process are indeed identical, but the implementation via policy and process need to be a bit different. Come join the discussion.

Open source software costs money

stormy's picture

Open source software is well known for being "free" as in free beer. Many people start using open source software because it's cheap. And while open source software has a lower "total cost of ownership" than proprietary software, i.e. it's cheaper to use open source software than proprietary software, that's only partially because it's free upfront.

As anyone who uses open source software can tell you, open source software is only free initially. Then, like all software it costs to maintain it, trouble shoot it, upgrade it, etc. Only a few like this open source cheapskate that Matt Asay blogs about expect it to come with free customization and support. With open source software you still have to pay or spend time on:

Does the GPL extend to (cross-)compilers?

ArnoudEngelfriet's picture

Access to the full source code is an essential aspect of open source software, perhaps even the most essential aspect of all. But what good is source code if it cannot be compiled into an executable? Fortunately this is rarely a problem. Most open source software is designed to compile with the well-known gcc compiler, a standard component of most Linux distributions. With dozens of supported platforms, it is rare to have open source that you can't compile. But when you do, can you demand a copy of the compiler from the developer?

Are GPL and mergers compatible?

chs's picture
Have you noticed how much the GPL is both the most widely used Free and Open Source Software license and the most criticized license? Have you also noticed how much irrational or political the critiques about the GPL can be? I did. And what I like about this is that it is something that makes so many people and corporations jump in the air and get them all sweaty. It's not that I am a fan of Godwin's Law, but what the debates around the GPL show is nothing short of a sensational failure to understand how Free Software works. Okay, and now before you click away thinking I am about to lecture you on how the GPL is great, think about that bold assertion we (the FOSS contributors in a large sense) have all heard one day: You can't make money with software covered by the GPL. Wrong. Let me explain one possible, and quite compelling business case for the GPL. This story may have actually happened already.