I think his is just one more example of how the FOSS well is getting poisoned by people and companies who are doing their level best to ruin it, either through ignorance or design.
Open means OPEN.
Not half open,
or sorta open,
or partially open
or virtually open...
Or BSD licensed
for that matter.
And it especially doesn't mean you can create a proprietary product, release it under the guise of being open
, but with the intent of someday closing it back up again after you get a few million in saved development costs, coding, and debugging from the community that believed you.
And to the businesses that are still trying to run this play past the open source community, might I suggest that anybody who is smart enough to work on your project is also smart enough to know a scam when they see one?
Fortunately, there's a fairly simple solution: FORK
Go-oo.org is a step in the right direction. But an even better solution would be a version that wasn't hosted in the backroom of some commercial software company like Novell. Novell was among the most 'closed' of all software developers until Microsoft went and pulled the rug out from under them with their own proprietary product line. It was only once they realized they couldn't compete with Microsoft (and nearly went under) that they were suddenly all for "open" software.
Same goes for Sun. And Oracle. And especially Microsoft's hokey double-talk and newspeak
about how they're completely in support of open software as long as they get to define what open really
means. (And please ignore Steve Ballmer's patent litigation threats. He's just venting. Really! Cross our hearts!)
If you want a product to be "open," then make it open.
If you don't - then don't
. End of story.
The open software community can respect your wanting to remain proprietary a lot more than they can accept your being a hypocrite.That's my tuppence, anyway..