But isn't that the case with many of the larger well-known open source projects?
-phitsc
Virtually every major open source project has at least some paid developers involved. And this has been going on for years.
Sometimes it works out very well (i.e. the kernel, gcc, etc.) and sometimes not (MySQL, OpenOffice).
Of course, there's always the option to "fork" development when the
quid pro quo breaks down. But that's a 'nuclear option' that has never been a popular solution to dispute resolution. Nor is it one that happens lightly. And forking is only an option if a 'free' license model governs the software. There are many "open source" projects that have proprietary license provisions and are effectively
owned by somebody. Java is one example of an "open standard" that is neither 'open' nor a standard.
So as long as some businesses keep trying to game the system, the public will continue having a problem understanding what going "open" was originally meant to accomplish.
Unfortunately, many who call their products "open source" think it's a just a code word for getting free programming and debugging labor. They've signed onto the concept for what they can get out of it. But they seem to have a major problem with the part that expects them to give something back in return. At which point, all the 'word games' begin in order to show how their project is actually open - it's just not
open "open."
Microsoft pulls this nonsense all the time. IBM is somewhat guilty of it too - as is "Do No Evil" Google.
Sometimes, however, I can almost take comfort when companies like Oracle acquire formerly "open" technologies from companies like Sun. Because I can deal with arrogance and greed far more readily than I can tolerate hypocrisy. And Oracle has never been shy about letting people know where they stand or what they're about.
At least Oracle finally put an end to Sun's endless waffling on the subject of "open" by making it abundantly clear that
they own and
control these projects. I find their "Our Way or the Highway" attitude to be refreshingly blunt - even if it is annoying.
And in the case of projects like OpenOffice and MySQL there still remains
The Way of the Sacred Fork.I guess we can call that progress.
With Java, we won't be half so lucky.
-----
Note: I find it interesting that Oracle precipitated a Board dispute that resulted in resignations and the mass exodus of developers from Open Office shortly after they acquired it. I find it even
more interesting how some big corporate project members (IBM, Microsoft et al) promptly announced their continued allegiance to
Open Office rather than shift over to the genuinely open
Libre Office fork of the project.
Draw what conclusions you will while waiting for the 'other shoe' to drop.
