[Fsfe-uk] The Open Group, strategy RFC

[Ciaran O'Riordan]

Hi all,
  As you might know, The Open Group released a draft strategy document
called "An Open Source Strategy for the Open Group".  Bruce Perens's
name is at the end of the draft but I'm not sure he wrote it all.

The document is at:
http://www.opengroup.org/tech/open-source/opengroup-os-strategy.htm

They've requested comments, so here's what I mailed them:

----- Forwarded message from Ciaran O'Riordan <address@hidden> -----

Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 01:13:22 +0100
From: Ciaran O'Riordan <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden
Subject: Comments on Strategy

Hello.

I'm glad to see a progressive policy being considered by The Open
Group but I have a number of concerns about the draft strategy
document.  Thanks for issuing the draft for public comment, I'll try
to keep my individual points brief.  As a general comment, I think the
document has too many words.  It's contents would be deliverable in
half the text, and a shorter form would be more readable.


"OpenSource" and/or "Free Software".
====================================
99% of the time, the two terms are technically synonymous.  The
decision about which term to use is split 50/50 among contributors to
the community but parasites and enemies to the community almost
exclusively use the term OpenSource.  The number of enemies is growing
as the competitiveness of Free Software increases.  More and more, the
term OpenSource is losing credibility as it gets associated with
corporations trying to pull the wool over our eyes.  If you plan to
contribute to the community, don't be afraid to say that this software
gives you freedom, that's why the community has been able to develop
it.  Using both terms is one option, "FLOSS" is another (Free Libre
and Open Source Software).

Here are two good articles about the terminology, Bruce Perens should
recognise the second one:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/debian-devel-199902/msg01641.html


Making excuses for proprietary software vendors
===============================================
Many parts of the document seem to be apologising for the members who
develop proprietary software.  I don't think this is required.
Proprietary software does not damage our community, we just don't use
it.  People don't expect companies to quickly release all their code
under the GPL.  If The Open Group can encourage more companies to use
the GPL then that's great, it's not all-or-nothing, it's
the-more-the-merrier.


Choice of Licenses
==================
Not using the GPL would place a large hurdle in the path of community
acceptance.  The majority of OpenSource/Free Software is released
under the GPL.  A major benefit of Free Software is the ability to
share code but for this to work, the licenses must be compatible.  The
simplest way to guarantee compatibility is to use the GPL.  Other Free
Software licenses are also accepted but "permissive" licenses like the
BSD license only add one extra freedom: the freedom for anyone with
larger resources to take the software away from us.

(I'm glad to hear that Eben Moglen may be part of Special Interest
Group#2.  I've also heard good things about Daniel Ravicher)

Please do not make the suicidal decision to create your own license.
The "-like" tag that is affixed to the licenses you're considering is
the most worrying part of this document.

Here's a good article about the reasons to use GPL or GPL compatible:
http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html
And here's a list of accepted Free Software licenses:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses


The "commoditization" of hardware
=================================
This point should be pushed as a big bonus.  Hardware is useless
without drivers and application support.  The current software
industry makes it hard for a hardware vendor that does not have
approval from the large corporations, particularly Microsoft.

Free Software levels the playing field, hardware can compete based on
quality rather than the whims of Microsoft.  Why are Intel chips so
popular? Because chip manufacturers are the mercy of Microsoft and
Microsoft have said "No" to all of them bar Intel.

The document says the new competitiveness is bad for hardware vendors?
The current proprietary monarchy is their real problem.


small GPL / GNU Manifesto error
===============================
>From the draft, near the end of "Special Interest Group 2":

"While it may be in the Open Group's interest to propagate GPL-like
terms in some cases, it's probably not in our interest to distribute
the GNU manifesto contained in those licenses."

The GNU manifesto is NOT contained in any licenses.  I hope there
isn't similar mis-information about the GNU GPL in The Open Group.


"OSI-certified Open Source licenses"
====================================
Please do not use OSI certification as a yardstick for licenses.  The
Apple Public Source License (APSL 1.1) is OSI certified but it
contains many clauses that keeps control in the hands of Apple.
Contributing code under the APSL is a minefield to be avoided.  Most
licenses that are OSI certified are also compatible with the FSF's
Free Software Definition but OSI's definition has pitfalls.

FSF's Free Software Definition:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html


and finally...
Patents
=======
I'm glad to see that Special Interest Group#4 would be asked to
establish a position on patents.  Patents on software implemented
ideas are one of the nastiest threats to Free and OpenSource Software
at the moment.  It will take an aware industry to fight this problem.


Thank you.
(Please take the time I have spent writing this feedback as a token of
appreciation for the releasing of a public draft)

Ciaran O'Riordan
address@hidden

----- End forwarded message -----