Creative Commons License

Blog powered by Typepad

« Microsoft Whining for Sympathy about OOXML | Main | Three Things Steve Ballmer (and Brad Smith) Get Wrong about Free and Open Source Software »

14 February 2007


Ken Mulcahy

Good points. Unfortunately, CentricCRM is only one of many companies that portray themselves as Open Source when they are not.

Ben Langhinrichs

I'm sorry, but I don't agree. From the early days of open source, it meant that the source was open for view, not that it was opened to relicense or free for distribution. It is only the ppast few years where the sloppy use of the term "open source" has come to mean so much more. Open source means open source. Licensing is a completely different issue. See for some of the reasons the "open source" term is bad for this use.


Ben: I was thinking of interactions around software we had in the early 1980s through DECUS. The medium was typically tape. Some DECnet and dialup for small changes and patches.

Some developers shared binary only. Some shared source read-only (but might accept bug fixes). Some allowed modification and redistribution. A (very) few placed their work in the public domain. All did it through a simple understanding of licensing and copyright.

It may have just been a different crowd in our respective pasts. I've wondered at the differences between engineers writing software in the '80s versus comp sci grads. Engineers (at least where I grew up) were required to take a half course in IP law before they graduated. I think this gave them a simple view of copyright and licensing.

The comments to this entry are closed.