OpenBRR Launches Closed Open-Source Group 63
An anonymous reader writes "eWeek is reporting that SpikeSource co-founder and CTO Murugan Pal and the Open Business Readiness rating have launched a new initiative designed to maximize open-source software knowledge across organizations. While they are targeting corporate and Wall Street CIOs and IT directors as members, the current plan is not to open membership of the new OpenBRR Corporate Community to all, but to offer it on an invitation-only basis 'to ensure that only trusted participants are coming into the system,' Pal said. This would allow members to discuss sensitive issues and share information without having to worry that it would be made widely public, he said."
Non-MS Open Source (Score:4, Insightful)
Is this just a more polite way to say they don't want MS to join?
Re:Non-MS Open Source (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Non-MS Open Source (Score:1)
Re:Non-MS Open Source (Score:2)
Re:Non-MS Open Source (Score:1)
Actually, I'm half expecting that there will be an application to be invited, and the only question will be "Are you affiliated with Microsoft?", and if you answer no, you are always invited, and if you answer yes, you are never invited.
Re:Non-MS Open Source (Score:1)
Isn't that a bit oxymoronic? (Score:1)
But isn't it a bit oxymoronic, and perhaps counter-productive, to do open source work behind closed doors?
Re:Isn't that a bit oxymoronic? (Score:5, Insightful)
But isn't it a bit oxymoronic, and perhaps counter-productive, to do open source work behind closed doors?
Not so. This is not too different from the way Debian has a debian-private mailing list, which is open only to those who have been admitted to the project as full Debian Developers. Debian does that for protecting personal info (like vacation notices) and financial information. I am not sure that they are protecting the same type of information. However, sometimes things just have to be done behind closed doors. Hopefully, they will keep it as open as possible.
Re:Isn't that a bit oxymoronic? (Score:1)
Re:Isn't that a bit oxymoronic? (Score:2)
It's open if anyone can look at it.
Re:Isn't that a bit oxymoronic? (Score:2)
Re:FP?BS (Score:1)
"Closed" Open Source (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"Closed" Open Source (Score:5, Interesting)
I could get ten (or a thousand) of my best friends together, lock ourselves in a garage (warehouse), put a sign on the door that says "Windowz userz keep out!" and produce some piece of software, and then release it under the GPL without telling anyone about HOW we went about making up the code. Any internal documentation, functional specifications, etc., wouldn't need to be open. It's just the code that's protected under "open source." You can develop the software in any way you choose.
Not all open source projects have to be Debian-like. That's just one way of developing; not everything has to be done like that. There's nothing in the OSS licenses themselves -- we can argue philosophy until we're all dead, naturally -- that prevents OSS development from being just as much of a "sausage factory" as proprietary development.
Re:"Closed" Open Source (Score:2)
Re:"Closed" Open Source (Score:2)
There's nothing in the OSS licenses themselves -- we can argue philosophy until we're all dead, naturally -- that prevents OSS development from being just as much of a "sausage factory" as proprietary development.
As a recent CS graduate, I can fully verify the validity of this analogy.
Re:"Closed" Open Source (Score:2)
Step 5: Recommendation
When the Applicant has completed the tasks and skills tests, expressed an understanding of the Social Contract, the Debian Free Software Guidelines and Debian Policies and Procedures and been properly identified, it is time for the Application Manager to make a final report to the Front Desk and the Debian Account Manager.
This report includes statements from the Advocate and
Re:"Closed" Open Source (Score:1)
What if the source code is obfuscated, (messed up beyond human-read) but it is still the code that is compiled/interpreted. Is it then still open source? (even though there was active purpose to prevent other people from building on it)
Should the code be "human-readable"? How to define that?? I say if you want to call it open source (and be a nice guy) you should give internal documentation away too.
Re:"Closed" Open Source (Score:2)
You can strip the comments out, obfuscate it, do whatever you want -- there's no requirement to document or make anyone else's job easy. Although I don't know of any OSS project that does this, because you're right it's exactly contrary to the goals of OSS, it's allowed.
B
Re:"Closed" Open Source (Score:1)
That is mostly how the GPL and most other free software licenses work, actually, and seems to be a rather common misconception. The owner of the software can choose to only release it to certain people, under a license like the GPL. The catch is that then those people can also choose, if they wish, to release the software to others, under the same license (at least in the case of the GPL). While I don't know of any cases where is this actually done outside of a organization, it can be useful for software th
Re:"Closed" Open Source (Score:2)
this sounds like
ps. democracy in software developement doesn't always pay off, there are quite a bunch of examples where very strongly lead software can make a big hit (i think into the list would fit oracle, skype, and even the very hated and useless windows (if it sells in millions, it is a hit
as usual, i welcome our new closed open overlords
Re:"Closed" Open Source (Score:2)
This being Slashdot and all, I think it's easy to understand where decisions to move from a proprietary solution to an open source implementation can generate a great deal of unwanted heat in the political/religious/monetary venue.
Headline doesn't reflect article. (Score:4, Interesting)
When what really happens is that a set of industries try to meet up to discuss their common interests and how they can get it throug open source projects.
An example would be banks getting together to discuss how they would link up to each other's ATM's securely without having to use closed software.
Doesn't this defeat the purpose of open-source? (Score:2)
Enterprise and corporate CIOs are faced with many product choices and alternatives, as well as with making decisions about new and legacy solutions, so being able to privately share information on these subjects is important, Pace said.
I do not see how this Pace guy can jump to that conclusion. Wouldn't it make more sense to have as much input as possible about possible software choices? Limiting discussi
Re:Doesn't this defeat the purpose of open-source? (Score:2)
I'm guessing he didn't "jump" to any conclusions.
As for "closing themselves out to everything else", they obviously haven't finished deciding all the how's of this group.
TFA answers your questions...
Re:Doesn't this defeat the purpose of open-source? (Score:2)
But, also, as a peer organization, MAYbe
Re:Doesn't this defeat the purpose of open-source? (Score:2)
"It's hard as hell (I gather) to put on a major mag a face with buckteeth, wild hair, unkempt appearance and so forth."
Yeah, Lord knows who would want to be associated with someone like this guy [google.com].
Sorry, but this 'you have to wear a suit to get taken seriously' claptrap is a crock. It's pandering to the very worst anti-intellectual elements of our identity and society.
Re:Doesn't this defeat the purpose of open-source? (Score:2)
Funny, tho, I was half-expecting images of OTHER well-known Linux/OS advocates. But, in this (aside from estates and heirs) most dead men can't sue, hehehe.....
Yep, it's sometimes unfortunate that appearance/appearances (and voiced opinions) can doom a product or project just because of herd me
Re:Doesn't this defeat the purpose of open-source? (Score:1)
Re:Doesn't this defeat the purpose of open-source? (Score:1)
There's also a kind of ideology of open community that has grown up around open source, and in general I think this has been beneficial. But there's also room for other models, which might be more attractive to certain types of organizations. Free software licensing al
OpenBRR? Closet hippies... (Score:3, Funny)
Stodgy CEO: "Close that door, Johnson!"
Johnson from Spike: "I'm on it, Sir. Its closed."
Stodgy CEO: "Now pass me those sandals. Do they have that Grateful Dead tie-dye in XXL?"
Closed Open Source (Score:4, Insightful)
The book was wrong, and the author was (is) stupid (Score:1)
Re:Oh no! Open source code made widely public! (Score:1)
Re:Oh no! Open source code made widely public! (Score:1)
This isn't a collection of nerds high on jolt and twinkies - this is a group of serious boardroom-type suits.
What theyr'e trying to do if figure out how Open Source can HELP them, and how they can "sell" the use of open source to their PHBs.
To do that, theyr'e gonna have to discuss a whole bunch of business concerns, and for it to be usefull, they're also going to have to get into some aspects of their companies that they will NOT want to become
Good Grief (Score:1)
*yawn* (Score:2)
Blah blah blah. Suits make a big deal about keeping secrets when they don't have anything special. People with actual money-making ideas are too busy implementing them to worry about if their "secret" is kept. (Hell, most of them patent it, which is the exact opposite of a secret since the invention is then published in its entirety.)
Geez... can we go back to the 19th-cen
Very bad idea to flaunt non-publicity in public (Score:1)
Sounds like they took a bad clue from the guys of Stanford. There really is no legitimate reason (outside of bragging) - the "trusted participant" part is just a red herring if they intend to be "open". If anything it should advertise to steer clear of this organization and disregard what will be blackbox ratings.
This would allow members to discuss sensitive issues and share information without having to worry that it would be made widely
St. Trinian's! (Score:2)
In one, where they completely fail to grasp the notion of a union, they end up deciding to form a closed open shop. The parallels between this and
Confusion about "free" and "open", here? (Score:1)
morons (Score:1)
Cue the openBBR invitation spoolers and the "oooh if anyone has an invitation hook me up" posts.
Clarification... (Score:1)
Re:Clarification... (Score:2)
This isn't a secret discussion for Linux kernel developers, its for users.
This is like saying its "elitist" for a company to have a closed board meeting that discusses the possibility of using OSS in a particular corporation.
Heck, I just got out of a meeting with my boss and fellow programmers about our company switching to Linux on our internal systems. We didn't invite Linus Torvalds or Slashdot members to attend. Does that make it wrong somehow?