Submitted by Michael Tiemann on Wed, 2007-06-20 17:26
Dana Blankenhorn's story How far can open source CRM get? has finally pushed me to respond to the many people who have asked "When is the OSI going to stand up to companies who are flagrantly abusing the term 'open source'?" The answer is: starting today. I am not going to start by flaming Dana. As President of the Open Source Initiative, I feel a certain amount of responsibility for stewardship of the open source brand, including both the promotion of the brand as well as the protection of the brand. The topic of "what is really open source and what is not?" has been simmering for quite some time. And until last year the question was trivial to answer, and the answer provided a trivial fix. But things have changed, and its time to regain our turf. I have been on the board of the OSI for more than 5 years, and until last year it was fairly easy for us to police the term open source: once every 2-3 months we'd receive notice that some company or another was advertising that their software was "open source" when the license was not approved by the OSI board and, upon inspection, was clearly not open source. We (usually Russ Nelson) would send them a notice politely telling them "We are the Open Source Initiative. We wrote a definition of what it means to be open source, we promote that definition, and that's what the world expects when they see the term mentioned. Do you really want to explain to your prospective customers 'um...we don't actually intend to offer you these freedoms and rights you expect?'." And they would promptly respond by saying "Wow! We had no idea!" Maybe once or twice they would say "What a novel idea! We'll change our license to one that's approved by you!". Most of the time they would say "Oops! Thanks for letting us know--we'll promote our software in some other way." And they did, until last year. Starting around 2006, the term open source came under attack from two new and unanticipated directions: the first was from vendors who claimed that they have every bit as much right to define the term as does the OSI, and the second was from vendors who claimed that their license was actually faithful to the Open Source Definition (OSD), and that the OSI board was merely being obtuse (or worse) in not recognizing that fact. (At least one vendor has pursued both lines of attack.) This was certainly not the first attack we ever had to repel, but it is the first time we have had to confront agents who fly our flag as their actions serve to corrupt our movement. The time has come to bring the matter into the open, and to let the democratic light of the open source community illuminate for all of us the proper answer. Dana reports correctly when he says:
Then there's open source, the only way in which CRM start-ups can elbow their way into the market today.
And so it is for numerous classes of applications and numerous software markets. But I disagree completely with his next statement, which is logical but also fallacious:
SugarCRM, SplendidCRM and now Centric have proven [sic] there's a place in the market for this (if you read your license carefully).
It is logical precisely because there really is not room in the market for Yet Another Proprietary CRM system. It is fallacious because THESE LICENSES ARE NOT OPEN SOURCE LICENSES. This flagrant abuse of labeling is not unlike sweetening a mild abrasive with ethylene glycol and calling the substance Toothpaste. If the market is clamouring for open source CRM solutions, why are some companies delivering open source in name only and not in substance? I think the answer is simple: they think they can get away with it. As President of the OSI, I've been remiss in thinking that gentle but firm explanations would cause them to change their behavior. I have also not chased down and attempted to correct every reporter who propagates these misstatements (the way that Richard Stallman does when people confuse free software with free beer, or worse--to him--open source). I have now come to realize that if we don't call them out, then they will get away with it (at least until customers realize they've been fooled again, and then they'll blame both proprietary and open source vendors alike; they probably won't be particularly charitable with the press or careless industry analysts, either). If we don't respond to those in the press who fall (or are pushed) into these logical traps, we are betraying the community. So here's what I propose: let's all agree--vendors, press, analysts, and others who identify themselves as community members--to use the term 'open source' to refer to software licensed under an OSI-approved license. If no company can be successful by selling a CRM solution licensed under an OSI-approved license, then OSI (and the open source movement) should take the heat for promoting a model that is not sustainable in a free market economy. We can treat that case as a bug, and together we can work (with many eyes) to discern what it is about the existing open source definition or open source licenses made CRM a failure when so many other applications are flourishing. But just because a CEO thinks his company will be more successful by promoting proprietary software as open source doesn't teach anything about the true value of open source. Hey--if people want to try something that's not open source, great! But let them call it something else, as Microsoft has done with Shared Source. We should never put the customer in a position where they cannot trust the term open source to mean anything because some company and their investors would rather make a quick buck than an honest one, or because they believe more strongly in their own story than the story we've been creating together for the past twenty years. We are better than that. We have been successful over the past twenty years because we have been better than that. We have built a well-deserved reputation, and we shouldn't allow others to trade the reputation we earned for a few pieces of silver. Open Source has grown up. Now it is time for us to stand up. I believe that when we do, the vendors who ignore our norms will suddenly recognize that they really do need to make a choice: to label their software correctly and honestly, or to license it with an OSI-approved license that matches their open source label. And when they choose the latter, I'll give them a shout out, as history shows. Please join me, stand up, and make your voice heard--enough is enough.
Comments
Submitted by OSI on Wed, 2007-06-20 22:52 Permalink
Thank you
Submitted by OSI on Thu, 2007-06-21 12:52 Permalink
Agreed, what a hypocite... resign from RH and uphold your ideals
Submitted by Michael Tiemann on Fri, 2007-06-22 07:11 Permalink
You misread: I am not demanding logo-ware
Submitted by OSI on Fri, 2007-06-22 14:47 Permalink
Open Source Company vs. Open Source Product
Submitted by OSI on Sat, 2007-12-01 11:24 Permalink
the REAL problem and why I like OSI !
Submitted by OSI on Thu, 2007-06-21 19:43 Permalink
vtiger CRM: The Real Open Source standing up
Submitted by OSI on Thu, 2007-06-21 06:40 Permalink
The need for fast turnaround in acceptance is also needed
Submitted by OSI on Thu, 2007-06-21 08:05 Permalink
No legal incentive to come into compliance
Submitted by Michael Tiemann on Thu, 2007-06-21 08:16 Permalink
No legal incentive to be "green", either
Submitted by OSI on Thu, 2007-06-21 08:54 Permalink
Who made you king?
Submitted by OSI on Thu, 2007-06-21 11:19 Permalink
Difference
Submitted by OSI on Thu, 2007-06-21 12:12 Permalink
It is true that the OSI did
Submitted by OSI on Wed, 2007-06-27 12:52 Permalink
Who made Stallman king?
Submitted by nelson on Fri, 2007-07-20 21:30 Permalink
OSI does not have a
Submitted by OSI on Thu, 2007-06-21 08:56 Permalink
Zimbra
Submitted by OSI on Thu, 2007-06-21 08:57 Permalink
Hardly the first time someone has flouted OSI's definition
Submitted by Michael Tiemann on Fri, 2007-06-22 06:53 Permalink
Past, Present, and Future
Submitted by OSI on Thu, 2007-06-21 09:41 Permalink
standing up
Submitted by Michael Tiemann on Fri, 2007-06-22 06:47 Permalink
Interesting legal theory...
Submitted by OSI on Thu, 2007-06-21 09:49 Permalink
Makes no sense, poorly written and off-base
Submitted by OSI on Thu, 2007-06-21 10:05 Permalink
Target Red Hat Exchange
Submitted by OSI on Sat, 2009-03-28 15:52 Permalink
I understand your point
Submitted by OSI on Thu, 2007-06-21 11:37 Permalink
Agree *almost* entirely
Submitted by OSI on Thu, 2007-06-21 13:17 Permalink
Thanks, and more
Submitted by Michael Tiemann on Fri, 2007-06-22 06:43 Permalink
What to cover? What is open source?
Submitted by OSI on Thu, 2007-06-21 13:45 Permalink
What's wrong with the Licenses?
Submitted by OSI on Thu, 2007-06-21 14:12 Permalink
What's wrong with the Licenses?
Submitted by Michael Tiemann on Fri, 2007-06-22 06:32 Permalink
You have to read legalese or take /somebody's/ word for it
Submitted by OSI on Thu, 2007-06-21 14:13 Permalink
A real Open Source CRM
Submitted by OSI on Tue, 2007-06-26 09:11 Permalink
V-Tiger
Submitted by OSI on Wed, 2007-10-10 22:25 Permalink
I want to respond to this point
Submitted by OSI on Thu, 2007-06-21 16:10 Permalink
Johnny-come-lately
Submitted by Michael Tiemann on Fri, 2007-06-22 06:21 Permalink
Is it too late for Open Standards to mean anything?
Submitted by OSI on Thu, 2007-06-21 21:09 Permalink
since youve failed you read your own trademark
Submitted by OSI on Fri, 2007-06-22 05:16 Permalink
Agreement, and a Fair Corollary Question
Submitted by OSI on Fri, 2007-06-22 14:59 Permalink
Common law trademark
Submitted by OSI on Wed, 2007-10-10 20:01 Permalink
The fair corollary to this question is
Submitted by OSI on Fri, 2007-06-22 18:06 Permalink
Should we re-report violators?
Submitted by OSI on Fri, 2007-06-22 18:54 Permalink
Centric CRM to go open source next week?
Submitted by OSI on Sat, 2007-06-23 06:51 Permalink
Good luck!
Submitted by OSI on Sun, 2007-06-24 15:56 Permalink
Finally a healthy discussion!
Submitted by OSI on Mon, 2007-06-25 15:00 Permalink
Another view on the ethics of the debate
Submitted by Michael Tiemann on Tue, 2007-06-26 10:05 Permalink
Glad to see you using the OSL!
Submitted by OSI on Tue, 2007-06-26 11:08 Permalink
Happy to be involved
Submitted by OSI on Tue, 2007-06-26 17:23 Permalink
Where is this religion going?
Submitted by OSI on Wed, 2007-06-27 04:15 Permalink
If in doubt, call it a religion.
Submitted by OSI on Wed, 2007-10-10 21:53 Permalink
One area where I *strongly* agree with Michael
Submitted by OSI on Mon, 2007-07-09 08:01 Permalink
A personal view on Vtiger x SugarCRM
Submitted by OSI on Thu, 2007-07-26 16:45 Permalink
Taking you at your word -- reporting a "bug"
Submitted by Michael Tiemann on Fri, 2007-08-24 07:54 Permalink
No bug in the model
Pages