Open Source Weblog

Matthew,

I don't speak for IBM but I just had to comment as the press release is about WAS CE, which is near and dear to my heart.

We've always been clear with customers that WAS CE is not an open source product. We don't use an OSI-approved license nor do we lead customers to believe that we do.

Customers buy technologies that solve business problems. I believe the success of WAS CE shows that it solves a class of customer problems.

The title of the press release is unfortunately not as clear as it could have been. But "IBM and Novell Join Forces to Support Growing Demand for Open Source and Open Source based Solutions" would have been a little wordy. Novell would want to use "open source" since their SUSE offering is not "open source based", it's "Open source". You see the complexity here.

But again, yes, we could have been clearer with the title. The text of the press release does make it crystal clear that WAS CE is "based on open source".

Thanks for the comment Savio. I agree the main text does make it clearer, but it is still confusing and the headline, I believe, is deliberately misleading.

Not to mention this line: "For customers looking at open source solutions, WAS CE 2.0 is the best option for those who need quick access to application server technology with no upfront costs."

Giving IBM the benefit of the doubt, it just goes to show that even with the best intentions errors are made.

This confusion is the reason I never use the term open source. I use the original term, free source. It is much clearer, well defined, and resists PR manipulation. Plus it gets at the heart of why the software is created to begin with.

I am constantly amused by the whining that comes from "open source" proponents over companies taking advantage of the licensing terms that have been freely given to them. If the "open source" community does not want IBM to be able to base their products on their source code, they should change their license to the GPL or something similar. So what if IBM calls their non-free-software product "open source"? The term itself has been from the get go a compromise intended to allow companies to do just this kind of thing. You all made your bed, and now you should sleep in it without making such a fuss.

Let us compare.

IBM generally supports Open Source. Has even published substantial offerings under the GPL.

IBM makes one, just one, dubious statement suggesting a product being Open Source that isn't.

Microsoft has a proven track record using every dirty trick in and not in the book to kill competitors.

Microsoft is a monoplists. it is in the interest of a monoplist to maintain its monoply status. Microsoft acts in its own self interest.

Open Source is Microsoft's biggest competitive threat in its entire history. Its entire bag of tricks that it has succesfully used in the past to fend off competetion don't work against it. It cannot cut off its oxygen supply, it cannot buy it out, it cannot Embrace, Extend, Extinguish it.

It is not in Microsoft's interest to go Open Source. Open Source is alien to its business model. So when Microsoft says it is going Open Souce it isn't.

And who are saying that IBM is diluting the term Open Source just as IBM is doing? By that logic a driver caught for overspeeding is just as criminal as a serial killer.

You logic is idiotic. It just is nonsensical.

This is not a one-off from IBM, as the fact that there were two examples in the original post should make clear.

My point was that people shouldn't get hysterical about the fact that Microsoft might be trying to get two of its licenses approved as open source (by the legititmate route) and then turn a blind eye to IBM's misuse of the term.

That is discrimination and it is not something that, in my opinion, the FOSS community should aspire to.