Thursday, February 22, 2007
Open Source Solutions that aren't really open...
Let's first analyze the licensing agreement:
You may use, copy, modify, and make derivative works from the code for internal use only. You may not redistribute the code, and you may not sublicense copies or derivatives of the code, either as software or as a service.
Does this feel open to anyone? How come they are twisting the official definition posted here? You may notice that real open source is always available to anyone, at anytime for any purpose and that the user is always licensed to modify and redistribute the software with fee, penalty or the need to ask permission.
I know it would be difficult for industry analysts in the open source community such as Raven Zachary, James Governor or Alex Fletcher to ever call out vendors who are not really open but purport to be. It would be interesting though if someone else in the blogosphere did...
Links to this post: