Open Source Survey 53
Ken Coar (Apache
Studmonkey and author of Apache Server for Dummies) has
written in and asked us to complete
A Survey
on Open Source Involvment and Usage. He wants to use the
data to help explain this whole thing to IBM. If you've
got the time, I'm sure that the results will be very helpful
to those suits out there.
Explain to IBM? (Score:1)
Not an Open Source(tm) Survey (Score:1)
From the page:
This survey originally used the term "open source", which is a registered mark of the Open Source Initiative. Since the OSI definition didn't have the same meaning we intended to convey, I've changed all occurrences of "open source" to "free-source." Here's a more complete (though not exhaustive) explanation.
Take a bow, Rob (Score:1)
> Our apologies, but our server is currently coping with a traffic peak,
> probably due to the
> in about 10 seconds. If the condition persists, please send us mail
> at the address below, including any details you think relevant.
Yep, that's the page displayed when the server is overloaded and can't cope with the submission.
Oh, and about the IBMers who work on free source? They generally don't wear suits, and they're not the ones for whom this information was originally being collected. However, the results are interesting enough that now they're for us, not a specific audience.
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar
Take a bow, Rob (Score:1)
Oh, and about the IBMers who work on free source? They generally don't wear suits, and they're not the ones for whom this information was originally being collected.
I work in the same complex as a lot of the Apache guys and one thing that needs to be made clear. The IBM of today is not the IBM of ten years ago. It is very uncommon to see people here in suits. Even the management folks several levels above me are rarely seen with ties. Down at my level, and one or two levels of management up, it's pure casual clothing.
I personally wear denim bib overalls to IBM from time to time. T-shirts are the rule. I am not even involved in the Apache group though we do share some bundling in common.
Terminology (Score:1)
> It looks like the authors don't know the
> meaning of "free software" as it has been
> used by the GNU project for more than a decade.
It looks like the FSF thinks everyone uses their terminology. Bzzzzzt. Of the millions of people relatively new to the 'Net and its culture (through the emergence of the Web and ISPs), I suspect that many think "free software" means "something I can download off the 'Net without having to pay." Which includes things like binary-only games, lobotomised demo packages of tools, and Netscape Navigator and Internet Explorer. Ask the being-in-the-thoroughfare, "Is Internet Explorer free software?" If you think the answer will universally be 'no,' I think you're mistaken. And no, you can't prime it with definitions. :-)
> The "free software" part of the name of the Free> Software Foundation is about freedom and source
> code, not "free beer". The survey authors are
> actually talking about "freeware" here, not
> "free software".
The survey authors are talking about exactly what they say they are: software for which the source code is freely available. Notwithstanding what various groups may think, there is no lock on these terms, no one 'correct' definition -- regardless of the degree of militancy any particular group may have concerning their particular interpretation. Each of the terms means different things to different sets of people, so we were careful to define our usage explicitly, using a non-overloaded and uncontroversial term, to avoid confusion.
> Please -- if you are making a survey in support> of "open source" software, make sure you
> understand the terminology. Not understanding
> the terminology is often an indication that one
> does not understand the relevant concepts.
It's not a matter of not understanding the concepts or the terminology. It's a matter of recognising that the terminology is multi-valued and describes different concepts to different people. Please re-read the free-source definition page [sourcery.org] on the site, after putting yourself into the shoes of (say) a hardcore Microsoft developer, or script-kiddie, or suit, or anyone who has not lived and breathed the FSF for years.
The OSI [opensource.org] tweaked us when we naïvely used "open source" in the survey, because they claim they own the definition. So we changed the offending text, and now someone is tweaking us because we didn't use their preferred phrase. {Sigh} Please, can we just deal with the thing itself ("software for which the source is freely available") without arguing over what to call it?
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar
Free Software (Score:1)
(Re comments by sterwill ):
Well, I'm sorry you interpreted things that way, because that's not how they were intended. Your first interpretation was what was meant.
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar
Free Software (Score:1)
Oh, BTW -- thanks for the note; I've changed the wording to be 'software for which the source is freely available and modifiable.' I hope that addresses the issue..
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar
hmmm, suspicious (Score:1)
Nope. This questionnaire was inspired by some questions I was asked at/by IBM, but that's it. They (IBM) are free to do whatever they like with the published answers -- just as anyone else on the 'Net is, which is part of the message of the waiver. No-one sees the identity information (names, email addresses, age, &c.); they won't be published to anyone. Not IBM, not anyone.
The waiver is to ensure that anyone who responds has been informed that its answers will be published, can be quoted in email or other communications, and will remain anonymous.
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar
Server doesn't like the Squid anonymizer function (Score:1)
This is the second note I've gotten about this problem with Squid. The reason you're getting rejected is as it states: either the request is reaching the server without a User-Agent header field, or else with one that's in our list as being used by robots that ignore robots.txt and the RES.
I've updated the page to include the actual UA supplied; if you try again, send me (in private email) what the result is and I'll take a look at it.
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar
Server doesn't like the Squid anonymizer function (Score:1)
This turns out to be a Squid problem, in that this particular usage of Squid doesn't send a User-Agent field. Since that's also a characteristic of several RES-ignoring site crawlers, I block such requests. The HTTP/1.1 spec says clients SHOULD provide this field, anyway.
Hopefully Squid will be modified. I'm not going to open up my server to rude robots, particularly not right after being slashdotted. :-) Been there, done that, performance was the pits. Slashdot traffic I welcome, since it serves real people, but gate-crashing clients can show some ID or continue getting the bum's rush.
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar
IBM Perspective (Score:2)
I am a small cog in the big blue machine known as "IBM". In our internal Linux forums, the major debates about Linux seem to be legal issues regarding the GPL.
If we have developers work with GPL'd software, are they now intellectually "contaminated" and if so does that mean that they are now useless (legally) to move back to prorpietary products like AIX? I mean, what if said programmer accidentally bases some proprietary code off of what he learned from GPL'd code?
And what mechanisms can IBM put in place to ensure that intellectual property of IBM's is not compromised via GPL coding efforts?
I know many people here think that IP is bad, and personally I'm not a big fan myself, but IBM makes literally BILLIONS off of patent royalties alone and does not want to lose that significant source of income.
Most folks seem to think the problem is convincing the PHB's that they can make money off of free software. That's not the problem here. The problem here is legal issues for a company that has a lot invested in IP and how does it keep from contaminating GPL or proprietary code with code from the other?
Take a bow, Rob (Score:1)
Good thing too, since I will be there soon and it would take 1000 heavily armed men to get me to wear a suit and tie.
-Rasmus
Free Software (Score:1)
I had filled out lengthy answers, accounts of real-life experiences and real software. I listed the projects to which I can remember contributing. I filled out every field as best I could, but with the misconception that "free source" meant I cared about. It didn't at all; I don't support software that can be had for no cost but doesn't allow me the right to change it. I should have read more closely.
Realizing I have never had any specific motivation to encourage others to prohibit modification and redistribution of anything, I removed all my comments. I support free software, call it "Open Source" if you wish--the useful stuff.
Redistribution (Score:1)
IBM Perspective (Score:1)
You can only get "contaminated" by signing a NDA, not by reading any published code (GPL, proprietary, whatever). What you can't do is _copy_ the code into your proprietary products. That is what _copyright_ law say. Ideas and algorithms can't be copyrighted.
Dressin' up (Score:1)
slashdotted already? (Score:1)
You don't have to Code to Contribute (Score:2)
answers semantically equivalant to "I can't code (much)" were pretty common. How do we get hold of these folks
and get them doing stuff like beta testing and submitting bug reports, writing documentation, that sort of stuff? There's PLENTY of non-coding stuff that open-source needs!
IBM Perspective (Score:1)
Unless the developer cuts and pastes from GPL-ed code into proprietary code, I don't see why this should be a problem.
Maybe I'm wrong, but perhaps the lawyers have too much time on their hands...
You don't have to Code to Contribute (Score:1)
)O(
the Gods have a sense of humor,
IBM Perspective (Score:1)
You have to READ THE COMMENTS! (Score:1)
The comments are about who we are, it's the neatest bunch people,
not some bunch of "social misfits" but a bunch of articulate interesting people.
For some reason this survey has striped the veneer of anonymity away.
It's very cool.
Terminology (Score:1)
I don't like to be a nit-picker, but I think this nit is important.
At this location ( http://Web.Sourcery.Org/eh.html [sourcery.org]) the survey authors write about their choice of the term "Free Source." Although I agree that this term may be necessary to make clear their meaning that
I am a bit surprised to see that they do not know the generally-accepted meaning of the term "free software": It looks like the authors don't know the meaning of "free software" as it has been used by the GNU project for more than a decade. The "free software" part of the name of the Free Software Foundation is about freedom and source code, not "free beer". The survey authors are actually talking about "freeware" here, not "free software".Remember when everyone got mad when Linux was called "freeware" in the press rather than "free software"? Has the (relatively young) "open source" movement gone so far that people involved with it have forgotten that the origin of this term was to mean exactly the same thing as "free software" but to be more marketable to corporate types? Has it gone so far we are forgotting that the Open Source Guidelines are actually taken almost verbatim from the Debian Free Software Guidelines?
Please -- if you are making a survey in support of "open source" software, make sure you understand the terminology. Not understanding the terminology is often an indication that one does not understand the relevant concepts.
agreed (Score:1)
Terminology (Score:1)
It is a small point. I don't disagree with your post. I wish you well in your efforts (for instance, IBM "getting it" would definately make it more likely that I would want to work for them when I finish grad-school :). I agree with your use of the term "free source" in this case. But if I put myself in the shoes of a hard-core Microsoft developer (ouch -- they don't fit very well), I would get the idea that "free software" meant "freeware" (in FSFish terminology). This will make them more likely to misunderstand what free software programmers and advocates (e.g. me) are talking about if they decide to investigate further.
I don't want to tell anyone what term to use -- I think the term you use is a good one, and "free software" is obviously the wrong term to use for your purposes. However, I think it would cause less confusion if "freeware" was used instead of "free software" on your page in its current context/sense.
After all I read during the discussions and flamewars during the "birth" of the OSI, I had the impression that FSF's definition of "free software" as codified in the DFSG was pretty-well accepted by all sides of the community who understand the concepts that are involved, including those who prefer not to use it. If you don't have the same impression (I can't fully tell from your reply), then you obviously won't agree with my posts so you can ignore them and I'll shut up.
It is just this kind of confusion, especially from newbies (like those you aim to influence) who get caught in the libre/gratis trap), which lead SPI/OSI to make a new term and trademark it, and then be so anoying about defending it :).
"Explain to IBM?" (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
IBM Perspective (Score:1)
Interesting point...
I was going to suggest that a ``clean room'' environment could be created but that would make changing positions within the company very difficult, if not impossible, without getting into problems. You'd need to institute something like a ``non-compete'' clause but for positions within the same company. Which, IMHO, would suck big time.
Anybody know of companies that might be doing this sort of thing now?
top response: no time! (Score:1)
The number of "does not apply" responses, indicating that individual does contribute, is way down there. Something like 1-5% from my guesstimate. I'd very much like to see some statistical analysis on this survey.
top response: no time! (Score:1)
The results viewable on the website don't show blank responses, but the blanks are intact in the database. Thus meaningful statistical analysis is possible, assuming the analyst has access to the database.
Server doesn't like the Squid anonymizer function (Score:1)
Access Forbidden to Rude Robots and No-Bots
We don't permit access to Web clients that are either known to be rude robots or that fail to identify themselves with User-Agent request header
fields. If you think this shouldn't apply to you or your client, feel free to send a message to our Webmaster at the site you're trying to reach.
Am I a rude Robot?
top response: no time! (Score:1)
Take a bow, Rob (Score:1)
in about 10 seconds. If the condition persists, please send us mail at the address below, including any details you think relevant.
Survey good for context. (Score:1)
It's neat reading through the responses, too.
Good show!
Explain to IBM? (Score:1)
As for the survey... 500 Internal Server Error.
Looks like someone should read CGI for dummies, or something.
IBM Perspective (Score:1)
working on GPL code and working on any third party
vendor code are identical. An IBM employee reading
Linux code, or code from a book is in the same
situation and the legal issues are clear and simple ( by intellectual 'property' law anyway).
Similarly the reverse is also true. Companies
already tend to have agreements with their
employees in their contracts about what may be
released by whom and when.
You don't have to Code to Contribute (Score:1)
Even among those of us who do code (for a living,
even) some people have extra experience with,
say, documentation or testing issues, which can
also be lent toward the 'free-source' project of
your choice.
Just answering posts on usenet is a big help to
the community - provided they are clear, concise,
well-researched posts. Things like, "yeah, I had
that problem too, and doing this fixed it".
Agreed. (Score:2)
AFAIK, you can legally examine GPL'd code and create a proprietary product that is similiar. It all depends on how the phrase "based on [gpl'd code]" is interpreted as explained in the derivative works section of the GPL. If you look at how apache works and create a proprietary web server, is it a GPL violation? Hell no. It only is a violation if you use GPL'd code. Variable name changes and small algorithmic changes are AFAIK derivative works also. You can only use the basic idea and generic algorithms. How you define "basic" and "generic" is up to the judge though. Ultimately it requires faith, since a developer could independently come up with the same code as in a GPL'd counterpart. How many different ways do you really write a for() loop?
You know what I think? (Score:2)
"...this server is experiencing a peak load, probably due to the
Can we get that shipped as a default 503 page in Apache? It'd make Rob a legend!
"503 -- Server slashdotted. Please contact the site administrator and advise him to take this site off the quad-Xeon and put it on something more suitable -- like a 486."
Question on Open Source (Score:1)
If the project isn't related to your work they should be okay about it, at least if they've got the sense to want to foster goodwill with their workforce.
The PHB's want CYA support (Score:1)
are strongly pro-Linux, but many of the managers
are clueless. Unfortunately, the ones who make
the decisions are not the techies, and the Pointy
Haired Bosses want documentary evidence to cover
their a**es before they make any decisions.
Re:IBM Perspective (Score:1)
Legally, you can't copy ie from disk to tape or other medium and re0use. But you can re-use the ideas.
So IBMers can work on a GPL project, use ideas they had before to enhance it and code up those ideas. Then they can return to a proprietary project and re-use ideas that they had on the GPL projcet. What they can't do is a straight copy.
Abba fan
Before you criticise someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way you're a mile away, and you have their shoes too.
Mmmm, Apache... (Score:1)
Load balances really well with the Linux Virtual server project.
-