content/editorial/ec1Feb.html - openoffice-org - Git at Google

 <html><head>
 <meta HTTP-EQUIV="content-type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
 </head>
 <body>


 <p>
 <h2><font color="#cc6600" face="Courier New, Courier, mono" size="+2">Editor's Column</font></h2>
 <p><a href="//lspintro.html">-Louis Suarez-Potts</a></p>
 <p>1 February 2001</p>
 <p><b>Open Source and Its Culture</b></p>
 <P><b>About this column</b></P>

 <P>I&#146;d like to clarify the purpose of the Editor&#146;s Column. The articles
   that comprise &quot;Editor&#146;s Column&quot; do not seek to represent Sun&#146;s
   view, and I don&#146;t know about OpenOffice.org&#146;s views, as it&#146;s
   not clear that one can easily synthesize the disparate views of an open-source
   community as such into something coherent enough to fit into a column. Rather,
   the purpose of the column is to focus on issues that the community has found
   interesting, as evidenced by discussions in the mailing lists, or might find
   interesting, because they relate to Open Source, its communities, and important
   spokespeople.</P>
 <P>All this is to say that the articles I write under the rubric, &quot;Editor&#146;s
   Column&quot; are meant to be discussed. So, if you disagree with the ideas,
   logic, or characterizations, please, feel free express your opinions. And, if
   you feel that I am not addressing some pressing issue, don&#146;t hesitate to
   let me know. As I&#146;ve stated before, I would be delighted to receive suggestions
   about topics, interviews, what have you. In fact, this is a serious call for
   ideas: Send in your suggestions either to the discuss list or to <a href="mailto:louis at collab.net">louis
   at collab.net</a>. It would also be great if a community member were to submit
   for consideration an article, interview, or piece that he or she felt others
   in the community would find interesting. </P>


 <b><P>Questions about Open Source</P></b>
 <P>This article inaugurates a series of articles questioning the shape and force
   of Open Source, as a culture of work and as an organizational system. I plan
   on these articles being intermittent; the sequence will doubtless be interrupted
   by more immediate news or controversy related to OpenOffice.org. </P>
 <P>There are several questions that motivate this inquiry; they include:</P>
 <UL>
   <LI>How are (other) large open-source projects organized?</LI>
   <LI>What are the issues at stake? (I.e., what is hoped to be accomplished by
     open-sourcing the code?)</LI>
   <LI>Under what license or licenses are these constituted?</LI>
   <LI>What is the relation between the sponsoring corporation and the open-source
     project?</LI>
   <LI>Who are the developers, and what do they have to gain from the project?</LI>
   <LI>And, finally&#150;and most intangibly&#150;what is the &quot;culture&quot;
     of the project?</LI>
 </UL>
 <P>Clearly, this project is large in scope and will take some time to fully complete;
   in fact, I&#146;m sure I&#146;ll have to revisit the Darwin project later on.
   My plan so far is to examine not just Darwin, but also Mozilla.org, and other
   large, open-source projects. Why large projects? Size is a criterion here simply
   because I suspect a large open-source project differs importantly from smaller
   projects, and not just in the logistics of arranging the release of enormous
   blocks of code to an uncertainly defined community. The nature of the community,
   its &quot;culture,&quot; how it works together, and the manner in which it contributes
   code also changes according to the size and scope of the project. </P>
 <P>This project is evolving. If the community wants to contribute suggestions&#150;such
   as different questions to ask, or particular projects that should be examined&#150;please
   forward them to me, and I&#146;ll see what I can do.</P>


 <b><P>Darwin</P></b>

 <P>Apple Computer&#146;s open-source Darwin was <a href="http://www.apple.com/pr/library/1999/mar/16opensource.html">announced</a>
   on 16 March 1999, and, in the words of its statement to the press, Apple became
   &quot;the first mainstream operating system provider to release its source code
   to the public and base its system software strategy on Open Source technologies.&quot;
   Initially, the focus was on Mac OS X Server; it quickly included the consumer-oriented
   Mac OS X, which is slated for release on 24 March 2001. </P>
 <P>Darwin 1.2, the <a href="http://www.opensource.apple.com//projects/darwin/1.2/release.html">current
   release</a>, is enormous. 135MB for a disk image of the binaries. Interested
   developers can also download source code; the project allows modifications to
   be <a href="http://www.opensource.apple.com//projects/darwin/1.2/projects.html">submitted</a>
   through mailing lists and CVS (Concurrent Versions System), which is recommended
   but not required.</P>
 <P>Despite its size and ambition, however, Darwin <I>as</I> an open-source project
   seems to be often ignored by other open-source groups. OpenOffice.org, for instance,
   is usually compared to <a href="http://www.mozilla.org">Mozilla.org</a>, and
   is touted as being the largest open-source project. Darwin is never (or very
   seldom) mentioned&#150;not by Sun press, nor by the media at large, when discussing
   OpenOffice.org </P>
 <P>This lack of mention probably has something to do with the common notion that
   Apple exists in a universe of its own. But it also has to do, I think, with
   the controversy surrounding Apple&#146;s open source credentials. Shortly after
   the announcement of the project&#146;s inception, however, the license under
   which Darwin project operated and which defined the project&#146;s status <I>as</I>
   &quot;open source,&quot; became the focus of a debate between Open Source luminaries
   <a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/%7Eesr">Eric Raymond</a>, of <a href="http://www.opensource.org">OpenSource.org,</a>
   <a href="http://www.perens.com/Bio.html">Bruce Perens</a>,who gave us &quot;Open
   Source,&quot; and <a href="http://www.stallman.org/">Richard Stallman,</a> who
   can be said to have started <a href="http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html">Open
   Source</a> (or, as he prefers, &quot;Free Software&quot;).</P>
 <P>To summarize the history, Eric Raymond gave, if not his blessing, his <a href="http://www.opensource.org/products.html">certification</a>,
   to the Apple Public Source License under which Darwin was constituted (APSL
   Ver. 1 and shortly later, <a href="http://cgi.cs.rpi.edu/%7Egerbal/fom-serve/cache/11.html">1.1</a>;
   it is now at <a href="http://www.opensource.apple.com//apsl/">Ver. 1.2</a>).
   Raymond was publicly criticized for his actions by his colleague Bruce Perens,
   who along with <a href="http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/%7Ewichert/">Wichert Akkerman</a>,
   <a href="http://www.debian.org/">Debian</a> Project Leader, and <a href="http://195.224.76.132/%7Eijackson/ijackson.html">Ian
   Jackson</a>, President,<a href="http://www.spi-inc.org/"> Software in the Public
   Interest</a>, <a href="http://www.perens.com/APSL.html">argued</a> that the
   APSL Ver. 1 failed to meet the necessary criteria for Open Source (Version 1.1,
   issued 19 April 1999, <a href="http://www.perens.com/APSL.html">mostly satisfied</a>
   the authors). Richard Stallman was unpersuaded by the changes Apple made to
   its license and <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.htm">condemned</a>
   it as roundly as he had the first version (Ver. 1.1 fell &quot;short of being
   a free software license&quot;). The debate got a little <a href="http://www.perens.com/perens_com/Articles/EricsJob.html">
   savage</a>, but that is because the issue at stake was so important to Open
   Source. </P>
 <P>The issue had to do with the relation between corporate interests and Open
   Source. As Perens rather despondently concludes in his <a href="http://www.perens.com/perens_com/Articles/EricsJob.html">rebuttal</a>
   to Raymond, &quot;The needs of corporations are not necessarily those of the
   free software community, and it may even be the case that the twain will never
   meet. Open Source appears to be splitting into something I'd call "Corporate
   Source", semi-free programs with disclosed source but less than the full set
   of rights we are used to, and true Free Software as represented by the <a href="http://www.opensource.org/licenses/">GPL,
   LGPL, X/BSD</a>, and other licenses. Public discussion of this fact is essential.
   We may eventually have to accept that it will never be possible for corporate
   participation in the free software community to be as full as we would like.
   Contributions like the MacOS X source may end up being useless to the free software
   community as far as code reuse is concerned, but they may still be good documentation
   on the underlying hardware, and will be useful, with some caution, to authors
   of fully free software.&quot; </P>
 <P>Perens wrote gloomier than warranted. Not only has OpenOffice.org evidenced
   that a company can move large, proprietary, software using true Open Source
   <a href="//license.html">licenses</a>, but Apple itself
   has recently (4 January 2001) revised its <a href="http://www.opensource.apple.com//apsl/">license</a>
   for Darwin. The short <a href="http://www.opensource.apple.com/,">blurb</a>
   under the link for the new license states, &quot;The Apple Public Source License
   has been updated to make it easier for people to contribute to and use the software,&quot;
   and after the most cursory glance, it seems to be so. Rather belatedly, Apple
   has entered Open Source (even <a href="http://slashdot.org/articles/01/01/05/0111218.shtml">Slashdot</a>
   seems to agree). </P>
 <P>What is left hanging, however, is the question of the culture of Darwin. Future
   articles will examine this aspect of the project. I will also begin a look at
   Mozilla.org.</P>
 <P>&nbsp;</P>
 <h4>Previous columns</h4>
 <p>23 January 2001 <i><a href="communityaction.html">Community
   Action</a></i></p>
 <p>16 January 2001 <i><a href="ec16Jan01.html">Quo Vadis
   OpenOffice.org?</a></i></p>
 <p>9 January 2001 <i><a href="thebuild.html">The 613
   build:&nbsp; problems and opportunities</a></i></p>
 <p>3 January 2001 <i><a href="SunsOpenDoor.html">Sun's
   open door</a></i></p>
 <p>&nbsp;</p>
 <p>
 <p>E-mail:<a href="mailto:louis at collab.net"> Louis at collab.net</a></p>
 <P>&nbsp;</P>
 </body>
 </html>
	<html><head>
	<meta HTTP-EQUIV="content-type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
	</head>
	<body>


	<p>
	<h2><font color="#cc6600" face="Courier New, Courier, mono" size="+2">Editor's Column</font></h2>
	<p><a href="//lspintro.html">-Louis Suarez-Potts</a></p>
	<p>1 February 2001</p>
	<p><b>Open Source and Its Culture</b></p>
	<P><b>About this column</b></P>

	<P>Id like to clarify the purpose of the Editors Column. The articles
	that comprise "Editors Column" do not seek to represent Suns
	view, and I dont know about OpenOffice.orgs views, as its
	not clear that one can easily synthesize the disparate views of an open-source
	community as such into something coherent enough to fit into a column. Rather,
	the purpose of the column is to focus on issues that the community has found
	interesting, as evidenced by discussions in the mailing lists, or might find
	interesting, because they relate to Open Source, its communities, and important
	spokespeople.</P>
	<P>All this is to say that the articles I write under the rubric, "Editors
	Column" are meant to be discussed. So, if you disagree with the ideas,
	logic, or characterizations, please, feel free express your opinions. And, if
	you feel that I am not addressing some pressing issue, dont hesitate to
	let me know. As Ive stated before, I would be delighted to receive suggestions
	about topics, interviews, what have you. In fact, this is a serious call for
	ideas: Send in your suggestions either to the discuss list or to <a href="mailto:louis at collab.net">louis
	at collab.net</a>. It would also be great if a community member were to submit
	for consideration an article, interview, or piece that he or she felt others
	in the community would find interesting. </P>


	<b><P>Questions about Open Source</P></b>
	<P>This article inaugurates a series of articles questioning the shape and force
	of Open Source, as a culture of work and as an organizational system. I plan
	on these articles being intermittent; the sequence will doubtless be interrupted
	by more immediate news or controversy related to OpenOffice.org. </P>
	<P>There are several questions that motivate this inquiry; they include:</P>
	<UL>
	<LI>How are (other) large open-source projects organized?</LI>
	<LI>What are the issues at stake? (I.e., what is hoped to be accomplished by
	open-sourcing the code?)</LI>
	<LI>Under what license or licenses are these constituted?</LI>
	<LI>What is the relation between the sponsoring corporation and the open-source
	project?</LI>
	<LI>Who are the developers, and what do they have to gain from the project?</LI>
	<LI>And, finallyand most intangiblywhat is the "culture"
	of the project?</LI>
	</UL>
	<P>Clearly, this project is large in scope and will take some time to fully complete;
	in fact, Im sure Ill have to revisit the Darwin project later on.
	My plan so far is to examine not just Darwin, but also Mozilla.org, and other
	large, open-source projects. Why large projects? Size is a criterion here simply
	because I suspect a large open-source project differs importantly from smaller
	projects, and not just in the logistics of arranging the release of enormous
	blocks of code to an uncertainly defined community. The nature of the community,
	its "culture," how it works together, and the manner in which it contributes
	code also changes according to the size and scope of the project. </P>
	<P>This project is evolving. If the community wants to contribute suggestionssuch
	as different questions to ask, or particular projects that should be examinedplease
	forward them to me, and Ill see what I can do.</P>


	<b><P>Darwin</P></b>

	<P>Apple Computers open-source Darwin was <a href="http://www.apple.com/pr/library/1999/mar/16opensource.html">announced</a>
	on 16 March 1999, and, in the words of its statement to the press, Apple became
	"the first mainstream operating system provider to release its source code
	to the public and base its system software strategy on Open Source technologies."
	Initially, the focus was on Mac OS X Server; it quickly included the consumer-oriented
	Mac OS X, which is slated for release on 24 March 2001. </P>
	<P>Darwin 1.2, the <a href="http://www.opensource.apple.com//projects/darwin/1.2/release.html">current
	release</a>, is enormous. 135MB for a disk image of the binaries. Interested
	developers can also download source code; the project allows modifications to
	be <a href="http://www.opensource.apple.com//projects/darwin/1.2/projects.html">submitted</a>
	through mailing lists and CVS (Concurrent Versions System), which is recommended
	but not required.</P>
	<P>Despite its size and ambition, however, Darwin <I>as</I> an open-source project
	seems to be often ignored by other open-source groups. OpenOffice.org, for instance,
	is usually compared to <a href="http://www.mozilla.org">Mozilla.org</a>, and
	is touted as being the largest open-source project. Darwin is never (or very
	seldom) mentionednot by Sun press, nor by the media at large, when discussing
	OpenOffice.org </P>
	<P>This lack of mention probably has something to do with the common notion that
	Apple exists in a universe of its own. But it also has to do, I think, with
	the controversy surrounding Apples open source credentials. Shortly after
	the announcement of the projects inception, however, the license under
	which Darwin project operated and which defined the projects status <I>as</I>
	"open source," became the focus of a debate between Open Source luminaries
	<a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/%7Eesr">Eric Raymond</a>, of <a href="http://www.opensource.org">OpenSource.org,</a>
	<a href="http://www.perens.com/Bio.html">Bruce Perens</a>,who gave us "Open
	Source," and <a href="http://www.stallman.org/">Richard Stallman,</a> who
	can be said to have started <a href="http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html">Open
	Source</a> (or, as he prefers, "Free Software").</P>
	<P>To summarize the history, Eric Raymond gave, if not his blessing, his <a href="http://www.opensource.org/products.html">certification</a>,
	to the Apple Public Source License under which Darwin was constituted (APSL
	Ver. 1 and shortly later, <a href="http://cgi.cs.rpi.edu/%7Egerbal/fom-serve/cache/11.html">1.1</a>;
	it is now at <a href="http://www.opensource.apple.com//apsl/">Ver. 1.2</a>).
	Raymond was publicly criticized for his actions by his colleague Bruce Perens,
	who along with <a href="http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/%7Ewichert/">Wichert Akkerman</a>,
	<a href="http://www.debian.org/">Debian</a> Project Leader, and <a href="http://195.224.76.132/%7Eijackson/ijackson.html">Ian
	Jackson</a>, President,<a href="http://www.spi-inc.org/"> Software in the Public
	Interest</a>, <a href="http://www.perens.com/APSL.html">argued</a> that the
	APSL Ver. 1 failed to meet the necessary criteria for Open Source (Version 1.1,
	issued 19 April 1999, <a href="http://www.perens.com/APSL.html">mostly satisfied</a>
	the authors). Richard Stallman was unpersuaded by the changes Apple made to
	its license and <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.htm">condemned</a>
	it as roundly as he had the first version (Ver. 1.1 fell "short of being
	a free software license"). The debate got a little <a href="http://www.perens.com/perens_com/Articles/EricsJob.html">
	savage</a>, but that is because the issue at stake was so important to Open
	Source. </P>
	<P>The issue had to do with the relation between corporate interests and Open
	Source. As Perens rather despondently concludes in his <a href="http://www.perens.com/perens_com/Articles/EricsJob.html">rebuttal</a>
	to Raymond, "The needs of corporations are not necessarily those of the
	free software community, and it may even be the case that the twain will never
	meet. Open Source appears to be splitting into something I'd call "Corporate
	Source", semi-free programs with disclosed source but less than the full set
	of rights we are used to, and true Free Software as represented by the <a href="http://www.opensource.org/licenses/">GPL,
	LGPL, X/BSD</a>, and other licenses. Public discussion of this fact is essential.
	We may eventually have to accept that it will never be possible for corporate
	participation in the free software community to be as full as we would like.
	Contributions like the MacOS X source may end up being useless to the free software
	community as far as code reuse is concerned, but they may still be good documentation
	on the underlying hardware, and will be useful, with some caution, to authors
	of fully free software." </P>
	<P>Perens wrote gloomier than warranted. Not only has OpenOffice.org evidenced
	that a company can move large, proprietary, software using true Open Source
	<a href="//license.html">licenses</a>, but Apple itself
	has recently (4 January 2001) revised its <a href="http://www.opensource.apple.com//apsl/">license</a>
	for Darwin. The short <a href="http://www.opensource.apple.com/,">blurb</a>
	under the link for the new license states, "The Apple Public Source License
	has been updated to make it easier for people to contribute to and use the software,"
	and after the most cursory glance, it seems to be so. Rather belatedly, Apple
	has entered Open Source (even <a href="http://slashdot.org/articles/01/01/05/0111218.shtml">Slashdot</a>
	seems to agree). </P>
	<P>What is left hanging, however, is the question of the culture of Darwin. Future
	articles will examine this aspect of the project. I will also begin a look at
	Mozilla.org.</P>
	<P> </P>
	<h4>Previous columns</h4>
	<p>23 January 2001 <i><a href="communityaction.html">Community
	Action</a></i></p>
	<p>16 January 2001 <i><a href="ec16Jan01.html">Quo Vadis
	OpenOffice.org?</a></i></p>
	<p>9 January 2001 <i><a href="thebuild.html">The 613
	build:  problems and opportunities</a></i></p>
	<p>3 January 2001 <i><a href="SunsOpenDoor.html">Sun's
	open door</a></i></p>
	<p> </p>
	<p>
	<p>E-mail:<a href="mailto:louis at collab.net"> Louis at collab.net</a></p>
	<P> </P>
	</body>
	</html>