4 ms·

What does 'open-source company' mean? One could claim that Microsoft is one as well.

ludamad 11y ago
Red Hat open sources all customer facing software they create. When Red Hat buys a company, it is expected that they will open source its software products. I think "open source company" is only apt.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- nixgeek 11y ago
  With the acquisition of Ansible, we haven't seen Red Hat releasing the products (Ansible Tower). Is that just a case of they haven't got around to it, or is this a new strategy?
  - ghaff 11y ago
    Red Hat has said it intends to continue to open source technology it acquires. https://www.redhat.com/en/about/blog/faq-red-hat-acquires-ansible https://www.redhat.com/en/about/blog/faq-red-hat-acquires-an... (It takes time to do this sort of thing,)
  - ludamad 11y ago
    There's also the third option of legal limbo (not that I'm familiar here)
  - toredash 11y ago
    They will open source it, but then can't just publish all the code without reviewing it. What if there is some code there that they can't legally but into the public space? It's legalwork, that shit takes time
  - rwmj 11y ago
    This is happening. For comparison, it took Red Hat 4 years to open source RHEV, because of (a) legal shit (b) having to rewrite a bunch of .NET code. But it did happen.
vacri 11y ago
'open-source' means that the public can examine the code. If Windows and Office have publicly available code (being MS's core offerings), then yes, you could claim MS was an open-source company. A company doing something on a fringe doesn't mean the company is defined by that fringe. Microsoft releasing a bit of open-source work doesn't make them an 'open-source' company any more than giving out freebies at a conference makes them a welfare agency.
- bigger_cheese 11y ago
  Publicly visible source code is not enough. You need be able to modify and (freely) distribute changes to that source code. When I can write my own patched version of Windows (A Windows distribution if you will) and people can download my modified version then it will be open source.
  - mpeg 11y ago
    You just described free software, not open source. I'm not even a huge defender of free/libre licensing and all that, but in plain English the semantics are just different.
    - cyphar 11y ago
      > You just described free software, not open source. Someone hasn't read "the open source definition". But in either case, free software is what matters here. What you describe as "open source" is actually proprietary software.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - vacri 11y ago
        Someone hasn't read Stallman's issues with (scare quotes) "the open source definition": https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated Also, what software did mpeg describe? I can't see any such reference. And if you mistakenly meant my reference to Windows/Office, well, that was meant as a hypothetical. What term would you use for "publicly visible, but not hackable-by-license" software as opposed to "publicly not visible, and not hackable-by-license"? The former satisfies many concerns with vendor software, in that you can examine the code yourself for bugs, vulnerabilities, or backdoors.
shmerl 11y ago
General stance on things. MS is anything but an open source company.
- azakai 11y ago
  I think what sets Red Hat apart from companies like Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc. is that those do have a lot of open source code, and it's an important piece of their strategy, but their most critical code is not open source. And not just the most critical code, but most of their code is not open source. Open sourcing some strategic things makes sense for them. But for Red Hat, open source itself is the core strategy, and they open source everything.
  - shmerl 11y ago
    I meant attitude towards free software in general (i.e. stance on software patents and such). That divides those who can be called open source company, and those who can't. It's not a sufficient condition, but I'd say it's a requirement.

Red Hat open sources all customer facing software they create. When Red Hat buys a company, it is expected that they will open source its software products. I think "open source company" is only apt.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
nixgeek 11y ago
With the acquisition of Ansible, we haven't seen Red Hat releasing the products (Ansible Tower). Is that just a case of they haven't got around to it, or is this a new strategy?
- ghaff 11y ago
  Red Hat has said it intends to continue to open source technology it acquires. https://www.redhat.com/en/about/blog/faq-red-hat-acquires-ansible https://www.redhat.com/en/about/blog/faq-red-hat-acquires-an... (It takes time to do this sort of thing,)
- ludamad 11y ago
  There's also the third option of legal limbo (not that I'm familiar here)
- toredash 11y ago
  They will open source it, but then can't just publish all the code without reviewing it. What if there is some code there that they can't legally but into the public space? It's legalwork, that shit takes time
- rwmj 11y ago
  This is happening. For comparison, it took Red Hat 4 years to open source RHEV, because of (a) legal shit (b) having to rewrite a bunch of .NET code. But it did happen.

vacri 11y ago

'open-source' means that the public can examine the code. If Windows and Office have publicly available code (being MS's core offerings), then yes, you could claim MS was an open-source company. A company doing something on a fringe doesn't mean the company is defined by that fringe. Microsoft releasing a bit of open-source work doesn't make them an 'open-source' company any more than giving out freebies at a conference makes them a welfare agency.

bigger_cheese 11y ago
Publicly visible source code is not enough. You need be able to modify and (freely) distribute changes to that source code. When I can write my own patched version of Windows (A Windows distribution if you will) and people can download my modified version then it will be open source.
- mpeg 11y ago
  You just described free software, not open source. I'm not even a huge defender of free/libre licensing and all that, but in plain English the semantics are just different.
  - cyphar 11y ago
    > You just described free software, not open source. Someone hasn't read "the open source definition". But in either case, free software is what matters here. What you describe as "open source" is actually proprietary software.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - vacri 11y ago
      Someone hasn't read Stallman's issues with (scare quotes) "the open source definition": https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated Also, what software did mpeg describe? I can't see any such reference. And if you mistakenly meant my reference to Windows/Office, well, that was meant as a hypothetical. What term would you use for "publicly visible, but not hackable-by-license" software as opposed to "publicly not visible, and not hackable-by-license"? The former satisfies many concerns with vendor software, in that you can examine the code yourself for bugs, vulnerabilities, or backdoors.

shmerl 11y ago

General stance on things. MS is anything but an open source company.

azakai 11y ago
I think what sets Red Hat apart from companies like Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc. is that those do have a lot of open source code, and it's an important piece of their strategy, but their most critical code is not open source. And not just the most critical code, but most of their code is not open source. Open sourcing some strategic things makes sense for them. But for Red Hat, open source itself is the core strategy, and they open source everything.
- shmerl 11y ago
  I meant attitude towards free software in general (i.e. stance on software patents and such). That divides those who can be called open source company, and those who can't. It's not a sufficient condition, but I'd say it's a requirement.