3 ms·

"Releasing a product as Open Source isn’t always an admission of failure; see exhibits Linux or, more recently, WebKit." WebKit in particular is a derivative o

by sho_hn 15y ago

"Releasing a product as Open Source isn’t always an admission of failure; see exhibits Linux or, more recently, WebKit." WebKit in particular is a derivative of KHTML and KJS, KDE's HTML and JavaScript engines. Given their LGPL licensing, Apple had no choice but to make WebKit open source as well. Now, The article doesn't preclude this, but since the above follows a rant about "corpospeak" and is thus chiefly concerned with the behavior of corporate/commercial entities around open source releases, it seems prudent to point out that the WebKit codebase wasn't originally the product of such an entity -- and the same of course applies to Linux, too, making both rather poor examples for the author's purpose. Cringe-cringe at the iTunes analogy, too, with the "more or less legally" not applying to what's in RHEL. This is also indicative of sub-par writing: A simple explanation using clear language ("customers pay for services, not the code") is eschewed in favor of trying to make a comparison that doesn't really fit, but has brand recognition. Summarizing Firefox in terms of Mozilla Corp.'s financial situation is also doing poorly by it. Mozilla's possible financial dependence on Google is an interesting topic in and of itself, but anyone who's measuring Firefox by its success as a "3. Profit!" scheme doesn't understand its history or its makers - nor its true success/impact in web history. Gassée can range from entertaining to insightful, but this one's just too lazily executed and seemingly unaware of a lot of context. Well, it was a Sunday I suppose.

freehunter 15y ago
The Linux example in particular is awful. Linux was not a product released as open source, it was an open source project from the beginning. Project, not product. Products are open sourced either as a principle or as an admission. It's difficult to tell which side WebOS falls on, as parts of it were open source all along, and Palm/HP has always embraced the hacker community since the Pre came along (allowing booting from USB, custom kernels, Preware, root access without jumping through hoops, etc). This could be a natural progression, or it could be a last-hurrah. It will be decided in the marketplace, not in the media, and it won't take long to find out. The next 6 months will define WebOS' future, if other companies jump on board or not. A system doesn't often get three chances at success, and WebOS has used up two of them already.
- sho_hn 15y ago
  > The Linux example in particular is awful. Linux was not a product released as open source, it was an open source project from the beginning. I may not have gotten this across properly, but the same is true of WebKit or rather its KHTML/KJS progenitors (KDE is an open source community and its trademark-holding legal entity is a not-for-profit).
- georgemcbay 15y ago
  "The Linux example in particular is awful. Linux was not a product released as open source, it was an open source project from the beginning." I'm pretty sure that was exactly Gassée's point, though it may not have been clear enough. Linux and Webkit (and Apache, etc, etc) are very successful FOSS projects, but they grew organically out of open source and weren't closed software that was thrown over the wall of a company later in life like WebOS will be. One could point to projects that were handled somewhat like this and were still successful (like Mozilla), but IMO there's still a valid point that situations like the WebOS release result in stalled projects more often than they result in a successful long term FOSS project. Unless there is very clear and committed leadership (which would probably have to come out of whatever is left of the existing WebOS team to have any sort of authority), the project will be doomed.
aufreak3 15y ago
Also, the open-source examples he presents don't help eliminate the explanation that it is the attitude with which a piece of software is open sourced that might make the difference - i.e. are you "dumping" it on the open source community or "sharing" it with them?

by sho_hn 15y ago

freehunter 15y ago

The Linux example in particular is awful. Linux was not a product released as open source, it was an open source project from the beginning. Project, not product. Products are open sourced either as a principle or as an admission. It's difficult to tell which side WebOS falls on, as parts of it were open source all along, and Palm/HP has always embraced the hacker community since the Pre came along (allowing booting from USB, custom kernels, Preware, root access without jumping through hoops, etc). This could be a natural progression, or it could be a last-hurrah. It will be decided in the marketplace, not in the media, and it won't take long to find out. The next 6 months will define WebOS' future, if other companies jump on board or not. A system doesn't often get three chances at success, and WebOS has used up two of them already.

sho_hn 15y ago
> The Linux example in particular is awful. Linux was not a product released as open source, it was an open source project from the beginning. I may not have gotten this across properly, but the same is true of WebKit or rather its KHTML/KJS progenitors (KDE is an open source community and its trademark-holding legal entity is a not-for-profit).
georgemcbay 15y ago
"The Linux example in particular is awful. Linux was not a product released as open source, it was an open source project from the beginning." I'm pretty sure that was exactly Gassée's point, though it may not have been clear enough. Linux and Webkit (and Apache, etc, etc) are very successful FOSS projects, but they grew organically out of open source and weren't closed software that was thrown over the wall of a company later in life like WebOS will be. One could point to projects that were handled somewhat like this and were still successful (like Mozilla), but IMO there's still a valid point that situations like the WebOS release result in stalled projects more often than they result in a successful long term FOSS project. Unless there is very clear and committed leadership (which would probably have to come out of whatever is left of the existing WebOS team to have any sort of authority), the project will be doomed.

aufreak3 15y ago

Also, the open-source examples he presents don't help eliminate the explanation that it is the attitude with which a piece of software is open sourced that might make the difference - i.e. are you "dumping" it on the open source community or "sharing" it with them?