Linux and Open Source

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols & Paula Rooney

Open mouths and closed minds in open source

By | August 24, 2010, 5:05am PDT

Summary: We all have our own frames, our own assumptions of hero and villain, and our first instinct is always to respond in terms of that frame. We close our minds, even in open source, and that’s a problem.

The recent legal dust-up between Oracle and Google has me engaging in a little self-criticism.

We were all very ready to condemn either side, even before we understood the issue. Paula and I leapt to the defense of open source. Others leapt to the conclusion that the suit would destroy open source and good riddance.

Neither is the case.

(Maybe nothing is as it appears. This is the logo of a popular southern California food blog. It just spoke to me as a statement about open source, and open source attitudes.)

Now it’s true that legal language is hard and deadlines are constant. When anything happens, we are all under enormous pressure to get something out, now, before someone else grabs our page views. And it’s best that we have a take, because heat is so good for powering the Internet machine.

But it turns out that Google didn’t use the GPL version of Java for Android. They used a proprietary version instead. Then they modified that version and distributed it, again not under the GPL.

So maybe Oracle had a case. Sometimes a commercial dispute is just a commercial dispute. There are no great philosophical issues at stake here, other than the fact that Oracle used patent claims in making its case.

It may be that last which got us all going. The Roberts Innovation Tax is already doing its dirty work. Patent trolls are multiplying like cockroaches. It’s just like the Obama Stimulus, except all it’s stimulating are waste and legal bills.

I am not making a political point here. (Please put those rants against the President away.) I’m saying we all have our own frames, our own assumptions of hero and villain, and our first instinct is always to respond in terms of that frame.

We close our minds, even in open source, and that’s a problem.

It’s easier in coding. Philosophical arguments tend to resolve themselves. Either the code works or not, either it has value or it doesn’t.

But all coders know colleagues who may be annoying, hard to work with, or just in over their heads. Getting around them in order to get the work done can lead to heavy drinking.

Unfortunately, in discussing issues of open source, right or wrong aren’t so clear as they are in code. Would that they were. It’s a lesson we should all remember next time news breaks. While writers might forget it, I hope you readers won’t.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “Linux and Open Source”

Topics

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for 30 years, a tech freelancer since 1983.

Disclosure

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a journalist, writer and part-time futurist for over 30 years.

At the present moment I run only a personal blog in addition to my ZDNet open source blog.

DanaBlankenhorn.Com has the subtitle The War Against Oil. In the past I have used it to write about political history, e-commerce, personal matters, some ideas related to open source, and The World of Always On, which is the idea of using sensors, motes and RFID to turn WiFi links into platforms for applications which live in the air.

My IRA account at Schwab holds a few tech shares, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials, but there are no open source companies in it. I don’t even own any CBS stock.

Biography

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for nearly 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the Interactive Age Daily for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age's "NetMarketing" supplement, and dozens of other publications over the years.

Talkback Most Recent of 8 Talkback(s)

  • Well...
    Good article. You point out a lot about the FLOSS community which is sometimes true.

    However, in regards to Dalvik and Google Android's implementation of Java- this is a lot more convoluted. They didn't simply -base- their work on the proprietary model that was at one point Sun's. They basically made a JVM and own bytecode set akin to Java, but from scratch.

    If you want a better understanding of this I recommend looking up java.father's (oh you know who he is happy ) remarks about the suit. The topic is a lot more convoluted than that.

    GPL or not, the case is moot with several patents at least. There are two at least which hold some substance. I doubt there will be much happening from this case, mind you. Mixed-mode being introduced in 2.2 might cause complications, but this is minimal. Etc etc.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    CommonOddity
    24th Aug 2010
  • RE: Open mouths and closed minds in open source
    our own assumptions of hero and about it is bank that website attacked from the site support from any soldier site to the light home page is great villain
    ZDNet Gravatar
    musdahi
    19th Sep
  • the closed minds are only
    at M$. Everyone using GPL is open minded.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Linux Geek
    24th Aug 2010
  • Thought sure the title referred to the OSI
    When I saw this title, the first thing I thought was that it referred to the OSI: "Open mouths and closed minds in open source". There are way, way too many self-aggrandizing blow-hards in Open Source, who actually don't do anything except keep their minds closed and mouths open.

    The OSI is a bunch of hypocrites. When is the closed, private OSI going to practice what they preach and adopt an open governance model? Tell us, who elected the OSI board? Quoting Mark Hinkle, People need to remind themselves "that no matter what the users, vendors, or ... want the [OSI] board has no obligation to act based on their input." Basically, the OSI is accountable to no one:

    http://socializedsoftware.com/2008/03/20/is-the-open-source-brand-in-the-right-hands/

    Matthew Aslett similarly understands the closed Open Source Initiative:

    http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2008/04/16/in-the-osi-board-we-trust/

    Oracle has done the Open Source community a favor by killing OpenSolaris. It was a total waste of time, distracting the occasional developer who didn't know better from focusing on Linux. Now the people who were wasting their time on OpenSolaris will hopefully contribute their development time to Linux.

    Now if Oracle would just find a way to kill the closed OSI so we wouldn't have the irrelevant ramblings of a few self-appointed egotistical blow-hards that continue to make the Open Source community look like a bunch of amateurs. Maybe in the next round of OSI elections we can all vote out the OSI board. Oh wait, they don't have open elections. Never mind.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    caseyfloss
    24th Aug 2010
  • This is very good article
    I think more 'journalist' needs to do more research before they blindly defend Google
    ZDNet Gravatar
    iPad-awan
    24th Aug 2010
  • But at the end of day is Oracle REALLY a good steward for Java/FOSS?
    The more that I hear about Larry Ellison and the corporate culture that he $pawn$, the more that I am reminded of Bill Gate$ & $teve Ballmer. My greatest fear is that this is an indication of more than just sharp elbows on the part of Ellison & Co. What if Oracle's senior leadership concludes that FOSS is not merely benign to their business model, but is instead antithetical a strategic threat to it?
    ZDNet Gravatar
    nbahn
    24th Aug 2010
  • Money
    Why wouldn't a public for-profit company focus on making money?
    ZDNet Gravatar
    archerjoe
    24th Aug 2010
  • @archerjoe
    Well, sure... Good question- but poor context.

    The issue is not purely focused on 'making money'. The issue reverberates a bit past that. By attempting to restrict (in any sense, and this is an extrapolation according to current events) Java in any manner they are not only suffocating the community but future potential developers (or existing ones for that matter) from touching it.

    They are alienating the FL/OSS community, Java community, developers and licensed partners on a rather grand scale right now.

    "Why wouldn't a public for-profit company focus on making money?"

    Indeed. Why would they shoot themselves in the foot in pursuit of profit, only to have diminishing returns as a result of their provocative stance?
    ZDNet Gravatar
    CommonOddity
    25th Aug 2010

Talkback - Tell Us What You Think

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources