[TAG] [lg-announce] Linux Gazette #140 is out!
ben at linuxgazette.net
Mon Jul 2 23:44:09 MSD 2007
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 09:32:25AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Ben Okopnik (ben at linuxgazette.net):
> > July 2007 (#140):
> > * Mailbag
> > * Talkback
> > * NewsBytes, by Howard Dyckoff
> There was something I annotated at the time of my svn checkin of
> lg_bytes -- but just realised I should have ALSO put into the STATUS
> notes. (I'll bet in retrospect that nobody pays attention to svn
> checkin comments.)
How much didja bet? Better MIME-encode it and append it to your next
email. :) I look for those things, and read them.
This month's pub process, BTW, sucked ferociously. Out of the 11
published articles, I had to proof, tech-edit, etc. all but two; as per
Neil's corrections, it shows.
I note, parenthetically, that Howard's two submissions took more than
two hours to grind through. He does submit interesting material, but his
writing and editing skills are nothing to boast about.
> Howard had:
> Red Hat Adds Business Solutions to Open Source RHX
> RHX launch partners include Alfresco, CentricCRM, Compiere,
> EnterpriseDB, Groundwork, Jaspersoft, Jive, MySQL, Pentaho, Scalix,
> SugarCRM, Zenoss, Zimbra, and Zmanda.
> Problem: A bunch of those are JUST NOT OPEN SOURCE. Zimbra, SugarCRM,
> Compiere, Groundwork, and Scalix are classic "badgeware", which is under
> MPL-variant software with some restrictions -- while with CentricCRM,
> there's not even any room for controversy, since _their_ licence doesn't
> even permit code redistribution. Jive Software (which I'd not heard of,
> before) turns out to be equally bad.
> I have brought this matter, several times, to Red Hat's attention, and
> the presence of actively misleading wording on the Red Hat Exchange
> site, such as this at the top of
> Red Hat Exchange helps you compare, buy, and manage open source
> business applications. All in one place and backed by the open source
> leader. We've collaborated with our open source software partners to
> validate that RHX applications run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux and are
> delivered through the Red Hat Network. At RHX, Red Hat provides
> customers with a single point of contact for support.
> There has been no response and no correction of this error, but the very
> bottom of that page now has this "FAQ" item:
> Are you only accepting open source ISVs into RHX?
> The initial set of participating ISVs all have an open source focus. We
> realize that there is debate about which companies are truly open
> source. To make it transparent to users, RHX includes information about
> each ISV's license approach. Longer term, we may introduce proprietary
> applications that are friendly with open source applications.
Damn. I wish you'd brought that to my attention - I would have been glad
to insert a long editorial note to this effect into NB. Hell, it might
still be worthwhile to do so now; it's possible that a number of the
mirrors have not yet done a 'pull'. If you want to tweak it, go for it
and let me know ASAP.
> That is, of course, anything but a straight answer. First, it's
> nonsense to speak of _companies_ being open source or not -- and the
> above paragraph in general ducks the question. The issue is whether
> software is. Second, even if there were debate about the badgeware
> offerings allegedly being open source, there could be absolutely none
> about Jive Software's Clearspace or CentricCRM 4.1, which are
> unambiguously proprietary.
> I'm surprised that this Red Hat's deceptive characterisation got past
> Howard without comment, given that the matter's been extensively covered
> in recent _Linux Gazette_ issues.
Howard is OK at _covering_ the stuff, but not interpreting it. I'm not
being harsh - this is just what I've seen in everything he's submitted.
Not his strong point; hence, the need for editorial comments.
Me, well, I was grinding through 200kB of material to edit and focusing
on style, spelling, clarity, etc.
> At the time I noticed this error, it was late at night and I delayed
> dealing with the matter because I needed to chase down which of the
> named offerings were under which licence, and I hadn't done so when I
> suddenly started helping run the Westercon (which is still ongoing).
> Any chance you'd like to append a footnote and republish?
Yes, *please*. I would really appreciate you writing up an insertable
chunk and sending it to me - or you're welcome to edit the article in
SVN itself, and I'll repub as soon as you let me know that you're done.
* Ben Okopnik * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette * http://LinuxGazette.NET *
More information about the TAG