[TAG] [lg-announce] Linux Gazette #140 is out!

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Ben Okopnik (ben at linuxgazette.net):

> How much didja bet? Better MIME-encode it and append it to your next
> email. :) I look for those things, and read them.

Ja, I should have.

> 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. 

Sorry about that.  I proofed lj_bytes, checked it in with the
aforementioned checkin comment, and ran out of time & ability to stave
off sleep.  (Also, have been double-shifted with running the 2007
Westercon.)  Ordinarily, I'd have helped a lot more.

> 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.
[...]
> 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.

Done!  I've just checked it lg_bytes.html back in, with a hyperlink
anchor on the text, and this footnote at the end:

<a name="1"></a>
<p> [1] <span class="editorial">Rick Moen comments</span>: On account of
what I assume was a lapse in management concerning this program, an
oversight that has not yet been corrected, Red Hat, Inc. has regrettably
published false claims in press releases such as this one, and others on
both <a href="http://www.redhat.com/rhx/">http://www.redhat.com/rhx/</a>
and on various subpages of <a
href="http://rhx.redhat.com/">http://rhx.redhat.com/</a> -- that Red Hat
Exchange's offerings are open source.</p>

<p>In fact, some are open source, some are under doubtful "badgeware"
MPL + restrictions licences whose sponsoring firms carefully avoid
submitting them to Open Source Initative for scrutiny lest they be
definitively rejected as open source, and some -- Centric CRM v. 4.1
and Jive Software's OpenFire being obvious examples -- are very clearly,
past any possibility of doubt, absolutely proprietary.  (Sixty seconds'
checking should show readers that the Centric CRM's licence doesn't permit
redistribution, and, to quote
<a href="http://rhx.redhat.com/rhx/support/article/DOC-1384">http://rhx.redhat.com/rhx/support/article/DOC-1384</a>,
"OpenFire has a time-based license that unlocks the Enterprise features
in the application. An e-mail is sent to purchasing customers with a
license file.")</p>

<p>I am among several people who have attempted to call Red Hat, Inc.'s
attention to these false and misleading statements (starting with a
private comment to the company's CTO immediately following the RHEL5 /
RHX product launch in San Francisco on March 14).  Their response thus
far has been very disappointing: my best guess is that we're hearing
only reactive and poorly-thought-out damage control from the very same
Marketing Department and Professional Services people who created this
program, i.e., that the issue has not yet reached upper management, but
rather remains bogged down among sponsoring middle managers motivated
only to sweep controversy under the rug.</p>

<p>The latter group's spin control, in response to criticism, is in the
FAQ section of the "<a
href="http://rhx.redhat.com/rhx/support/article/DOC-1285">More about
RHX</a>" page:</p>

<blockquote>
Q: Are you only accepting open source ISVs into RHX?<br>
A: 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. 
</blockquote>

<p>This is confused, largely nonsensical, and unresponsive to the issue:
The notion of an "open source company" is undefined and (more to the
point) irrelevant to the issue at hand.  By contrast, open-source
<strong>codebases</strong> are abundantly well defined, by OSI's formal
and precise <a href="http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd">Open Source
Definition</a> that has always been the guiding criterion since OSI
invented the concept (and definition) in 1998.</p>

<p>I strongly hope that RH management takes this issue in hand soon and
corrects the many distortive claims of open source within RHX, that are
unsupported by the plain facts about many of the offerings.</p>

<p>(A separate page at the RHX site, <a
href="http://rhx.redhat.com/rhx/support/article/DOC-1310">http://rhx.redhat.com/rhx/support/article/DOC-1310</a>,
makes absolutely all of the RHX offerings seem proprietary, even the
ones that are, in fact, true open source.  Fortunately, I guess, the
licence summary on that page is not very competently written, and is
substantively in error on most items listed.)</p>