Last week was very exciting for cloud computing. Citrix CloudStack provides the Apache Software Foundation to deliver what we heard our partners and customers demanding - an open source cloud computing platform ready for production that embraced the most permissive licenses and proven community more established in the world of open source. In responding to this market need, we believe that we have positioned CloudStack to become the leader in cloud computing platforms. While open source software is generally a disruptive technology with designs to trivialize a mature system owner or a legacy, this is one of the first times that I can remember where we see a disruption of technology is led to the adoption of open source and community development model. It is increasingly clear that open source systems will be among the biggest winners of the Cloud era.
To take advantage of this opportunity, vendors are falling over themselves to claim that they are open source. Provided washing clouds that passed in recent years, we are entering a stage where "open washing" became the norm. It's like a food product called "natural" (sorry to disappoint you, but just because Captain Crunch has fiber in it is not good for you). Without clear guidelines, all claims and counterclaims of suppliers, it is difficult for companies to understand how truly "open" technology is that they are encamped.
To help sort out the confusion, I put out "Three key questions to ask your 'open' Software Vendor" to get a better idea of what they mean when they say their product is open source. We are not implying that there is only one way to do open source. After all, there are many successful models to provide technology in the open source leadership. It is important, however, that you understand what each provider, and the implications of their choices can have on you as someone buying or building on their product.
1. Under which open source license is the licensed product?
There are a number of open source licenses that have emerged over the last twenty years. Open source industry is littered with acronyms such as LPG, ASL, CDDL, BSD, etc. The most important thing for any customer or user to understand how these influential licenses on the various freedoms associated with open source communities. traditional copyleft licenses like GPLv2 and v3 have prospered under the Linux explosion over the last decade, becoming the standard license different distributions market. While the GPL was great for software like Linux programs, rules around the protection of IP and reciprocity have a less desirable license for many companies. In fact, many organizations have strict rules in place to where LPG can be deployed and managed in a corporate data center, especially to protect innovation and the internal IP development. As a result, more permissive licenses such as the Apache Software License, have taken center stage as the license of choice for cloud services built. These licenses have minimum limits on how the software can be distributed or used. While the Apache Software License offers the same freedom in terms of how the software can be used, its permissive structure allows wide innovation, deployment and distribution without any of the restrictions that come with copyleft licenses. In short, this means that customers are free to consume, distribute and innovate on the code without losing the intellectual property of the company. This elimination of risk has also become very attractive for ecosystem partners and developers who consider this model as a better way to engage in the development of the community.
2. How the project is governed?
Governance is one of the most important attributes of an open source project, because it defines much of the behavior in the project and in the community. There are two emerging models for open source projects :. 1) The governance of business and led 2) Foundation headed by governance
I remember an article I read some years back when I worked for Sun at the time OpenSolaris. Sun has been heavily criticized by Michael Dolan IBM in an article that criticized us for opening the supply of technology, but the maintenance of full property management and copyright of the project. In his post in 07:
"It is not for me to determine if any of the words to the current fashion today mingle company conducts open code projects under various licenses governance structures are "right" or "wrong," but I have a strong opinion that open source independent projects often have a head start in building communities, participation and multi-vendor investment (and often it is their goal). I also think it is foolish to expect a single company project in the trade should behave in a so other than a business driven by shareholders would be. "
As I look back on it today, I am reminded how Michael was correct focus in his statement. An open source driven in the trade that has direct links to a single corporation project is governed by a structure that is designed to benefit a person / organization - society. Guests looking for freedom of choice, lack of vendor lock-in and a genuine community engagement and innovation will want to align with a project that is aligned to share success, influence and directions all members of the group - not a single entity.
3. Can you access, study and deploy 100% of the commercial code, without any obligation to buy
"Basic Open vs Open Source" is a debate lively in the development community ?; with strong and polarized opinions if you find similar passions in this debate as you would around religion or politics. Many would argue that companies that follow the basic model open are companies open source at all, as all the "good things" that brings value to the product are held back under proprietary licenses and available only in a paid model. This distinction is important because the benefits of open that most companies still seek inaccessible in an open base model. Even in projects where the core could be completely open and delivered under a permissive license, if the packaging and delivery of added-value in the solution is not made available under the "freedoms" of the general open source, users not getting more benefit from the use of these technologies as they would with proprietary solutions.
the bottom line is there are many models of open source on the market and it is important for users to fully understand what freedoms they enjoy during engagement with specific projects. Our movement with CloudStack this week demonstrates the openness that we believe that these projects must be -. permissive licenses, contributors and foundations led governance with full transparency codes
0 Komentar