Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

[News] Companies Imitate Open Source the Wrong Way

  • Subject: [News] Companies Imitate Open Source the Wrong Way
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:18:40 +0000
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: Netscape / schestowitz.com
  • User-agent: KNode/0.10.4
Open source and messaging’s future

,----[ Quote ]
| It’s a triumph of the open-source approach to solve a problem: people just 
| saying, “Let’s do it!” The CAP never would have happened if we relied on the 
| marketplace, or on the government, as neither was interested in creating 
| this.   
`----

http://www.washingtontechnology.com/print/22_20/31752-1.html

Medsphere Adds New Chief Medical Officer to Growing Executive Team

,----[ Quote ]
| Medsphere Systems Corporation, the leading commercial provider of Open 
| Source-based electronic health record (EHR) systems and services, today 
| announced the appointment of Edmund Billings, MD, as Chief Medical Officer.  
`----

http://www.ad-hoc-news.de/CorporateNews/en/14164763/Medsphere-Adds-New-Chief-Medical-Officer-to-Growing


Related:

Is Microsoft Hijacking Open Source?

,----[ Quote ]
| What really worries me is what looks like an emerging pattern in Microsoft's 
| behaviour. The EU agreement is perhaps the first fruit of this, but I predict 
| it will not be the last. What is happening is that Microsoft is effectively 
| being allowed to define the meaning of “open source” as it wishes, not as 
| everyone else understands the term. For example, in the pledge quoted above, 
| an open source project is “not commercially distributed by its 
| participants” - and this is a distinction also made by Kroes and her FAQ.      
| 
| In this context, the recent approval of two Microsoft licences as 
| officially “open source” is only going to make things worse. Although I felt 
| this was the right decision – to have ad hoc rules just because it's 
| Microsoft would damage the open source process - I also believe it's going to 
| prove a problem. After all, it means that Microsoft can rightfully point to 
| its OSI-approved licences as proof that open source and Microsoft no longer 
| stand in opposition to each other. This alone is likely to perplex people who 
| thought they understood what open source meant.       
| 
| [...]
| 
| What we are seeing here are a series of major assaults on different but 
| related fields – open source, open file formats and open standards. All are 
| directed to one goal: the hijacking of the very concept of openness. If we 
| are to stop this inner corrosion, we must point out whenever we see wilful 
| misuse and lazy misunderstandings of the term, and we must strive to make the  
| real state of affairs quite clear. If we don't, then core concepts like “open 
| source” will be massaged, kneaded and pummelled into uselessness.     
`----

http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1003745


Microsoft: Be afraid, be very afraid

http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;710755567;fp;4194304;fpid;1

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index