FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Marketing

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-14-2010, 01:03 AM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Advertising "open core" software

Hi,

Open core, for those not familiar with the term is the business model of
keeping some key features closed and selling a proprietary product where
the "core" functionality is free and open source. Two features in the
feature list are such software

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/13/FeatureList

Zarafa groupware and IntelliJ IDEA, IDE for Java have a number of
features that is only available in their proprietary product.

http://www.zarafa.com/content/editions
http://www.jetbrains.com/idea/features/editions_comparison_matrix.html

Do we care? I am concerned about this.

Rahul
--
marketing mailing list
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 
Old 04-14-2010, 01:24 AM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Advertising "open core" software

On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 06:33 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Open core, for those not familiar with the term is the business model of
> keeping some key features closed and selling a proprietary product where
> the "core" functionality is free and open source. Two features in the
> feature list are such software
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/13/FeatureList
>
> Zarafa groupware and IntelliJ IDEA, IDE for Java have a number of
> features that is only available in their proprietary product.
>
> http://www.zarafa.com/content/editions
> http://www.jetbrains.com/idea/features/editions_comparison_matrix.html
>
> Do we care? I am concerned about this.

It did bug me a bit about Zarafa. I'd rather prefer to promote
eGroupware, myself...that's what I pushed for in the infrastructure
group discussion on calendaring software.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
marketing mailing list
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 
Old 04-14-2010, 07:49 AM
Mario Torre
 
Default Advertising "open core" software

Il giorno mar, 13/04/2010 alle 18.24 -0700, Adam Williamson ha scritto:
> On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 06:33 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:

> > http://www.jetbrains.com/idea/features/editions_comparison_matrix.html
> >
> > Do we care? I am concerned about this.
>
> It did bug me a bit about Zarafa. I'd rather prefer to promote
> eGroupware, myself...that's what I pushed for in the infrastructure
> group discussion on calendaring software.
> --
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
> http://www.happyassassin.net
>

And we do have NetBeans and Eclipse, where IDEA is just a cool editor in
the current state. On the other end, people may use it and write great
FLOSS plugins if they want.

Mario
--
pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/

Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/
Read About us at: http://planet.classpath.org
OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/

Please, support open standards:
http://endsoftpatents.org/

--
marketing mailing list
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 
Old 04-14-2010, 08:17 AM
Yaakov Nemoy
 
Default Advertising "open core" software

Hey All,

2010/4/14 Rahul Sundaram <metherid@gmail.com>:
> Hi,
>
> Open core, for those not familiar with the term is the business model of
> keeping some key features closed and selling a proprietary product where
> the "core" functionality is free and open source. *Two features in the
> feature list are such software
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/13/FeatureList
>
> Zarafa groupware and IntelliJ IDEA, IDE for Java have a number of
> features that is only available in their proprietary product.
>
> http://www.zarafa.com/content/editions
> http://www.jetbrains.com/idea/features/editions_comparison_matrix.html
>
> Do we care? *I am concerned about this.

We had an interesting talk about the differences between Open Core and
Open Source at LOADays last weekend. We went over some of the
different "Open Core" models out there, and while we were pretty
unanimous in that Open Source is better, one takeaway was that we need
to differentiate between who is doing Open Source The Right Way (TM)
and who isn't.

There are a number of issues we can identify, mostly orthogonal to
each other, but combine defines how "Open" you might say the
project/product/company is.

1) The source code is available freely, but not really usable without
some tweaks, build hacks and possibly the sacrifice of
$furry_animal_that_doesn't_offend_your_religion

2) The source code is available only to customers and is not freely
available on the company's website.

3) There are modules you can purchase or get a support contract that
adds critical value to the software, but are not available under an
open source license; the community is forced to reimplement this
functionality.

4) There are modules you can purchase or get a support contract that
primarily focuses on interoperability with uncooperative proprietary
software, and the code itself is encumbered by legal hurdles such as
patents, trade secrets, NDA.

To different degrees, each situation here can be understandable and
reasonable or not. I suggest that if this is an important issue, we go
into exactly the different models of what's open core and what's just
'barely' open source, provide working recommendations on what works
for us, and codify these standards.

In any case, as long as the code itself can be gotten Freely, there's
no reason why it shouldn't be in Fedora. Perhaps people demanding more
openness because they like the product can change the minds of the
company that's creating it.

-Yaakov
--
marketing mailing list
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 
Old 04-14-2010, 09:12 AM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Advertising "open core" software

On 04/14/2010 01:47 PM, Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
>
> In any case, as long as the code itself can be gotten Freely, there's
> no reason why it shouldn't be in Fedora. Perhaps people demanding more
> openness because they like the product can change the minds of the
> company that's creating it.
>

Question was not about what should be allowed. It was about whether we
should be advertising such software in our promo material.

Rahul

--
marketing mailing list
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 
Old 04-14-2010, 09:24 AM
Jan Wildeboer
 
Default Advertising "open core" software

On 04/14/2010 11:12 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:

> Question was not about what should be allowed. It was about whether we
> should be advertising such software in our promo material.

I don't feel good about delivering marketing for free to companies that
do nothing for Fedora besides putting a spec/srpm into the the repos.

So I would say that the companies that produce the stuff should promote
it but not the distro that has them in the repos.

Jan

--
Jan H Wildeboer |
EMEA Open Source Affairs | Office: +49 (0)89 205071-207
Red Hat GmbH | Mobile: +49 (0)174 33 23 249
Technopark II, Haus C | Fax: +49 (0)89 205071-111
Werner-von-Siemens-Ring 11 -15 |
85630 Grasbrunn |
__________________________________________________ ___________________

Reg. Adresse: Red Hat GmbH,
Technopark II, Haus C, Werner-von-Siemens-Ring 11 -15
85630 Grasbrunn, Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 153243
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Brendan Lane, Charlie Peters, Michael Cunningham,
Charles Cachera
__________________________________________________ ___________________

GPG Key: 3AC3C8AB
Fingerprint: 3D1E C4E0 DD67 E16D E47A 9564 A72F 5C39 3AC3 C8AB
--
marketing mailing list
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 
Old 04-14-2010, 10:19 AM
Mario Torre
 
Default Advertising "open core" software

Il giorno mer, 14/04/2010 alle 11.24 +0200, Jan Wildeboer ha scritto:
> On 04/14/2010 11:12 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> > Question was not about what should be allowed. It was about whether we
> > should be advertising such software in our promo material.
>
> I don't feel good about delivering marketing for free to companies that
> do nothing for Fedora besides putting a spec/srpm into the the repos.
>
> So I would say that the companies that produce the stuff should promote
> it but not the distro that has them in the repos.
>
> Jan

But we can take it to the extreme so. Let's make a couple of examples.

First we have Eclipse. Eclipse itself is a core platform, everything
else is based on plugins.

You can definitely use the core version, but may you depend of vendor
specific plugins to do you job, just think about WebSphere or MyEclipse
with support for the Matisse graphics builder in Eclipse.

I've been using closed things like that for my daily job, for example I
have used the WindRiver Eclipse.

You may say that the core version is good enough, but in my opinion is
not. So where's the boundary? It's completely user defined.

OpenJDK. Currently the state is of a fully functional product, but we
had shipped it when it was not as ready, we shipped IcedTea based on
version 7 of the early (day 0 infact) code drop of the JDK. We then
added the missing features. You may consider those early days as a core
version of the JDK, where support for extra functionality (including,
back at the time, running programs like NetBeans, it took some time to
get there) had to be found in the closed version.

But let's take it ever more extreme.

Fedora can be considered in some ways as the core version of Red Hat
Enterprise Linux.

Red Hat has shipped in the past closed things as value added, like
Acrobat Reader or the JDK itslef. Does it means we should not even
develop Fedora anymore?

I know, it's a bit like comparing apples and oranges, but what I mean is
this: if a feature, as in software, is nice to have, and there are no
legal implications, that is, is fully conformant to our current rules
and guidelines, I don't see why we should not support it. A vendor has
the right to use and modify it's own software and sell it, with what you
may consider added values (and thus, a selling point, and more selling
means better chances to support the free code base).

On the other hand, it's true that maintaining a package is a costly
task, so, if there are no maintainers that want to do this, and if there
are better alternatives out there, if the code of those project is not
after all so important for us, then it's ok to drop it. The code is out
there, you can still use it if you want, so it's not that we kill the
project.

But this is a cost-benefit analysis that is always valid, and has
nothing to do with the morality of the FLOSS software.

I hope I explained my idea correctly.

Cheers,
Mario
--
pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/

Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/
Read About us at: http://planet.classpath.org
OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/

Please, support open standards:
http://endsoftpatents.org/

--
marketing mailing list
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 
Old 04-14-2010, 10:33 AM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Advertising "open core" software

On 04/14/2010 03:49 PM, Mario Torre wrote:
>
> But let's take it ever more extreme.
>
> Fedora can be considered in some ways as the core version of Red Hat
> Enterprise Linux.
>

Not at all. Fedora is upstream for Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Fedora
has more packages than Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Both of these are free
and open source versions. At this point, you are very very far from
the "open core" business model. The definition of "open core" is very
specific.

http://alampitt.typepad.com/lampitt_or_leave_it/2008/08/open-core-licen.html

One of the important requirement of open core is centralized copyright
control which none of the examples you cited have.

Rahul


--
marketing mailing list
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 
Old 04-14-2010, 10:47 AM
Jan Wildeboer
 
Default Advertising "open core" software

On 04/14/2010 12:19 PM, Mario Torre wrote:

> You can definitely use the core version, but may you depend of vendor
> specific plugins to do you job, just think about WebSphere or MyEclipse
> with support for the Matisse graphics builder in Eclipse.

The core question here stays: Should we *promote* openCore stuff in
Fedora Marketing material. Please stay focused.

Do we *promote* Eclipse in that sense?

> You may say that the core version is good enough, but in my opinion is
> not. So where's the boundary? It's completely user defined.

Yep. So we should ship it but nor promote it. Good to see that these
companies/projects care for Fedora and we should praise them for that,
but we should not *promote* it. There are so many interesting real open
projects in Fedora that definitely deserve to be promoted.

> I know, it's a bit like comparing apples and oranges, but what I mean is
> this: if a feature, as in software, is nice to have, and there are no
> legal implications, that is, is fully conformant to our current rules
> and guidelines, I don't see why we should not support it. A vendor has
> the right to use and modify it's own software and sell it, with what you
> may consider added values (and thus, a selling point, and more selling
> means better chances to support the free code base).

Again - the question was on *promoting* these projects/companies. Nut
about support or having them in the distro.

IMHO Fedora should use its marketing power to promote Open Solutions.
Not comapny driven community stuff.

Jan

--
Jan H Wildeboer |
EMEA Open Source Affairs | Office: +49 (0)89 205071-207
Red Hat GmbH | Mobile: +49 (0)174 33 23 249
Technopark II, Haus C | Fax: +49 (0)89 205071-111
Werner-von-Siemens-Ring 11 -15 |
85630 Grasbrunn |
__________________________________________________ ___________________

Reg. Adresse: Red Hat GmbH,
Technopark II, Haus C, Werner-von-Siemens-Ring 11 -15
85630 Grasbrunn, Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 153243
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Brendan Lane, Charlie Peters, Michael Cunningham,
Charles Cachera
__________________________________________________ ___________________

GPG Key: 3AC3C8AB
Fingerprint: 3D1E C4E0 DD67 E16D E47A 9564 A72F 5C39 3AC3 C8AB
--
marketing mailing list
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 
Old 04-14-2010, 11:06 AM
Mario Torre
 
Default Advertising "open core" software

Il giorno mer, 14/04/2010 alle 16.03 +0530, Rahul Sundaram ha scritto:
> On 04/14/2010 03:49 PM, Mario Torre wrote:
> >
> > But let's take it ever more extreme.
> >
> > Fedora can be considered in some ways as the core version of Red Hat
> > Enterprise Linux.
> >
>
> Not at all. Fedora is upstream for Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Fedora
> has more packages than Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Both of these are free
> and open source versions. At this point, you are very very far from
> the "open core" business model. The definition of "open core" is very
> specific.

Ok, maybe this was too extreme.

> http://alampitt.typepad.com/lampitt_or_leave_it/2008/08/open-core-licen.html
>
> One of the important requirement of open core is centralized copyright
> control which none of the examples you cited have.

If I understand what centralized copyright control is, OpenJDK has it,
we had to sign a paper to Sun to contribute back, they have full control
over the code I write for them. Even for GNU Classpath I had to sign
this paperwork to the Free Software Foundation.

In any case, the point remains the same. If IDEA is cool to have,
there's no reason in not having it because the closed features are of
bigger benefit.

I would see it from the other side instead, drop it because the open
features are not worth the efforts.

Btw, IDEA is just an example here, I personally do not care. The fact is
that I would not like to see that a policy is being defined here,
because there are other projects where the difference in features is not
so huge, they may be worth supporting then. This should be a package by
package consideration, not a general rule in my opinion.

Cheers,
Mario
--
pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/

Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/
Read About us at: http://planet.classpath.org
OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/

Please, support open standards:
http://endsoftpatents.org/

--
marketing mailing list
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:58 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org