open source?

An article yesterday at CIO.com terms thingamy as Open Source. Oops...

In fact thingamy can be seen as a platform, or even a kernel - and that part is not opening it's source. For now - and here's why:

My approach is a bit like Linus Torvalds' approach to the Linux kernel: Even if it is Open Source he himself (and his kernel group) have the latest and final say as to what goes into an official release so as to assure a smoothly working GNU/Linux Open Source environment.

Those released "vanilla" kernels can then be re-built and tweaked to include the drivers you (or the distribution vendor) need.

I subscribe to that approach - a stable and standard kernel is beyond crucial as it's the basis for everything else built thereupon. It's almost like an extension of a programming language - it needs to be common for all.

Thingamy is quite like that kernel - it is a framework - a programming environment for non-programmers - to build whatever you want with it, and as such would not gain from free-for-all changes or adding of features.

A standards-based open API will allow for almost everything to be done using the kernel - a parallel to rebuilding / tweaking the Linux kernel. But the actual working business model you build using the thingamy "framework" is yours, and what you do with that is up to you - if you want to GPL a model, fine, then others can build on that under GPL. If you want to license out a neat model for the brewery industry, please do.

That means there will be a free-use "developer / testing / initial implementation" program - but we'd like to get a snippet of money when the kernel is used to run an organisation...

So for now I'll keep control over the kernel as it develops, but I do keep the parallel to the Linux kernel in mind at all times, do not want to limit any creativity out there.

Hope you're all OK with that for now :)

Comments

[Sebastian Hassinger]

More than ok, Sig - it's your right! This seems to be a case of the type of confusion that "Open Source as religion" can cause. In fact Open Source is at its most powerful and useful in the space of "solved problems" -- operating systems and the like. In a case like Thingamy where you are trying to solve a problem in a unique, non-traditional way, it's imperative to have the creative power tightly coupled to the project, which going Open Source would undermine.

[sig]

Thanks Sebastian!

I think some of the confusion is around the license vs. the actual code.

I like the "copyleft" way of thinking and if I were to build templates (actual running models, vertical solutions) that would be the license I would strive for given that my interest would be "spread the use!" and stick to license fees from the kernel.
A consultant might do it differently and use a more old fashioned license on the build, and that would be his right.

Code on the other hand is very useful for the end user if he wants to tweak - and we're keeping that in mind trying over time to keep as much outside the kernel as possible. In the beginning just small, but important stuff, API, CSS, images for layout - all open. Later more I hope.

But for the kernel - I still think Linus does show the way there, some control is required. :)