sokoot
پنج شنبه 21 تیر 1386, 23:20 عصر
Tim O'Reilly has an interesting post on why the GPLv3 took a pragmatic approach when it came to the "SaaS loophole" (i.e. SaaS apps aren't redistributed; no redistribution means SaaS vendors can use GPLv2 code with modifications and keep the modifications to themselves).
Tim states in the comments to his post:
Having the source to Google or Amazon or eBay or CraigsList also won't let you replicate the service, unless you have millions of dollars to spend on infrastructure, employees to manage the ongoing services, etc. etc.
I've found it amusing that OSS supporters calling for software vendors to open source all their software believe the future of the software market is SaaS+OSS.
-----------
I'd argue that SaaS expressly prevents freedoms 1 through 3. Considering that SaaS delivers on only 1 of 4 freedoms that OSS proponents suggest are immutable, why the love between SaaS & OSS?
In a future with SaaS at the core of non-commercial user applications, I suggest that the key things that users will care about are the openness of:
1] their data (via something like Wesabe's data bill of rights, as Tim points out)
2] the application GUI
The source to Gmail will not greatly help me replicate Gmail. But an open GUI api will help me (or someone else) create things like better Gmail without (messy & brittle) hacks.
-----------
SaaS vs. OSS? Users choose SaaS, next question (http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/07/saas_vs_oss_use.html)
The GPL and Software as a Service (http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/07/the_gpl_and_sof_1.html)
Tim states in the comments to his post:
Having the source to Google or Amazon or eBay or CraigsList also won't let you replicate the service, unless you have millions of dollars to spend on infrastructure, employees to manage the ongoing services, etc. etc.
I've found it amusing that OSS supporters calling for software vendors to open source all their software believe the future of the software market is SaaS+OSS.
-----------
I'd argue that SaaS expressly prevents freedoms 1 through 3. Considering that SaaS delivers on only 1 of 4 freedoms that OSS proponents suggest are immutable, why the love between SaaS & OSS?
In a future with SaaS at the core of non-commercial user applications, I suggest that the key things that users will care about are the openness of:
1] their data (via something like Wesabe's data bill of rights, as Tim points out)
2] the application GUI
The source to Gmail will not greatly help me replicate Gmail. But an open GUI api will help me (or someone else) create things like better Gmail without (messy & brittle) hacks.
-----------
SaaS vs. OSS? Users choose SaaS, next question (http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/07/saas_vs_oss_use.html)
The GPL and Software as a Service (http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/07/the_gpl_and_sof_1.html)