IBM rapes open source - Silicon Valley Sleuth

Silicon Valley Sleuth, an insider's view from Silicon Valley
A blog from V3.co.uk





Other blogs
Download Junkie
Your daily dose of download discussion

IT Sneak
V3.co.uk's under cover reporter offers odds and ends from the odd end of the technology

Mac Inspector
Drills to the core of the latest Mac rumours and news

Security Watchdog
Sniffing out IT security issues

The Frontline
Insight into the latest tech news from V3.co.uk's team of reporters

V3.co.uk Labs
The latest UK business technology: quick reviews and first impressions




« The hacker hacked | Main | Ringtones lose their groove »

IBM rapes open source

After users reminded IBM of its open source commitment, the company suddenly seems to have back peddled on its promises.

That is at least what happened with the company's Cgidev2 tool, a development tool for its iSeries server line that allows developers to web-enable applications that are written in COBOL or RPG.

Although IBM's website claims that the software is open source, the company now seems to be a saying that it really isn't.

Users actually are never presented with any licence agreement. The IBM website certainly doesn't say which open source licence governs the code, and users who download the free tools don't get to see one either.

So when Giovanni Perotti asked IBM if he could host the Cigdev2 application on his website, the answer was simple: "No way!"

But Big Blue never realised that Perotti retired from IBM only months ago, or that he was the last developer to work on the application. Following its flat out denial, the next logical step was that Cgidev2 would be mothballed, frozen in time.

Users cried foul, IBM was embarrassed, emails clogged IBM inboxes, and before you knew it, IBM decided to assign developers to keep the project up and running. But be that inside IBM's website.

The continuing support for the software is great for Cgidev2 users, but the larger issue is still that IBM abused open source. The software vendor attracted users and developers by claiming that the code was open source, and now gets away with back peddling on a legal technicality: there is no open source licence to back up the claim.

The whole thing leaves a large dent in IBM's reputation as open source advocate.

But at least the company knows how to cut its losses. IBM now is considering releasing the source code after all, a company spokeswoman told vnunet.com. Better late than never.

Tux

IBM makes Tux meet Pinocchio

Tags: open source, linux, OSI, IBM, iseries

TrackBack

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: IBM rapes open source.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs-1.gos.vnu.net/mt-tb.cgi/79447

» Tux meet Pinocchio in iSeries land. Redmond smiles. from James Governor's MonkChips

I had known about some licensing issues with CGIDEV2, a tool for web-enabling iSeries applications, for a while but hadn't fully grokked the implications. This was apparently open source code... that wasn't. My old boss Jonathan Eunice tore IBM a ... Read More

TITLE: Some thoughts URL: http://zipito.servequake.com/l.php?www.siliconvalleysleuth.com/2005/08/ibm_rapes_open_.html IP: 82.146.41.105 BLOG NAME: KYLEBUN DATE: 11/14/2005 01:13:19 AM Read More

Comments

Recent reports suggest that the eServer iSeries system will no longer support CGIDEV2 code. This report was a miscommunication and IBM regrets the confusion it has caused. To address any issues customers may still have, IBM will direct customers to a different Web site (URL to be determined), from which CGIDEV2 may be downloaded. All visitors to the current Easy400 site will be redirected to the new CGIDEV2 site. CGIDEV2 enables programmers to write code for the Internet, using COBOL or RPG as CGI language, which reinvigorates legacy applications. Additionally, IBM is investigating licensing the code under an Open Source license at a later date.

Re: Tony:

Thank you for posting the official PR response about this mishap. But remove the PR veil and focus on what happened:

1: IBM said (and still says on its website) that the application was open source, but won't let anybody distribute the code – a clear violation of any open source licence. And why say that you are "investigating licensing the code under an Open Source license at a later date" if your website says it already is?

2: IBM let the tool's sole software developer retire and didn't assign any staff to replace him _UNTIL_ users cried out. Did IBM purposely mothball the application? Perhaps not. But I wouldn't label that as "miscommunication". That is negligence to say the least.

Post a comment







Useful links: About | Privacy policy | Terms & conditions | Top of the page
© Incisive Media Investments Limited 2010, Published by Incisive Financial Publishing Limited, Haymarket House, 28-29 Haymarket, London SW1Y 4RX, are companies registered in England and Wales with company registration numbers 04252091 & 04252093