<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google, Its Linux, and Some Open Source Angles</title>
	<atom:link href="http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/2009/11/10/google-its-linux-and-some-open-source-angles/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/2009/11/10/google-its-linux-and-some-open-source-angles/</link>
	<description>by Stephen E. Arnold</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:57:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Martin Suter</title>
		<link>http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/2009/11/10/google-its-linux-and-some-open-source-angles/comment-page-1/#comment-78552</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin Suter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:22:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/?p=9318#comment-78552</guid>
		<description>What&#039;s troubling is that companies, like Google, want it both ways with open source. On the one hand, they claim to be good open source citizens, while, on the other hand, picking their moments to &quot;give back&quot;. 

I blogged about this theme some time ago (&quot;The Open Source Red Herring&quot; at http://www.martinsuter.net/blog/2008/01/the-open-source-red-herring.html). 

Excerpt:
Under what terms does Google license Linux? How much does it “give back”? I’m suggesting that it is highly selective as to what it “gives back” to the open source community, and makes these decisions based on its own self-interest, not out of some altruistic motive. Google search algorithms are deeply guarded secrets, and its vaunted server farm architecture is “proprietary”. Is there anything wrong with this? Of course not. Just don’t pretend that you’re somehow better than the “commercial” vendors because you promote open source development opportunistically. 

&quot;This is what [Summer of Code] is really about: infecting students with the free software spirit, giving them the opportunity to grow into a community like ours.&quot;

There&#039;s another more subtle benefit, as DiBona explains. Thanks to the Summer of Code, &quot;Google now knows all the people working on all these software projects, on which it depends,&quot; he says. &quot;That&#039;s incredibly useful to us. Every once in a while we&#039;ll come out with a new API and there&#039;ll be some projects in the open source world that might be useful in either using that API or being a customer. You can just call them up and say, &#039;hey guys, it&#039;s Google, we&#039;re you&#039;re pal,&#039; and let them just check it out.&quot; (http://redmondmag.com/features/article.asp?editorialsid=2395)

I have never heard, nor do I ever expect to hear, any allusions from Microsoft that it is anything but a profit-driven, commercial software vendor. As a shareholder, I expect nothing less.

That&#039;s my .02!

Martin</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What&#8217;s troubling is that companies, like Google, want it both ways with open source. On the one hand, they claim to be good open source citizens, while, on the other hand, picking their moments to &#8220;give back&#8221;. </p>
<p>I blogged about this theme some time ago (&#8220;The Open Source Red Herring&#8221; at <a href="http://www.martinsuter.net/blog/2008/01/the-open-source-red-herring.html)" rel="nofollow">http://www.martinsuter.net/blog/2008/01/the-open-source-red-herring.html)</a>. </p>
<p>Excerpt:<br />
Under what terms does Google license Linux? How much does it “give back”? I’m suggesting that it is highly selective as to what it “gives back” to the open source community, and makes these decisions based on its own self-interest, not out of some altruistic motive. Google search algorithms are deeply guarded secrets, and its vaunted server farm architecture is “proprietary”. Is there anything wrong with this? Of course not. Just don’t pretend that you’re somehow better than the “commercial” vendors because you promote open source development opportunistically. </p>
<p>&#8220;This is what [Summer of Code] is really about: infecting students with the free software spirit, giving them the opportunity to grow into a community like ours.&#8221;</p>
<p>There&#8217;s another more subtle benefit, as DiBona explains. Thanks to the Summer of Code, &#8220;Google now knows all the people working on all these software projects, on which it depends,&#8221; he says. &#8220;That&#8217;s incredibly useful to us. Every once in a while we&#8217;ll come out with a new API and there&#8217;ll be some projects in the open source world that might be useful in either using that API or being a customer. You can just call them up and say, &#8216;hey guys, it&#8217;s Google, we&#8217;re you&#8217;re pal,&#8217; and let them just check it out.&#8221; (<a href="http://redmondmag.com/features/article.asp?editorialsid=2395" rel="nofollow">http://redmondmag.com/features/article.asp?editorialsid=2395</a>)</p>
<p>I have never heard, nor do I ever expect to hear, any allusions from Microsoft that it is anything but a profit-driven, commercial software vendor. As a shareholder, I expect nothing less.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s my .02!</p>
<p>Martin</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charlie Hull</title>
		<link>http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/2009/11/10/google-its-linux-and-some-open-source-angles/comment-page-1/#comment-78498</link>
		<dc:creator>Charlie Hull</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:56:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/?p=9318#comment-78498</guid>
		<description>Regarding the last comment you quote, this seems perfectly reasonable to me. If an organisation is using open source code internally with their own patches, they will have to make the choice between the value gained from contributing the patches back to the community and retaining the IP developed in house. It&#039;s a common myth that open source licensing forces you to show everything you have to the world.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Regarding the last comment you quote, this seems perfectly reasonable to me. If an organisation is using open source code internally with their own patches, they will have to make the choice between the value gained from contributing the patches back to the community and retaining the IP developed in house. It&#8217;s a common myth that open source licensing forces you to show everything you have to the world.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
