Microsoft Talking Heads About 'Open Source'
-
Celebrating 25 years of Open Source at Campus Party [Ed: Microsoft mole ("community manager"), funded by Microsoft too (Nick Vidal), to dominate event exploiting the "Open Source" brand, pushing GPL violations under the guise of "HEY HI". OSI is thoroughly infiltrated and bribed by Microsoft. How many Microsoft moles does it take to destroy an organisation? One. But Microsoft already has at least 3 inside OSI.]
OSI has been celebrating 25 years of Open Source at tech conferences around the world.
-
Why Open Source Matters [Ed: Microsoft mole, bribed by both Microsoft and GitHub (i.e. Microsoft twice over), cites Asay as authority on "Open Source". Asay brought Microsoft to the OSI after he had attempted to work for Microsoft (job interview). Moles galore.]
Is it “open source”? The question doesn’t really matter. – Matt Asay When we as an industry talk about whether the term open source matters, we need to talk about that question on more than one level. There’s the obvious question of the licensing for a given project.
-
Ben Cotton: Does open source matter? [Ed: The person whom IBM fired (he led Fedora) cites Asay, who rejects Open Source (he uses Apple and works for proprietary software companies, has no technical background) as "authority"]
Matt Asay’s article “The Open Source Licensing War is Over” has been making the rounds this week, as text and subtext. While his position is certainly spicy, I don’t think it’s entirely wrong. “It’s not that open source doesn’t matter, but rather it has never mattered in the way some hoped or believed,” Asay writes. I think that’s true, and it’s our fault.
To the average person, and even to many developers, the freeness or openness of the software doesn’t matter. They want to be able to solve their problem in the easiest (and cheapest) way. Often that’s open source software. Sometimes it isn’t. But they’re not sitting there thinking about the societal impact of their software choices. They’re trying to get a job done.