Silicon Valley Sleuth, an insider's view from Silicon Valley
A blog from vnunet.com



Other blogs
PCW Inter@ctive
Your views, your comments, your say

Security Watchdog
Sniffing out IT security
issues

The test bed
The hottest products, news and gossip from PCW's
Labs.

IT Sneak
IT Sneak Blog rummages in the dustbin of IT events.

Backbytes
An irreverent and offbeat look at the lighter side of technology

InterActive Home
Your complete guide to home entertainment technology

Taking Stock
Gags and Gossip from Accountancy Age.

Gizmodo
The gadgets weblog.



« 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

August 1, 2005 at 11:20 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b07469e200d83458b3a169e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference IBM rapes open source:

» 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]

Tracked on 2 Aug 2005 13:12:24

» Some thoughts from KYLEBUN
[Read More]

Tracked on 14 Nov 2005 01:13:19

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.

Posted-by: Tony Nievera | 2 Aug 2005 19:59:57

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.

Posted-by: SV Sleuth | 2 Aug 2005 20:07:44

Post a comment






 

Useful links: About | Privacy policy | Terms & conditions | Top of the page
© Incisive Media Ltd. 2008
Incisive Media Limited, Haymarket House, 28-29 Haymarket, London SW1Y 4RX, is a company registered in the United Kingdom with company registration number 04038503