Open Source? That’s free software isn’t it? That’s an answer you’ll frequently hear. But it’s only part of the answer; the complete answer is much more complex. And pinning down an exact definition of what Open Source is has been further pulled and stretched by vendors who have embraced Open Source while at the same time spinning a marketing story around it that also includes commercial components.
Gartner says that its high time for the industry to accept a concrete definition of what Open Source is. “Whatever the definition, it needs to be consistent.” But Gartner being Gartner, they go on to offer up their own definition and are calling for the industry to rally around it.
“Open source is simply a licensing agreement that allows unfettered modification and redistribution of software code. In fact, it is a key sign of a healthy open source community and a key benefit to users,” said the report.
Part of the confusion is the vast number of non-traditional software licenses that exist and the spectrum of usage restrictions. Licenses range from the relatively unencumbered Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) to more strict usage requirements of the General Public License (GPL). The variety of licenses and conditions is confusing.
Gartner favors a more BSD-style software license without the need to attribute the original creators of the software. Gartner thinks that less-liberal licensing is more similar to traditional software licensing and tries to promote one software code set over another. The net effect is a “single-vendor dominance of products or technical standards.”
