Comments on: Banks 'should give back to open-source community'

The Street is making increasing use of open source, but the financial world should contribute more code, experts say.

[nightveil]

So what happens...

if/when Linux or some other Open Source OS finally cracks the
big-time on the consumer desktop? I understand the desire to
have users "give back" to the community at large, but the idea
that the average consumer, be it a business or an individual, is
going to take the the time to "give back" something to the
community strikes me as wishful thinking at best and a
ludicrous, drug-addled fantasy at worst.

Businesses exist to make money and time is money. Having
someone devoted to creating content for the Open Source
community is a waste of business' time and money.

The average consumer can't code a line, let alone understand
how the OS functions. Asking them to "give back" in a tangible
way is silly.

The simple fact of the matter is there are more consumers than
there are coders and designers. It's always been this way and it
will always be this way. The Open Source community needs to
learn to deal with the double-edged sword that Open Source is
by its very nature.

[ahickey]

A bit different for big business....

There is a difference between end users and organisational use.
I don?t think the Open Source community expect every user to contribute, but organisations that are naturally doing things with Open Source Software should contribute these updates, bug fixes or enhancements to the community.
As the article said they don?t even have to be enhancements or fixes that would affect their competitive advantage. So, there is no reason to not share. It is just a business practice attitude that needs to be modified.

[dargon19888]

What a crock!

I think this article shows some of the hypocrisy of the Open Source world....

You can not distinguish between the "end user" or the corporation that uses OS tools. Open Source means exactly that. Open to use, within the licensing guidelines, as how the individual, or company sees fit. There are no strings attached and no obligation to "pay back to the community" as the individuals quoted in this article suggest.

What is hypocritcal is that the author, nor those quoted in the article bother to look at the large technology corporations which are "involved" in Open Source projects.

There are several "Open Source" licensing schemes out there. Ever wonder why IBM released their Eclipse framework (under its own licensing terms) or Cloudscape under Apache's licensing terms?

Both license agreements essentially say that anything you contribute is fair game to anyone that wants to use your code.

Using Cloudscape/Derby/JavaDB as an example, Sun and IBM are looking for the OS Community for a "free lunch". That is to say, the OS community is "expected" to step up to the plate and volunteer to support the product (make enhancements, etc) and IBM and SUN are free to redistribute the products under their own licensing.

That is the business model, and if the reporters at C/Net News.com, ever grew a pair of balls, they
should report upon it.

And thus the hypocrisy. (These members looking for a free lunch while chastising Wall St. For not stepping up to the plate...)

[dargon19888]

What a crock!

I think this article shows some of the hypocrisy of the Open Source world....

Its interesting that no one bothers to research and understand the motives of a corporation like IBM or SUN that release code under licensing models like Apache or Eclipse. (Eclipse and Cloudscape/Derby/JavaDB are both good examples of their involvements in OS...). Yet people chide those on Wall St. who by their adoption of OS code and tools, are adding weight to the OS movement.

True, there are excellent technical resources on Wall St. However, its not the products of these organizations that the OS community wants to harvest, but the brain power behind them.

Its up to the individual Wall St. developers to contribute and some do....