[LINK] Code-Closed then Open then Back to Closed

[Craig Sanders]

On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 08:44:37PM +1000, Kim Holburn wrote:
> A New Direction for Open-Source Software
> http://www.newsfactor.com/news/New-Direction-for-Open-Source-Software/ 
> story.xhtml?story_id=010000BQZFO4
> 
> >"Even with warning, Tenable's decision to take Nessus proprietary
> >changed the way a lot of people do business. [Systems administrators]
> >used to running a quick scan to determine a box's posture suddenly
> >had to find another tool that worked so simply for so little money,"
> >Selby said.

they don't have to. they can continue using the old version, which is
still under the free software license. if it was a popular program, it
will certainly be forked at that point (as happened with Nessus in Oct
2005[1]).

that is one of the key features of free software licenses - it protects
the interests of the users as well as the developers. software can't
just disappear when the developer goes bust or loses interest. even
if they make future versions proprietary (which may be difficult or
impossible, depending on how much user-contributed code has been used -
if there's enough contributed code and enough other copyright holders it
can be impossible to get agreement to change the license), the users can
still use and continue development on the last free version.

[1] http://www.openvas.org/doku.php


> >But the move to closed source can backfire. Tenable's switch became  
> >a public relations nightmare because many users felt that someone  
> >else would profit from the collaboration they put into the  
> >software, Selby said. "Does the community get owed something for  
> >promoting and fixing Nessus?" Cox asked.

of course they are. at the very least, people own the copyright on their
contributions to Nessus.



craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>           (part time cyborg)