When open source projects close the process, something's wrong

,----[ Quote ]
| Twice in recent weeks open source projects have surprised me with their lack
| of openness. In both cases, developers acted or spoke out in such a way as to
| intentionally push other developers away from their work.
|
| [...]
|
| The root of both problems is an unwillingness to commit to a truly open
| development process.
`----

http://www.linux.com/feature/120635

Sounds like some certain "Free" project from Canonical. More on that soon.


Related:

Using open source as a marketing ploy

,----[ Quote ]
| This is typical trend riding fluff. If you go the Aras website you
| read about "Microsoft Enterprise Open Source Solutions", which is
| comical in and of itself.
`----

http://weblog.infoworld.com/openreso...pen_sourc.html


Is Microsoft Hijacking Open Source?

,----[ Quote ]
| What really worries me is what looks like an emerging pattern in Microsoft's
| behaviour. The EU agreement is perhaps the first fruit of this, but I predict
| it will not be the last. What is happening is that Microsoft is effectively
| being allowed to define the meaning of “open source” as it wishes, not as
| everyone else understands the term. For example, in the pledge quoted above,
| an open source project is “not commercially distributed by its
| participants” - and this is a distinction also made by Kroes and her FAQ. * * *
|
| In this context, the recent approval of two Microsoft licences as
| officially “open source” is only going to make things worse. Although I felt
| this was the right decision – to have ad hoc rules just because it's
| Microsoft would damage the open source process - I also believe it's going to
| prove a problem. After all, it means that Microsoft can rightfully point to
| its OSI-approved licences as proof that open source and Microsoft no longer
| stand in opposition to each other. This alone is likely to perplex people who
| thought they understood what open source meant. * * *
|
| [...]
|
| What we are seeing here are a series of major assaults on different but
| related fields – open source, open file formats and open standards. All are
| directed to one goal: the hijacking of the very concept of openness. If we
| are to stop this inner corrosion, we must point out whenever we see wilful
| misuse and lazy misunderstandings of the term, and we must strive to make the *
| real state of affairs quite clear. If we don't, then core concepts like “open
| source” will be massaged, kneaded and pummelled into uselessness. * *
`----

http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1003745