THE events that are called "open" something aren't necessarily what they're called. This isn't unusual and it isn't limited to technology. There are various other domains where events get called the opposite of what they are. That serves a purpose, especially for sponsors, e.g. events on patents being called "innovation" something and dogs of war calling their events "defense" something.

"Consider the event called (or so-called) 'open source' summit; it's mostly used for openwashing of proprietary software firms, or OaaS (openwashing as a service)."Staying focused on the subject of Open Source, and using the Open Source Summit as an example, look at the speeches and sponsors (more or less the same as keynote slots are nowadays blatantly sold to sponsors). Also look at VMworld, which is not about "VM" but about VMware. It is "hosted by VMware," as Wikipedia clarifies, so it is about proprietary software, which the Linux Foundation is happy to openwash for a fee. How about GitHub? Or the above "open" cloud event ("summit"), which Zemlin did with Microsoft in Tel Aviv less than a year ago? Sadly, this is what we've come to expect from his foundation and based on their own brochures, this is very much deliberate. Consider the event called (or so-called) 'open source' summit; it's mostly used for openwashing of proprietary software firms, or OaaS (openwashing as a service). Look who steers this event. Here's an example press release published earlier this week. The company called itself -- right there in the press release -- "SaaS" ("SaaS-managed hybrid cloud"), spicing that up with the "Serverless" lunacy/lie. Here they go:

Platform9 (https://platform9.com/), the leader in SaaS-managed hybrid cloud, today announced it will present three sessions at Open Source Summit North America. The company is also sponsoring VMworld 2019 US, and will present at a live webinar from VMworld about Kubernetes and cloud native for Enterprise IT.

"...the term "Open Source" no longer seems to mean anything. And yes, that's a very big problem."That may help explain Jim Zemlin's "Open Source loves Microsoft" moment (captured above by a manager from Microsoft and then uploaded by him to the Web). That's how they could appease regulators -- a push into approving the GitHub takeover at the time.

As someone put it hours ago in a response to something I had said: "Microsoft makes a 'open source' code editor under the MIT license. But when you download it, it's under a proprietary license from Microsoft. The app is Visual Studio Code and you can install the MIT version, so compiled from the actual public available code, from Flathub, called Code OSS. Typical open washing here. Nobody knows if they add any more code."

But does that matter? As we'll explain in the next post, the term "Open Source" no longer seems to mean anything. And yes, that's a very big problem. ⬆