"Who else was there? Microsoft and several of its proxies, companies that profit from attacking and slandering Open Source, e.g. Snyk and WhiteSource."One can typically tell the motivation of an event based on who chooses to sponsor (i.e. bankroll) it. The Open Core Summit is no exception; Remember Microsoft with its "Open Cloud" charade. Who was actually there? The chief of the Linux Foundation, who told the crowd that "Open Source loves Microsoft..."
Who else was there? Microsoft and several of its proxies, companies that profit from attacking and slandering Open Source, e.g. Snyk and WhiteSource. One can rest assured that FUD about "Open Source" will carry on as long as companies look to destroy (or hijack) it.
Days ago we caught this report. It exposes GitHub as a threat because it attracts dumb employees who use it to upload sensitive data. Did the media blame Microsoft? No, it never does. Notice how corporate media loves playing along with the Microsoft lie -- the intentional lie that GitHub is somehow separate from Microsoft. This is designed to entrap people and harm them. Same for Facebook with WhatsApp and Instagram. Or Google with YouTube...
"Notice how corporate media loves playing along with the Microsoft lie -- the intentional lie that GitHub is somehow separate from Microsoft."Citing BNNBloomberg, one reader told us about it yesterday. "Here's a fun one," the reader said, citing this report from David George-Cosh. "The Bank of Nova Scotia "inadvertently" uploaded sensitive login credentials to an open source repository..."
As the article put it: "The Bank of Nova Scotia is working to remove internal computer code reportedly containing sensitive login credentials for some online services that was inadvertently uploaded to an open-source repository." (of Microsoft)
Remember that Microsoft is currently being sued by Capital One over a similar incident. GitHub is reckless about what's hosted and served through it. Disclaiming liability is a classic pattern of Microsoft behaviour across a broad spectrum of its activities. Later on Microsoft says Open Source is a risk and a danger; whose fault is it though?
"That's just classic FUD; this is the sort of thing that fills up Microsoft-run 'open' events. It's all about attacking FOSS and making it look bad."Analytics India Magazine, a Microsoft-friendly site, has just published this piece of FUD. Citing an-anti FOSS firm which is Microsoft connected they try create the stigma that so-called 'technical debt' is a uniquely FOSS issue (like they do "security" and "licensing").
That's just classic FUD; this is the sort of thing that fills up Microsoft-run 'open' events. It's all about attacking FOSS and making it look bad.
There's another new corporate 'summit' with lots of openwashing; it's led by Alluxio.
Going back to the BNNBloomberg article, here's what it says: "The Register, a U.K.-based technology website, reported on Wednesday that a Canadian IT worker discovered the uploaded source code on Github, a website that hosts programming code that is freely available for other programmers to access.
"The code contained information related to the bank's backend systems as well as code related to Scotiabank’s mobile apps for its Central American and South American customers, the website said."
"Open Core is just proprietary software with openwashing-themed marketing."Whose fault is it? Or rather, if Microsoft serves this data, is it exempted from accountability?
Speaking of The Register, that same reader noted: "Now some crap about open core..."
We mentioned this in Daily Links. To quote: "Analysis On Thursday, at the Palace of Fine Arts in San Francisco, companies building open-source code gathered to figure out how to survive having Amazon, Google, and Microsoft sell their software as a service without paying for the privilege.
"The confab has a name, the Open Core Summit, where "Open Core" refers to the marketing strategy of offering a core service for free and charging for complementary capabilities. Presumably, "Freemium Summit" didn't pass muster.
"The inaugural conference is focused on helping commercial open-source organizations develop viable business models. It's organized by OSS Capital, a venture-capital firm founded by entrepreneur Joseph Jacks and given street cred through the presence of board partner Bruce Perens, one of the pioneering figures in the open-source movement."
"So they sponsor turning FOSS into proprietary software. In 'the cloud'..."Open Core is just proprietary software with openwashing-themed marketing.
And "note the next paragraph links to the final Stallman interview," our reader said, quoting "whatever those [sic] may be..."
Here's the part in question, using words like "partisans": "Free Software partisans describe open source as a development methodology without the Free Software movement's moral and philosophical aspirations, whatever those may be. Distinctions aside, a common thread in the two intermingled communities continues to be figuring out how to get paid for code offered under a permissive license."
Fun quote from the article: "Open-source licenses like Apache 2.0 have no requirement to compensate those actually crafting such software."
Compensate? Seriously?
Here's the full context: "Several of the companies attending, such as Elastic, have become poster children for the peril of cloud-provider parasitism. Open-source licenses like Apache 2.0 have no requirement to compensate those actually crafting such software. So, mostly, the cloud giants that deploy services based on open-source projects don't bother to pay outsiders who improve and maintain the code."
"Those are not FOSS companies; they're proprietary software."And here's more: "If you ask nicely, these companies may sponsor your conference, as AWS has done for the Open Core Summit. At the same time, it's tempting to see a certain zero-sum symbolism in the conference's morning donut service, "brought to you by AWS," not to mention interstitial music cues like Bon Jovi's Livin' on a Prayer and Imagine Dragons' Whatever It Takes."
So they sponsor turning FOSS into proprietary software. In 'the cloud'...
As the article notes, "in March, Amazon Web Services debuted its fork of the Elastic project, all the while insisting it's not a fork.
"During the lunch break, a co-founder of a prominent open-source project pointed to AWS's banner for its Open Distro for Elasticsearch as "a giant f– you" to the open-source companies in attendance."
The "article includes this note," the reader noted: "Editor's note: we are happy to clarify that Ben Golub described open-source software as a loss leader, and not Upbound CEO Bassam Tabbara as first reported."
"Proprietary software giants sponsoring "open" things is matter of tossing 'slush funds' to improve perceptions."Lightbend participates in this nasty conference that promotes proprietary software under the guise of 'open'. It even issued this press release to brag about it; these openwashing attacks on Free software's legitimacy (showing how the licence is 'worked around' in 'the cloud') is nothing to brag about. It should be a source of shame. But Lightbend keeps paying to spread this. Larry Augustin also sold us all out by joining Amazon AWS (his former employer SugarCRM has betrayed all customers by becoming proprietary software as well... whereupon the fork SuiteCRM came to their rescue). From the press release: "Brewer joins panelists Larry Augustin, VP Amazon Web Services (formerly CEO of SugarCRM) and Scott Collison, CEO Anaconda..."
Those are not FOSS companies; they're proprietary software.
Proprietary software giants sponsoring "open" things is matter of tossing 'slush funds' to improve perceptions. Mac Asay does this all the time at such companies (now Amazon/AWS).
"IBM wants to stay proprietary; it can leverage Red Hat to pretend otherwise. Microsoft does more or less the same thing."There's also this new press release [1, 2] entitled "Top five open source-powered solutions to mitigate the impact of natural disasters announced as finalists in Call for Code global coding challenge" ("Call for Code" is not the same as "Call for Open Source Code").
Just like AWS, "open source-powered" means "exploits FOSS but remains proprietary software itself" because it's not about freedom but leveraging freedom to deprive others.
The "Call for Code 2019 is focused on creating solutions to help mitigate the effects of natural disasters and help communities better prepare and respond to the needs of survivors..."
IBM is OK with it being proprietary; it is, after all, just a PR stunt for them. IBM wants to stay proprietary; it can leverage Red Hat to pretend otherwise. Microsoft does more or less the same thing. ⬆