|
|
|
|
@ -6,26 +6,26 @@ Where do the Four Opens originate from? They came from a need to do things
|
|
|
|
|
differently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Free software started in the 80’s by defining four (initially three)
|
|
|
|
|
freedoms [1]_ that any free software should grant its users. Freedom 0 was the
|
|
|
|
|
freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose. Freedom 1 was the
|
|
|
|
|
freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing
|
|
|
|
|
as you wish. Freedom 2 was the freedom to redistribute copies so you can help
|
|
|
|
|
your neighbor. Freedom 3 was the freedom to distribute copies of your modified
|
|
|
|
|
versions to others. Those freedoms made you free to improve the program, and
|
|
|
|
|
release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits.
|
|
|
|
|
But free software did not mandate anything about how the software was to be
|
|
|
|
|
built to actually encourage this collaboration across boundaries that would
|
|
|
|
|
result in benefiting the whole community.
|
|
|
|
|
freedoms [#fourfreedoms]_ that any free software should grant its users. Freedom
|
|
|
|
|
0 was the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose. Freedom 1
|
|
|
|
|
was the freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your
|
|
|
|
|
computing as you wish. Freedom 2 was the freedom to redistribute copies so you
|
|
|
|
|
can help your neighbor. Freedom 3 was the freedom to distribute copies of your
|
|
|
|
|
modified versions to others. Those freedoms made you free to improve the
|
|
|
|
|
program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole
|
|
|
|
|
community benefits. But free software did not mandate anything about how the
|
|
|
|
|
software was to be built to actually encourage this collaboration across
|
|
|
|
|
boundaries that would result in benefiting the whole community.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When open source was defined in 1998, it focused on a specific angle (the one
|
|
|
|
|
that mattered the most to businesses), which is the availability and
|
|
|
|
|
re-usability of the code. That also said remarkably little about how the
|
|
|
|
|
software should be built, and nothing about who really controls it. As a
|
|
|
|
|
result by 2010 most open source projects were actually closed one way or
|
|
|
|
|
another: their core development may be done behind closed walls, or their
|
|
|
|
|
governance may be locked down to ensure control by its main sponsor. Sure,
|
|
|
|
|
their end product was licensed under an open source license, but those were not
|
|
|
|
|
really community projects anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
software should be built, and nothing about who really controls it. As a result
|
|
|
|
|
by 2010 most open source projects were actually closed one way or another:
|
|
|
|
|
their core development may be done behind closed walls, or their governance may
|
|
|
|
|
be locked down to ensure control by its main sponsor. Sure, their end product
|
|
|
|
|
was licensed under an open source license, but those were not really community
|
|
|
|
|
projects anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The control of a specific party over the code is discouraging contributors to
|
|
|
|
|
participate: those are seen as free labor and are not on a level playing field
|
|
|
|
|
@ -55,13 +55,13 @@ open source cloud infrastructure platform available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was from these conditions that "The Four Opens" were born. The first public
|
|
|
|
|
mention of them was posted on the then-nascent OpenStack Wiki on June 28,
|
|
|
|
|
2010[1]_, before OpenStack was even publicly discussed or announced. The
|
|
|
|
|
titles of the Four Opens (Open source, Open Design, Open Development, Open
|
|
|
|
|
Community) were set from that day. The content evolved a bit over time on the
|
|
|
|
|
Wiki, as implementation details rolled in (for example: public code reviews,
|
|
|
|
|
design summits, technical committee, lazy and consensus). The Four Opens
|
|
|
|
|
description is now maintained officially in the OpenStack governance
|
|
|
|
|
web-site[2]_.
|
|
|
|
|
2010 [#fouropenswiki]_, before OpenStack was even publicly discussed or
|
|
|
|
|
announced. The titles of the Four Opens (Open source, Open Design, Open
|
|
|
|
|
Development, Open Community) were set from that day. The content evolved a bit
|
|
|
|
|
over time on the Wiki, as implementation details rolled in (for example: public
|
|
|
|
|
code reviews, design summits, technical committee, lazy and consensus). The
|
|
|
|
|
Four Opens description is now maintained officially in the OpenStack governance
|
|
|
|
|
web-site [#fouropens]_.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After eight years, the Four Opens proved pretty resilient, consistently
|
|
|
|
|
managing to capture the "OpenStack Way" of doing upstream open source
|
|
|
|
|
@ -74,5 +74,6 @@ generally support Open Infrastructure, the Four Opens will grow beyond
|
|
|
|
|
OpenStack. Let's apply them to other nascent open source projects with the same
|
|
|
|
|
success.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1]_ https://wiki.openstack.org/w/index.php?title=Open&oldid=9628
|
|
|
|
|
[2]_ https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/opens.html
|
|
|
|
|
.. [#fourfreedoms] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
|
|
|
|
|
.. [#fouropenswiki] https://wiki.openstack.org/w/index.php?title=Open&oldid=9628
|
|
|
|
|
.. [#fouropens] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/opens.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Hoge
4 years ago