"BusinessWeek columnist Stephen Wildstrom recently wrote a piece
called A Big Fly in the Open-Source Soup that concluded, 'The
future of commercial open source might be considerably brighter if
Linux and other programs went to a more commerce-friendly license
with fewer complexities and ambiguities than the GPL.' At the risk
of offending a great many NewsForge readers, I am going to say that
I don't disagree with him. Not because of the alleged complexity or
ambiguities of the GPL--it's a piece of cake compared to a typical
proprietary EULA--but because I don't understand what he means by
the term 'commercial open source.' If he had simply said 'open
source'--or used the more definitive phrase 'free software'--I
would reject his position outright.
"But even allowing for the escape clause provided by an
undefined, rogue-hybrid term like 'commercial open source,'
Wildstrom provides much to quibble about. His conclusion is based
upon a series of weak or simply erroneous facts and
Some of the products that appear on this site are from companies from which QuinStreet receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where products appear on this site including, for example, the order in which they appear. QuinStreet does not include all companies or all types of products available in the marketplace.