I asked what role does open source play at Verizon now, especially in light of the recent SFLC lawsuit against Verizon on GPL infringement. Strigl looked at me with a blank face and asked me to repeat my question. He was completely clueless. He then asked one of his PR people to answer, and they too were clueless.

Has open source been positive or negative for its primary (commercial) proponents? That's the question I asked myself yesterday about Red Hat, Sun, and Novell, and found the answer interesting. I looked at these three as they, more than any others, have results that can be isolated and directly attributed to open source.

RMS: «...Their stated definition for the term “open source” is somewhat broader than free software, and thus includes my work. But describing the GNU GPL as an “open source license,” as Microsoft did, is more than half misleading. The GNU GPL embodies the firm philosophy of the free software movement; it doesn't come from the open source movement.

I know a lot of people who use open source every day, from OpenOffice to the GIMP and Linux, open source has something for everyone. Recently I was asked how could someone give back to the developers of Free Software?

Last year, I interviewed the team behind Neoscopio, then just a Free/Open Source Software business concept. Now, just a scant 3 months into their official business venture, they are well ahead of where they thought they would be right now. I asked Gustavo Mendez to bring us up to speed on where the fledgling company currently stands...

Last night I received a google alert about a new blog posting with a most misleading title. The title read "OSI Approves Microsoft's 'Shared Software' Licenses". This half-truth was paired with another half-truth: that I was President of the Portland-based Open Source Initiative. (The OSI is incorporated in California.)

After having spent the past year and a half living and working in the commercial open source software world, I still marvel at how “the community” supports and makes possible the creation of high quality software.

Recently I was asked the following question: What is the point of differentiating Open Source as an entity versus something that has just always been there?

I came across a post today in one of the mailing lists I frequent where the user asked "Why would anyone pay for something at is based on Open Source". This question comes up many many times in various projects and in various forms. I did post a reply to the message, hopefully helping to educate, but thought the question was worthy of deeper exploration.