Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 21st Feb 2008 15:26 UTC, submitted by Robert Kratky
Opera Software Opera Software's CEO Jon S. von Tetzchner explains why they will not release the Opera browser as open source, arguing that open standards are more important than open source. Von Tetzchner also talks about the company's antitrust complaint to the European Commission in which it accuses Microsoft of abusing its dominant position by tying Internet Explorer to Windows.
Permalink for comment 301922
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: hrmmm
by Doc Pain on Fri 22nd Feb 2008 00:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hrmmm"
Doc Pain
Member since:
2006-10-08

Who cares what license the software someone uses is, as long as its always possible to replace it, and freely compete, which a free and open standard ensures.


I'd like to apply an example here to show why I primarily agree with your statement:

I'm actually working on a software project in the healthcare sector. This application is closed source and costs money. But it only uses open standards (e. g. XML) for its files, and the file layouts are documented, too. So it's easy to create free software that can make use of the files from the proprietary software (that's what I'm doing at the moment), this is because of the open standards that allow it. I don't need to have a license for the expensive product, but I can still "interoperate" with it - or replace it, as you've mentioned correctly.

As long as an application is compliant to existing documented standards, it's okay, in my opinion.

As an addition, I'd like to express that I see the high value of open source / free software. Sadly, the commercial world seems to have the credo "If it does not cost anything, it's worthless", which of course isn't true, but leads decisions which software to run. Of course, as you surely will know, these decisions are made by people who don't have the neccessary clue, that's politics as usual. :-)

Reply Parent Score: 5