I get a lot of industry news across my desk on a daily and weekly basis. Some I read immediately, some I delete after looking at the headline and some I put aside for later when I have some time to really look at them. It’s usually the longer features that get the “put aside for later” treatment.
I just got around to looking at Eric Lai’s February 15 Computerworld article, “Has open-source lost its halo.” It’s an interesting article, but I have to say that I’m not a fan of the overly sensationalistic headline, which unfortunately helps to reinforce the flawed argument that there are “good” and “bad” companies involved in open source -- and that the "bad" companies are those that are involved in open source for some kind of commercial gain.
There are a lot of reasons that both companies and individuals get involved in the open source community. And the reasons, whatever they are, are really not as important as how folks behave as part of the community. If IBM, or Oracle, or Terracotta, or IONA want to be involved in the open source community and are willing to play by the rules of open source, fantastic. If involvement in the open source community creates competitive advantage, why is that a problem? And how is this any different than an open source contributor that builds a consulting business around that project? Is he or she an angel or a devil?