Nonsense. you're speaking as though open-source and cloud storage are somehow related or in competition. But they're orthogonal -- one can obviously make open-source applications available from the cloud, and you can construct the cloud's infrastructure out of open-source elements.
> The open source movement was born when the pendulum was swinging from the centralized mainframe to the PC revolution.
That's true, but the two were coincidental and unrelated. Correlation doesn't prove causation.
> But now as the pendulum is swinging back to centralized computing there will be fewer chances for small individualistic rebels to make an impact.
Wait, what? How does open-source relate to centralized computing? For that matter, how does cloud storage relate to centralized computing? It's not as though cloud storage requires a central repository, any more than the Internet must be a central repository in order to function.
Just one example: Linux (a) dominates the Internet's servers and (b) is open-source.
...and untold millions of lines of changes to the Linux kernel are kept secret and are not at all available to other Linux users or even to Linux contributors. That is exactly the sort of the thing the GPL was meant to prevent.
Furthermore, while it is true that quite a bit of web services and "cloud computing" was built with free software, the effect is very different than distributing free software on desktops. If you do not like some new feature of the Linux kernel, you can just not use it -- nobody forces you to upgrade, and in extreme cases it is possible to fork the project. On the other hand, if you do not like a new feature in Facebook...tough luck, you have no authority. Similarly, if you want a new feature in the Linux kernel, you can add it -- maybe Linus won't merge it with the official source, but you can still have the feature and distribute it to others. Your next great idea for a GMail feature is irrelevant, because you cannot add features to GMail.
Are you serious? The entire Linux kernel is open-source and public (and it is available here: https://www.kernel.org/). Most programs delivered along with the kernel are also open-source. Many Linux distributors of large assemblages of code refuse to include anything that isn't open-source.
The thing to keep in mind is that the changes that web companies make to free software are not usually for internal consumption. The changes are user-facing -- but the software is delivered via the web, rather than distributed to the users, and so the web company never triggers any requirement to make their changes available. The GPL does allow this, but it is not in the spirit of the GPL, and the Affero GPL was created to deal with this problem.
I agree that it's not in the spirit of the GPL, but they did explicitly not add in sections about that in the GPLv3. The v2 FAQ mentioned that they were considering adding in web-based applications, but the v3 FAQ says it's still okay, but if you're writing software and want to make it not okay, use the AGPL.
No, I'm addressing your prior claim that the Linux kernel is not open-source. The claim is false.
Also, companies that change the kernel, and then release their changed kernels, cannot do so without also releasing their source.
The claim is false, in whatever form it takes.
I did. Here is what you said:
> ...and untold millions of lines of changes to the Linux kernel are kept secret and are not at all available to other Linux users or even to Linux contributors. That is exactly the sort of the thing the GPL was meant to prevent.
It's false. Code that is modified and then never released is not what the GPL was meant to prevent.
But if they change the Linux kernel or an open-source server utility and put it on their cloud server, they don't. An unintended outcome, and one that makes the cloud different than what came before it.
So I concede that the cloud is different, and it does affect the idea of open-source.
The line is drawn if and when a client machine downloads an open-source app from the cloud. If that never happens, then there's no requirement to release source.
Kept secret by whom?
This is complete nonsense. There is no proprietary, closed-source code in the Linux kernel.
So in this example, no cloud company has to release changes to their running linux kernel because it was never distributed to end users, or at all.
Same for all other GPL code running on servers, users of the service, loading web pages and using APIs, are not recipients of the code under the GPL, so they have no rights under the license.
If some company decides their changes to the kernel, or nginx, or apache, or php can be released because it won't destroy their business, they frequently do so. Otherwise you'll never hear about it and changes silently remain secret.
1. Open APIs that allow useful, meaningful, and complete interoperability between different services and local software. This is a compromise that allows cloud services to continue to be proprietary while not locking users in to any one particular service or platform.
2. The Affero GPL, which requires service providers to make their source available to their users.
Personally I think that (1) is not only a more realistic option, but in the long run a more beneficial option for users.
Also: competition. A lot of people only put up with things Facebook, Google, and Apple get up to because they feel there's no viable alternative that meets their needs. A climate that fosters competition better will encourage upstarts.