Can SDN please remove 'SAP is Open' from 'Standards and Open Source' page?

[Former Member]

Hi Moderators,

It is really misleading to say that 'SAP is Open'.

For details on what is called open source and why SAP does not qualify for it - please see my comments on the below blog.

/people/community.user/blog/2008/03/25/did-user-innovation-benefit-sap

Regards,

Felix Jeyareuben

[pokrakam · Accepted solution]

> It is really misleading to say that 'SAP is Open'.

> For details on what is called open source and...

Huh? Where did we make the jump from "Open" to "Open source"?

There's nothing misleading about the statement, they are talking about interoperability which SAP does pretty well.

Right next to it there's the heading "Open Source Integration" which by implication qualifies SAP as not being Open Source.

Earlier on in the page it also states "SAP products are also using open source technologies" (my emphasis). To me it's as clear as daylight that SAP itself is not open source in the OSI sense and has never claimed to be.

Cheers,

Mike

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Well, "Open" is not "Open Source".

>Earlier on in the page it also states "SAP products are also using open source technologies" (my emphasis). To me it's as clear as daylight that SAP itself is not open source in the OSI sense and has never claimed to be.

Using open source products does not mean SAP is open. So what does "SAP is Open" mean?

Already SAP has it's own version of OSI defn:

>According to the OSI definition, you can call some code open source, if you get the source code, if you are allowed to modify it, and if you are allowed to redistribute it

Well I didn't say that. It was told by SAP employee who leads open source research at SAP. (Ref: /people/community.user/blog/2008/03/25/did-user-innovation-benefit-sap). Its very interesting to see someone leading opensource without knowing what is it.

Also, "SAP is open" does not mean "SAP is using open source products". Though I am not a native speaker of English, I definitely know the language better and "SAP is Open" - definitely misleads any viewer.

One thing I learnt from all the discussions is that SAP will never become open source. It has been clearly potrayed by you as well as the open source research lead in SAP. So, why the fuss about open source?

I personally haven't mentioned any download by me ever in my blogs without the source code. That is how the spirit of open source should be and not just hiding the important code and trying to manupilate the definition of open source itself.

[pokrakam · Accepted solution]

> Well, "Open" is not "Open Source".

Exactly, glad you see my point, even though your first post managed this strange jump in logic.

>So what does "SAP is Open" mean?

The page you complained about talks about open standards and ineroperability with open source tools. We can also talk about open architecture, or open doors for that matter. As you yourself said:

Well, "Open" is not "Open Source"

So, we have very clearly established that the word Open doesn't mean Open Source and there are several types of openness applicable to SAP.

> Already SAP has it's own version of OSI defn:

> >According to the OSI definition, you can call some code open source, if you get the source code, if you are allowed to modify it, and if you are allowed to redistribute it

> Well I didn't say that. It was told by SAP employee who leads open source research at SAP. (Ref: /people/community.user/blog/2008/03/25/did-user-innovation-benefit-sap). Its very interesting to see someone leading opensource without knowing what is it.

>

OK, so I just had a look at the quote in question, and find that the very next sentence reads:

"Clearly, ABAP code shipped by SAP does not fall under this category".

So SAP is not open source. You say so, I say so, SAP say so.

It seems we all agree and this discussion has no further merit.

Cheers,

Mike

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Thanks for removing it.