Most of the Oracle middleware I've used has already been open source, in a way. The code was mainly PL/SQL which meant it was available for viewing and editing.
For what it's worth, I've seen comments within Oracle's own code that refers to their own code as being, and I quote, "a horrible kludge". And the quality of their middleware certainly backed up those comments within their code.
I will say in their developers defense, PL/SQL is such a nasty language that it does make it hard to write sane applications. Which is one of the many reason why I'd never touch Oracle again if I can help it.
Actually you are the one who's missing the point (as was the other ignoramus who "knee jerked" down voted me before asking for clarification on the subject).
Open source just means the source code is available. It doesn't mean the source code has to be distributed with a permissive, 'copyleft', licence. While it's true that when one usually talks about "open source projects" they typically refer Apache, GPL, BSD (et al) licensed code (and culturally that would be a fair description), but when one talks about the code being open source it can also refer to proprietary projects as well (as is the case with some of Microsoft's non-free open source licences).
So my comment makes perfect sense given the parent I was replying to: "I wonder if Oregon has jurisdiction to open-source this stuff. I'd love to see the atrocities.". In this instance, the less permissive open source definition would be valid since:
(1) you wouldn't be able to redistribute the code anyway (the government might force a company to release their source code, but it's even less likely they would want to alter the terms of a copyright agreement (and even less likely for US-based companies given the investment America has in intellectual properties)
(2) you can already read the source code to "see the atrocities" (which was the crux of my point rather than arguing about what classifies as "open source" - but well done for completely missing that point and every other subsequent point)
Lastly, before you turn this into an evangelical licence flamewar; I primarily write and contribute towards GPL projects, so I full endorse and support copyleft licences. In fact I'd go further than that and say that source code that's available for viewing but not for redistribution is more damaging than good; but that's a whole other topic of conversation.
A more accurate version of what you meant might be "I wonder if Oregon has permission to make the source code available for viewing" or something like that.
Maybe you should drop this pedantry (which is starting to come across as just egotistical nonsense now) and actually pay attention to what I've been trying to say. The Middleware I was discussing did allow for derivative works (as I stated in my original post!) so the licence was akin to some of Microsoft's "shared source licences" that have been reviewed by the Open Source Initiative as being "Open Source Licences" (citation: http://opensource.org/node/207). I'm guessing you actually trust OSI's definition of Open Source Licence better than you trust Wikipedia's ;)
But even that aside, I never said Oracle's middleware was open source per se, I said it was licensed similarly to open source (though my wording might have been clearer).
Oh and since this is now just an exercise in pedantry, I should point out that you posted a link to Open Source Software while talking about Open Source Licences. Obviously the two are related, but they're not specifically the same thing (though your confusion of the two might explain this discussion)
I don't view it as pedantry, I view it as avoiding dilution of the meaning of the term 'Open Source'.
It's important that people understand that it's not just having the source code, but also a license that allows you to do a series of things with the code. That's a huge, and critical difference, not a minor quibble.
In any event, it'd be fun to see Oracle's crappy code.
It's not your jargon to decide whether it should be diluted or not. And even just using the term "diluted", you suggest a great level of superiority and arrogance towards anything that doesn't fit within your narrow view.
Besides, if people want to understand what they can do with the code then they should read the software licence (that's the whole bloody point of it!) rather than just make guesses based on a common perception of a broader software term.
I see from all the other down voting that there's quite a few elitists who seem to have opinions about Open Source licences that differs with the Open Source Initiative's.
Perhaps some of you would like to come forward and offer your opinions rather than down voting and running like cowards? Or perhaps you're just davidw's alias ;)
For what it's worth, I've seen comments within Oracle's own code that refers to their own code as being, and I quote, "a horrible kludge". And the quality of their middleware certainly backed up those comments within their code.
I will say in their developers defense, PL/SQL is such a nasty language that it does make it hard to write sane applications. Which is one of the many reason why I'd never touch Oracle again if I can help it.