I think generally OSS guys do not really appreciate single vendor OSS. Its seen as a nuisance. That does not stop anyone from using a good single-vendor OSS product, but I think when it comes down to it people would prefer that vendor to move towards a community driven development model instead. Even if that means there are less full time developers on the project. The rational being that OSS guys have a lot of trust that important things will get done and at the worst a few nice to haves might drop off the radar. The increase in control over the course of the project is rated much more highly.

I think you’re right in terms of FSF vs OSI. Especially confusing since the favorite of “open source” people is GPL from FSF, which refuses to even use the term open source! However, you are also further ensuring the rift because you think “commercial opportunities” are only provided by open source. Whereas Eben Moglen frequently argues GPL is a capitalist’s tool

If we had all the answers in open source, screaming down apparently opposing viewpoints might serve a useful purpose. But we’re nowhere near a consensus just yet. I found the response to my question ridiculous and, frankly, disheartening. It doesn’t make for a very “open” place.

I think open source software vendors are good in large part because they validate the open source model, enable more people to use open source, market the benefits of open source software and open source software solutions, etc. That said, just because a company has “open source” in its title or business plan doesn’t make it good! (Doesn’t make it bad either.) Open sourcing code doesn’t make a company “open source” but it does show a willingness to play. The community should welcome companies looking to spread the word and influence of open source software and continue to remain skeptical enough of big promises and little action, so that they can be prepared to react if necessary. And “reacting” could be as simple as showing a company a more effective and better way to participate with the community.

Disclaimer: I work for an “open source vendor”, OpenLogic - our goal is very much to help more people use open source software.

This is an except from The Beekeeper Part 2: an article I wrote about the commercial open source software (COSS) model.

The Misguided Altruist
There are potential community members who are considering contributing to an open source project but are wary of the COSS company’s profit motive. I have seen numerous forum posts and discussion threads debating the philosophy of contributing to a professional open source project. For some purists this is a black-and-white issue and for others it is at least contentious. These posts often bring up the following conflicting points:
1) I’d prefer to contribute a ‘pure’ open source project because I don’t want anyone to profit from my contribution.
2) But the professional open source projects have a lot stuff that is useful and valuable. Sometimes a lot more than the ‘pure’ open source alternatives.

The first statement turns out to be misguided. Lots of people profit from open source and from Apache in particular. Service companies and systems integrators build entire businesses charging for implementation services for, and support of, open source. Many software companies embed open source servers and components into their products to reduce their costs and increase their profits. Some of these companies contribute to open source by paying the salaries for full or part-time developers to work on improving the open source projects they use. Some of these companies contribute financially to the open source organizations. However the majority of these companies contribute nothing: they take the work of the open source project and all its contributors and they use it for their own financial gain. They are free-riders (and their existence is part of open source). If you contribute to open source projects a whole hoard of people are going to profit - you just don’t know who they are. There is nothing you can do about this, this is what karma is for.

Now lets look at the second statement. Professional open source software typically does have a lot of functionality when compared with pure open source software in the same arena. This is because the COSS functionality has to compete with proprietary software in a competitive market and so it has many full-time engineers feverishly working on it to reduce any functionality gaps. These engineers are paid for by the customers of the COSS company. As a community member you are profiting directly from, and in many cases very significantly from, the COSS company’s customer’s inability to deal with open source and their need for ‘whole product’.
The question comes down to how much value does the open source software bring to you? If a COSS company provides a stripped-down, hobbled, or bait-and-switch offering that doesn’t provide you with much value, don’t contribute to it. Why contribute to any project that does not provide value to you? However if open source software or COSS provides you with something that is of value to you give your time and contributions to that project. If we all do that for forces of natural selection and evolution will take care of the rest.

[...] is hurting the OSS business model. Matthew Aslett of the 451 Group follows up today noting that there seems to be….: …. growing animosity of some sectors of the open source software user community towards [...]

Perhaps it’s time open source businesses codified their community social contract.

One of the things people don’t get is, that companies which fund much of the development in the OSS world, need to earn money and make a profit. That’s because they are companies. The pay salaries to their employees which feed their families. I have experienced extremely rude attacks on companies including the one I founded BECAUSE it’s a business. To those I say, that they will be at the loosing end because they think those companies MUST work for free for them. They might be mistaken…

Is it possible a license “make” companies contribute rather than “pay” (for the end users and organizations would be free and open like gpl)? If that kind of license exist , i believe that many contributors will be paid from businesses just to use the software legal. Of course i would like to use such license, if i create a project (i am still undergraduate student with full of dreams! :-).

>Where once the commercial success of an open source vendor was to be celebrated, increasingly it seems it is treated by some as a reason for caution and doubt.

Matt, I couldn’t agree with you more. I can see both sides of the argument, I really can. However, and this could be my commercial software vendor roots showing, I think that there would be no significant open source movement without commercial aspirations. I want to emphasize ’significant’ because there would clearly be projects developed by random developers across the world “with an itch”. But would we have JBoss, or Spring or MySQL without the financial aspirations that companies bring to the table?

@Lukas, the challenge is that the majority of OSS projects out there today that get attention are single-vendor projects. Even projects showing up at Apache are being driven by one (or two) key vendors….

The better models don’t rely on software lock-in (closed source specifically). Of course, it’s tough for many profit companies to bypass all opportunities for lock-in. Since people are people and things like ice cream still require hard cash, I think it’s foolish to fight all forms of lock-in.

In the near future, I have no problem with people closing things off “at the fringes.” Over time, the bar will be raised, but there has to be some sort of graceful way for many to make a transition (think HTML 4-trans) or people will just fight us harder (even if they eventually fail, this can add years to migrations away from Monopolyware and other closed platforms).

What I do think is key is to have the solid *open foundation*. Porting FOSS to Monopoly Platforms (in possibly all cases ?) is a waste of time and energy since it prolongs many problems and supports powerful forms of lock-ins. See, for example, comments to this article http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=776&blogid=14

You have to have the solid open foundation or else.. well, we probably don’t have to remind ourselves what life is like building on top of a bad foundation. Let people doodle on the smaller higher branches but the trunk must be free.

I have no conflicts about putting my energies into creating and selling products/services that integrate aggressively with Linux while putting hurdles into third party efforts to port to Monopoly Platforms. Linux distros are cheap. It doesn’t hurt users much to use the free distros through VMs in order to enjoy the full experience of FOSS. In fact, why not access Monopolyware (and secondary distros) through the VM and keep Linux as the main host since it does a better job at that. Without motivations, it’s tough to fight inertia and change environments (the devil you know, etc etc). It really isn’t that hard to ask people to use Linux to gain the FOSS apps. Certainly, Monopolysoft knows the game of keeping desired (or needed) apps off other platforms. They certainly know to fight Linux at EVERY turn since Windows/Vista forms the base of their power. Let’s not help them marginalize Linux the OS since it will then rot and with it real computing freedom.

[...] Matt Asay wrote a blog post “Cash, code, or free-riding in open source communities?“, which was a good post on a topic I’ve been thinking a lot about myself. He used the term “free-rider” which caused a well documented uproar. [...]

Story added…

This story has been submitted to fsdaily.com! If you think this story should be read by the free software community, come vote it up and discuss it here:

http://www.fsdaily.com/Business/Trouble_in_paradise...

free software is under threat. We are threatened by corporate interests, as we always have been. However, the more sponsorship we receive from the business community; in terms of cash and code, the less free, autonomous and safe we are in our software usership.

So few distros are prepared to make the sacrifices to remain actually free these days, and their decisions are only getting harder as we become increasingly reliant on commercial, restricted codecs, drivers, apps etc. etc.

We need to stand up more for freedom: its only getting harder to do so.

No business success, revenue increase or market domination is worth the price of the freedom to use software.

Asay is asking the proprietor’s question: “How do we get *our* users to pay more for *our* products?” Professional FOSS developers are paid to *write* code. Ownership and publishing have very little economic value in OSS.

[...] is your open source vendor? Matthew Aslett, May 19, 2008 @ 6:30 am ET There was some interesting discussion following my post last week asking whether there is a growing rift between commercial open source [...]

[...] is an issue that has raised its head before. I wrote last May about what I perceived to be evidence of tension between commercial open source vendors and elements of the open source [...]

[...] wrote last May that there appeared “to be a strengthening commitment in some quarters to the ideals [...]

[...] model, and those happy to see open source assimilated into the mainstream. The tension has been simmering for some [...]

[...] Torvalds Matthew Aslett, July 23, 2009 @ 10:35 am ET Last year I speculated about the growing tension between commercial open source vendors and elements of the open source user community, wondering [...]