A couple of articles have been published recently that point to a growing realisation/admission about the role that open source will play in the future of enterprise software.

In “The Commercial Bear Hug of Open Source” Dan Woods details the various methods by which open source has become increasingly commercial in recent years, while in “The Microsoft-Novell Deal and Trust in Princes” Bruce Byfield discusses the relationship between business and open source.

Neither article is perfect. Woods, in particular, appears to paint open source in the role of the glorious failure - failing to surpass traditional licensing models and being subsumed into the mainstream (a subject I’ve touched on before).

For his efforts Woods earns the wrath of Dana Blankenhorn, who points out that Woods has confused the idealism of free software and Richard Stallman with the pragmatism of the open source and Eric Raymond.

“It [Raymond's 'open source' concept] accepted the idea of commercial interests from the start,” writes Blankenhorn. “It saw new business models evolving from shared development effort.”

For that reason, Woods asking “Isn’t open source a community-based movement that was set to overtake the world of commercial software? Wasn’t the famous LAMP stack, Linux, Apache, MySQL and Perl, Python and PHP going to open a world in which software existed outside the traditional realm of property?” is something of a straw man.

However, his central point that “commercial and open source are fellow travelers” is valid, as is his point that “it is almost impossible to tell the difference between the most popular open source software and commercial alternatives”.

That brings us to Byfield’s article in Datamation. While it is ostensibly a discussion about the extension of Microsoft’s Linux deal with Novell, the article focuses heavily on the relationship between business and free and open source software (FOSS).

“What tends to get lost is this: the fact that business is friendly to FOSS does not mean that it has adopted its values,” he writes. “The free software camp’s concern with philosophical and political freedom has almost certainly not been adopted by most FOSS-friendly companies, while the open source camp’s emphasis on increased software quality is probably shared by middle-management at best. Business –gasp!– is interested in FOSS to improve the bottom line, and often no other reason.”

This is a statement that leaves Matt Asay with mixed emotions. “Commercial open source is starting to find its feet,” he writes. “There isn’t a grand contradiction between giving code away (seeding the market) and suggesting a purchase (reaping the market). In fact, the two go together perfectly. As we realize this, open source will become even more dominant. Open source and business can be bosom buddies, not enemies.”

I would maintain that the relationship is closer than that. However, from Byfield’s viewpoint there remain barriers. “Sooner or later, an open source business is going to act more like a business and less like a citizen of the FOSS community,” he warns. “The two can certainly co-exist, and both can benefit from doing so. But, forced to choose, the average FOSS-based business is going to choose business interests over FOSS every time,” he adds.

The tone of Byfield’s article is driven in part by his evident belief that business and open source are at least partially exclusive. This, like Woods’ confusing of free and open source software, is a mistake in my opinion. Business and open source are intertwined.

It is worth remembering that open source is a business tactic, not a business model. Open source is not a market in and of itself, nor is it a vertical segment of the market. Open source is a software development and/or distribution model that is enabled by a licensing tactic. It enables new revenue generation strategies.

Companies that build revenue streams around open source software do not choose between business and open source, they choose business and open source. You could call this a commercial bear hug of open source, or you could see it as an evolution of commercial business models based on the economic principle that sharing development has the capacity to lower development costs.

Either way the result is the same - the increased adoption of open source as a development and distribution model by mainstream business. Which is, after all, what the open source movement is all about.

See also:
Commercial licensing is a double-edged sword
Asking the right questions of open source
Open source: assimilate and thrive
Judging open source business models