451 CAOS Theory 
A blog for the enterprise open source community
Open source is dead, long live open source
Matthew Aslett, August 27, 2008 @ 5:05 am ETA 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
Comments (11) Categories: Business strategies,Software
BW claims decline is funding, despite it bring an all-time high. Regarding Byfield, search the name in BoycottNovell. We’ve been through this before.
I assume the BW report you are referring to is the one covered here: http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2008/08/18/asking-the-right-questions-of-open-source/ It isn’t mentioned in the post above. The VC funding figures used are different from ours http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2008/07/01/vc-funding-for-open-source-rises-again-in-q2/, but the trends they point to are the same.
As for Bruce Byfield, just because you don’t trust him, does not make him untrustworthy.
[...] bookmarks tagged python Open source is dead, long live open source saved by 1 others missdarcyangel bookmarked on 08/27/08 | [...]
The architecture of business of the ’90s is not working in this era. They have a big investment in the software model of yesteryear. Technology is advancing, in spite of M$, at a rapid pace. Even though Novell sold it’s soul to M$, making capital investments in Open Source Software is not going to change how FOSS behaves. Business have to change their mindset, but they do not understand the FOSS philosophy.
Your comments have me thinking that whether you think there’s a contradiction between FOSS and business depends on how you think.
If you think of FOSS as a strategy, then, of course there’s no contradiction that can arise. A strategy, like a business, is purely a matter of practicality.
However, if you think of FOSS as a business model or a statement of principles, then it can easily contradict the practical purpose of making money.
Thanks for adding to my perspective,
Bruce Byfield
Thanks for the comment Bruce,
You are right, it does of course depend on your point of view. My POV is that open source is not a business model so therefore cannot contradict business strategy, although I take your point about an individual’s open source principles being contradicted by business strategy.
And of course if an individual thinks that their principles have been contradicted by a business strategy then no argument that open source is not a business model is going to shift their view. Contradiction is in the eye of the beholder.
[...] http://blogs.the451group.com/openso… [...]
Hi Matthew. On the whole I agree with your article and your critiques, but I take issue with one of the distinctions you make in the FOSS world.
What I see as a common misconception about Free vs. Open Source software is perpetuated in your article: the notion that Stallman / Free software do not believe in blending their philosophies with business. In fact Stallman’s Emacs in its early days was a perfect example of his essential philosophy: charge as much as you want for software, but give the users the opportunity to fix it themselves (by providing the source code as part of your product).
The fundamental difference between Stallman’s and Raymond’s philosophies, in my opinion, was really in terms of licensing, and especially in terms of licensing custom or third party modifications, driver plugins, etc that are included in a software product.
This difference notwithstanding, Stallman’s idea of Free software and Raymond’s concept of Open Source software were both designed, from the beginning, to be friendly to business.
I find it unfortunate and somewhat surprising that so few businesses include source code as part of their proprietary products. Not that every software product user is a power user who can fix bugs in, or add features to, commercial software — and possibly even send the patches back to the company to merge into the main codestream. But there are certainly a few of us who would love to have the code to the software we use on a daily basis, so that we don’t have to bang our heads against a wall of “Support” for years, asking repeatedly for the same minor tweaks.
One other nitpick about your article: in the 2nd-to-last paragraph, you mention a prime reason for companies to rely on free/open source software. Another reason for business to adopt FOSS — which is arguably just as important as reducing development costs: increasing software quality.
Thanks for sharing Matthew!
Johann Tienhaara
Thanks for the comment Johann,
You are of course right about Stallman and the GNU GPL encouraging business models. I was oversimplifying above. We have a much more detailed research report in the works on this that gives Stallman and the free software movement due credit for encouraging and creating the current FOSS-related business models.
Also, you are right about increasing code quality as a reason for adopting the open source development model. Again I was oversimplifying.
[...] have written once or twice on this subject myself recently and previously suggested that determining what those [...]
[...] A victory or the ultimate failure? That is the question that lies at the heart of the recent tension between those that would seek to defend the purity of the free and open source model, and those happy to see open source assimilated into the mainstream. The tension has been simmering for some time. [...]