You say that the discussion is futile. I say that the discussion is only futile because you moved the frames of the discussion.

The discussion is about “open source” products. It’s not about “open source companies”. There isn’t such a thing. There are not “open source companies” nor it will ever be. Because it doesn’t make any sense.

So the discussion is no longer futile again.

Now you have to prove something that can be assessed. Can you proved that products that those companies sell are “open source”? The answer is NO!

End of discussion.

Again, whether this is a “misuse of open source” depends on your of view.

Matt

So unless it was crystal clear, the above still falls within the general umbrella of maximizing company profit, the magic just isn’t so much in lower R&D cost as it is in free riding on the open source brand and goodwill. (Lower marketing cost, perhaps?)

…In my observation the main value of the open core strategy is precisely to (mis)use the open source brand and community good will, free evangelization, etc… to then monetize it with proprietary products. If it was just about R&D costs, the companies could let ASF or someone run the “open” part, and just focus on the proprietary part themselves. Some do it this way (today we see CollabNet/Subversion commenting on this), but the leading examples are those that mix closed source into the same brand. And it is this misuse of open source that is objectionable. (It’s not just about the customer, at MySQL many developers were proud to join a leading open source company, only to then find themselves producing closed source software. This caused a lot of grief and badwill.)

The reaction from Augustin of SugarCRM is telling, he goes to great lengths to defend his claim that their enterprise is open source too, even if admitting it is not an OSI license. If it was about R&D cost, this would not be an issue.

I think the dichotomy you paint here with (let’s call them) “Henrik’s side” and “Mark’s side” (to avoid any other labels) is correct, however I don’t think “lowering R&D cost” is the main motivator for open core. (Since open core companies typically starve any external community, their R&D cost is the same as for a proprietary company.)

That is sadly tue. My intention is to steer the conversation beyond the level of he said/she said, open source good/open core bad, because I think there is something fundamentally important here but the level of discussion needs to be elevated. I appreciate your attempts to do the same

Also this opensource.com post is relevant in explaining the motivations on a less scientific level: http://opensource.com/business/10/5/show-me-money

It is somewhat ironic that the latter article was also tweeted with positive commentary by open core proponents. This reinforces my belief that many of them just don’t “get it” wrt to open source, rather than being somehow dishonest in their greed. Of course they may be influenced by their financial motivations to not understand the issue even if they should be capable of it.

I sure hope Slashdot will not become the authoritative reference for what is open source …but the link to Caldera’s 1996 use of the term “open source code” is interesting historical fact. I personally don’t see this conflicting with OSI or OSD, rather I see it as early evolution of the term open source. (analogous to how the 1995 MySQL public license wasn’t open source but wanted to be.)

I think Carlo’s post is an excellent example that people can agree on something even if having different preferences. Good luck with the “Zimbra – the leader in open source and proprietary email” tagline, but yeah, that is exactly what this is about. For instance, observe how Augustin of SugarCRM is fighting against being categorized as open core – this is like a replay of Mårten’s arguments some years ago wrt MySQL.

Finally, your digging up of the old OSI minutes are interesting. Simon, apparently there is already an approved “open source company definition”? Where is it? Was it discussed by the community in public?

As to the point of this article itself, I again agree, but from my perspective it is still not a “who’s to say what’s right or wrong” issue. I’ll try to explain:

Like you say, some of us look at the issue as an exercise of lowering R&D costs – essentially this is a variation of maximizing profit. In our capitalist economy this is considered a positive thing (though we do legislate all kinds of regulation to balance the free market). I’ve studied some business in university. I understand that a CEO or manager has a duty to just generate profits and nothing else. I understand how such people think and act – I could be such a person.

Otoh, some of us see open source (or rather, empowering users and developers through software freedom) as an end, or at least a means to a more powerful kind of prosperity that transcends the profit maximization of any single company. For me, to innovate new (and true) open source business models is a means to an end: coming up with such will give us more open source and bring us closer to such prosperity.

And this *is* what the open source community is about. Now, I have no issue with the fact that most companies will see profits as the end and anything else as means. I understand that thinking. What is problematic is that the other side – Mark Radcliffe, in your example – doesn’t seem to understand the open source community they want to play in, or even acknowledge that such a community exists (other than as a group of people happening to use a specific “means” to their end). I fully allow them the right to maximie their profits, but I don’t allow them to come in and redefine open source to mean closed source. (Yes, this misusing of the open source brand *is* against the spirit of the OSI and OSD, and there’s plenty of historical precedent of OSI taking action against similar misuse. SugarCRM for one isn’t even here the first time!)

In other industries we have plenty of examples of businesses with a strong ethical commitment first. The Body Shop comes to mind as a great example. Also, ethics as a topic shouldn’t be (but often is) foreign to any business manager, since you always have issues like why shouldn’t I use child labor, gene manipulation, non-renewable energy, etc… none of these are illegal. For that matter, who says you have to remain legal? Why not just maximize profits and factor in fines and jail time as a risk or an expense?

So yes, I feel fully entitled to criticize those businesspeople who fail to understand values of the open source community and then proceeding to try to redefine them on our behalf.

Great article, Matt. I think the answer to your question is clear: there is parts of “the community” in either camp. There are cathedrals and bazaars in open source. It is just a matter of taste and attitude where anyone ends up. And as long as we live and let live – instead of judge and blame – everything is fine