Slashdot Mirror
VA Linux to Sell Proprietary Version of Sourceforge
Cassivs writes: "There's an article claiming that VA Linux is planning on selling a proprietary, closed-source version of SourceForge, SourceForge Enterprise Edition. See the letter to SourceForge members assuring them that VA Linux will continue to provide free hosting/etc. at SourceForge. They will also continue to maintain a GPL version of the code, SourceForge Open Edition." VA is Slashdot's corporate parent.
This really isn't a big deal. Linux/dot-com company sells new product. Where's the story? The only reason this got posted is because hundreds of readers would have moaned and griped if it didn't, saying "slashdot is censorware!"...
As a side note, does anybody know of any companies that are actually using sourceforge enterprise for interenal development?
Juiced? Or Not?
A closed source version of an open source community? Quite the oxymoron.
"I'll just chip in a bit for RedHat: I actually have that installed on my university machine." - Linus, '95
There is nothing wrong with selling value added extensions, as long as they aren't violating the lisence on the original body of code.
The idea has always been pay for people not software.
Custom modifications and services are the only way Open Source will survive.
Free as in Freedom not Beer. Get it.
I can't see why a company may want to deploy sourceforge on site. Maybe I never worked for a big enough company but unless you have hundreds of projects I can't really see why one might one to have sourceforge in the office. Even when I worked for my biggest ever employer they had some sixteen distinct projects and that was a company with well over a thousand employees. Where's the selling point?
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
In a recent meeting with some VA Reps, they mentioned that a closed-source package of Oracle hooks would be coming out in the future, at the request of many of their large customers.
This was, of course, an answer to our question, "when will you support Oracle?" I felt funny asking that question, but OSS be damned. Oracle has it over any other database when it comes to performance and management.
Simple fact, if VA Linux goes under they'll be taking SourceForge, Slashdot, and a bunch of others down with them. Its not like they're closing the source completly after having had people work on it openly, it another product (presumeably the GPL stuff (which remains GPL) with closed source extensions). So I say let them sell, coz the profits from such go toward keeping the pretty cool free stuff around.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Got modded down - well i thought you could leave it alone but then again who knows - it might have been offtopic there but i have been seeing the misinformed stories all day
Reposted in CORRECT FORUM
the end of the world as we know it
Actually the story says that VA linux is going to sell some investigate ways to make some money from their software development and thus build some applications that move in new ways - this is perfectly reasonable as their employees have mouths to feed.
I quote: (lifted without permission but maybe this wil stop the register being slashdotted)
SourceForge is the new ERP - VA Linux
By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco
Posted: 24/08/2001 at 07:49 GMT
Barely six weeks ago VA Linux Systems was an open source hardware vendor. Now, the company is undertaking a Napoleonic retreat from the hardware business and it's doing the unthinkable: adding proprietary subscription software to its open source software flagship SourceForge.
VA swallowed charges of around $230m in the last quarter - $160 million coming under the category of "impairment of goodwill and intangible assets", and almost $70 million as a one-time charge - contributing to a net loss for the quarter of $290 million as it liquidated its PC manufacturing and sales businesses.
Costs will continue to affect the bottom line for two further quarters, said VA. Its Japanese subsidiary will continue to sell hardware, the company said, but that amounts to chump change.
The new software-only VA expects to make an operating lost of $10 to $13 million on revenue of $3 to $4 million in the forthcoming quarter. With a cash pile of $83 million, that gives the company as little as six months to ramp revenue, or else seek new investment. VA said its burn rate will continue to decline, suggesting that more layoffs are to be expected.
But CEO Larry Augustin is bullish. He says there was no competition for the distributed code management system SourceForge. Current development processes and tools haven't kept pace with geographically dispersed or ad hoc teams, according Augustin, who predicts that the impact of SourceForge could be as great as ERP or CRM.
Typically VA deals with in-house developers using a range of tools (it cites Borland, Rational and Microsoft as well as GNU tools). The company emphasises that seeks to complement rather than supplant existing tools.
VA is gunning for $600 revenue per seat per year - it claims that buyers typically see a return on investment within six months.
Augustin talks of adding "proprietary software features and functionality" to the subscription version SourceForge. That VA is looks at the software-hoarding model to save the business is an irony a few will savour, but we guess that by now badly singed VA investors will simply be hoping it flies. ®
IN OTHER WORDS
They are not 'going closed source' they have had a subscription service for some time - the code is well developed and they are looking at new areas like ERP - they have a right to do it and if they dont they may very well be down the tubes.
From someone who works in MIS and who's company has just spent AU$20 Million on SAP let me tell you that this is a field where some competitors would be good - there arent many new products that ar worth buying and three companies have it tied up - SAP, Peoplesoft and JD Edwards.
And no - no company in their right mind would ever buy a free GPL erp system - these systems are the heart and sould of a business when you implement them - they do all payroll and accounting functions etc and no one would trust a product without a company with cash and controlled development backing it up.
I have been accused in the past of defending MS - so it might seem strange for the people who can't see past the MS sucks argument to defend an open source company but im not that narrow minded.
VA Linux have not sold out the GPL - they are simply running their free software projects and at the same time trying to make enough money to survive and build a new product in the meantime.
And you can only attack them ?
Christ have you stopped to think what this means if these guys get this right - ERP's are run on Windows or Unix Platforms - what this might give the world is a stable lower cost ERP alternative that is built on linux.
The problem with free sourcing applications like this is that VA would be expected by their clients to do all the development work but by the brethern to give everyone that work for free and thus give competitors the chance to profit off their hard work when they adapt the code and havent got to pay for the development.
Open source does not have to mean free IMHO - devlopment of corporate systems costs money - but maybe VA can start the ball rolling and we might win a few of those corporate file and app servers and some corporate desktops.
So please no more meaningless VA have sold out posts - its boring and innacurate and they are only being posted here because they own Slashdot and your trying to be smart (and failing)
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
this was the only plausible reason for making proprietary extensions - to provide 'embedded' interfaces proprietary software. Of course you have to make the interfaces between these extensions and the GPL SourceForge 'clean' in licensing terms.
Otherwise - if VA had really been converted to proprietariness - they'd have just re-licensed the whole thing.
Some reps from VA came by and gave a presentation at my company regarding this product about 2 months ago.
Its actually pretty neat - they'll set up your own internal sourceforge on servers in your organization. And while they are doing it, they'll customize it so that the backend works with all of your already establised CM and problem tracking tools.
The idea is that even if your company makes closed software, you can benefit from a structured way to share code within the company. They can even close off portions with restricted access, so that classified projects (I work for a defense contractor) will only be available to the developers working on it.
The product the and the services they bring with it are really amazing... if I was in charge of such things here, I'd switch over ASAP. I really hope they make a go with this.
_sig_ is away
The authors hold the copyright. It is released under GPL. If you violate the GPL and use the code of the authors, you are either acting under their special permission (likely paid for) or you are breaking copyright law.
If VA is writing extensions to Source forge, I can't comment... it's a complex issue. Are they or are they not derrivative works?
Sourceforge is a marvellous thing for developpers and it helps a lot the free software community.
However, Sourceforge is very buggy. Sometimes the CVS server refuses authentication. Sometimes, uploading new releases is impossible. Sometimes, I have to authenticate dozens of time. And it doesn't like Opera.
Maybe VA should fix Sourceforge before selling it.
{{.sig}}
The V is getting a little to big, time to move on people.
It does promise good times ahead though!
sig sig sputnik
How hypocritical is it that the people who run this site, while espousing the virtues of open source take an open-sourced program and make it proprietary.
While they will have a "Source Forge - Open Edition", there will undoubtably be features in the "Enterprise" edition missing from the GPL'd release. Is this fair to those who have contributed to SourceForge on a voluntary and uncompensated basis? Will the open-source contributers receive royalties from the commercial product?
Where is JonKatz and CmdrTaco crying out against this now? I guess moral superiority stops at the hands of those who sign their checks.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
In my opinion, this is a good sign for companies in the future. I mean, we have a company demonstratably commited to open source able to or trying to make some money from their open source. I hope they succeed.
/.
To me it shows that they've understood how to make a living out of the free software fad, and are showing others how to make dollars out of the service industry. Good for them, and I truely thank them for what they've given me in the past, in the form of sourceforge.net and sites like
Alas gallinaceas de urbe bovis volo
Not that VA is necessarily doing something bad, but that this is quite a change in their direction.
"We are firmly committed
to Open Source development as a methodology for creating better
software, faster." -- Dr. Larry M. Augustin, president and CEO of VA Linux Systems, as quoted in a September 2000 press release.
Later down that press release we learn that "VA Linux Systems'
mission is to make its customers successful through the use of Linux
and Open Source -- whether they are e-businesses rapidly expanding
their Internet infrastructures, or technology companies leveraging the
power and methodology of Open Source software development. As part of its commitment to expanding the Open Source community, VA Linux
Systems operates the Open Source Development Network (OSDN)."
Take all the references to "Open Source" out, and you have a more accurate and to-the-point statement of what seems to be their current mission.
...so now maybe some PHBs will take notice instead of being afraid of using hippie commie software to manage their projects...I sure know it would help around here...
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
First of all VA may have asked the authors to sign over copyright to them - as the FSF does. It's believed by many that this makes it easier to defend against GPL violations. I don't know whether this has happened or not - but I'd guess not.
Simply charging for distribution of GPL'd software - is not a violation of the GPL. The only possibly violation would be whether the 'extensions' together with the GPL'd stuff constitute a 'derived work' or merely an 'aggregate work'. That's what I meant about 'clean' interfaces.
My guess would be that we're talking about stand-alone programs which can be called by SourceForge with specific command line flags, input files etc. The fact that they are really designed to be used with SourceForge doesn't matter so long as they can be seen to be distinct programs.
From what someone else said - it looks as though these extensions are actually doing is talking to Oracle databases. So they have to make these extensions separate and proprietary in order to be able to interface with Oracle and not violate the GPL on the core software. It's a compromise based on the fact that their large customers want Oracle integration.
People don't realize that there is a FEE in
FREE. VA Linux is only using their right
to sell Open Source/Free software (GLP'd)
with proprietary extensions.
Polish up your resumes guys,and start recruituing volunteers to help you run /..
From the article:
And VA needs a proven business model. It reported revenue of $16 million Thursday; most of its loss was from its abandonment of Linux computer sales in favor of software and services. The company said $267 million of the loss was from non-cash charges for goodwill, intangible assets and restructuring charges because of VA's departure from the computer business
I'm still working on a clever footer.
It does not matter.
They can take sourceforge and sell it right now in its entire form as a closed source product if they want.
So many people have missed this.
Think of Quake I and idsoftware. They released it under the GPL and will sell it too you proprietary for your own purposes IF you want to pay.
Sourceforge is doing the same thing.. They can sell the "GPL'd" version under any lic they want, they own the software.
Jeremy
A leading "Open-Source" company is taking the work of the "community", repackaging it into a closed-source product and selling it corporations and government as a proprietary product.
It is news because it highlights the death of the "Free Software" large-scale business model.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Yes they can - if they really do own the software
The big question is - do they? Have the non-VA contributors signed over their copyright? And - something I've always wondered - how much of a contribution do you have to make to allow you to block this? If I make a 1 line change and submit a patch (C) Me - do they now have to consult me on licensing decisions? or is my work not considered significant enough to warrant that level of protection?
Umm im in the middle of a frigging huge SAP implementation - do i know what ERP is ?
Oh god yes and i wish i didnt - ERP=Hell on Earth (BTW this is implementation 2 of this as 2 different companies and i used to sell and support R5 Camms and JD Edwards so yeah i know what ERP is - DO YOU ??
The article talks (from what i can see) about being able to leverage sourceforge code to ERP type solutions
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
Uh I think it's called version management or change control or version libs or problem-queues or something like that. At any rate since the days of Panvalet or CA-something or PVCS we've had this function. All this is a more open ended spin on it. Open ended as in less process bound not open as in (Ta-Da) OPEN. This is great VA gets to sell a product and make some money doing it. What's the big forking deal?
It's that little part not in italics at the end that says "VA is Slashdot's corporate parent."
Christ, we used to not bother reading the linked-to stories, then we stopped reading the whole Slashdot stories, and now we're not even reading the whole teaser before we post a reply?
Interesting... So what about any Source Forge code wirtten by external developers who did so under the terms of the GPL? Unless they signed over the copyright to VA, then VA can't do this (unless those developers agree to it and license them the code under a different license).
Actually though I suspect this isn't an issue which leads me to a significant realization about the poor implemtnations of open source based businesses we've seen come out of the recent hype. What are the advantages of open source?
1) Many eyes to find many bugs
2) Large collaborative effort distributing cost of development
Now, if Source Forge was all code written by people in-house, why is it open source? There is absolutely no business justification for this within their business model. I mean don't get me wrong, I'm glad they do it, hopefully out of a sense of community, not just a PR thing. But the result is that they are getting ALL of the drawbacks of open source and none of the benefits. No wonder VA is having financial problems and no wonder they have to make a proprietary version.
People keep thinking that open source can't make money. That's only because we keep seeing a lot of companies make the same serious mistake, trying to develop an open source project in a proprietary development style then just opening the code.
If you look at successful open source projects and companies who are making money off it, their approach is entirely different. RedHat actually gets it! They subsidize some of the cost of developing linux, but not all of it by any stretch. They release new products by taking existing open source projects, branding them, and then throwing some developers at it (see also RedHat's new Postgres database).
Hopefully VA and the rest will soon learn that you can't set out and build an open source project overnight. It is something that has to grow organically by a bunch of geeks recognizing a common usefulness of a piece of software. If you try to force it, fronting proprietary development costs, and then just saying it's open source, your company will fail because it is not a sustainable model. Doesn't mean anything is wrong with open source, just means these people aren't doing it right.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
That is one of the things I really agreed with as a business model that gives back.
Make the most current version closed source and binary only, then each time a new version is out, put the last one into an open source license.
Everybody wins. Sorta like how patents were SUPPOSED to work.
DanH
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins anymore
Why would nobody think of charging subscription fees to read, post and search technical mailing lists and its archives to generate income ?
I never understoodd why, if the source code is open, the technical support to explain how an open source code software package works to other users and developers, is a thing you can get for free. This is a free like in free beer thingy and it is not necessary to give that kind of technical support away for absolutely nothing.
A developer who donates code to an open source project might be willing to pay a little to the mailing list to show support for open source code in general (even though he already donates his work and his time).
All the others, the ones who just profit from the knowledge of the (in general) few real developers of the package, who just use the mailing list to learn and get advice for free, should pay a subscription to fee to support the overall chance for open source software to make money for the developers and the companies who hire those developers, IMHO. May be it is time that the community helps itself to generate income for open source projects in paying "a little bit" to the most helpful and used item by all users and developers, the technical support mailing lists of any open source project ?
I want to stay source code opened up as much as possible. I would pay a subscription fee to a technical mailing list, where developers help to explain their software's features, detect and fix their software's bugs and open up in which direction the software is going to be developed.
I think cvs and bugzilla is the best and most beneficial invention of all things I have seen so far, for all, users and developers alike. I would not hesitate to pay a subscription fee to be able to read, post and search a mailing list's archives.
Of course it has to be a low subscription fee that is affordable.
Is that not a way to generate income for a company like VALinux too ? Or would it be just peanuts ?
as long as the base is free and open (I.E. the main program and all the protocols and file formats) then the programs built on top of that base can be either open or closed, it does not matter. what is the one reason that MS is hated?
because they place a barrior to entry to compete with their products. if windows, the protocols, and the file formats were all open and under the GPL and they sold word and office as a proprietary tool, I would have no issues with them, however, the barrior to entry is huge because they don't let anyone see anything.
that is why Linux is so great, everything you need to compete equaly is available free and open. the sam priciple applies to sourceforge, the base system is open and free, this allows anyone to compete in this arena, VA is adding extentions to the system that are proprietary, to add value that is exclusive to VA, another company can come along and take the base code and add proprietay extentions on it to make its sourceforge have features that are exclusive to that companies product. nothing wrong with that, just let the market sort them out.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
SourceForge doesnt contain any code borrowed from other GPLed programs, does it? If it does, how are they going to get away with this? Am I the only one who sees the irony in a Linux company violating the GPL?
Liberty in your lifetime
While its admirable for a company to strike out for new business, its probably time for the VA execs to fess up to the reality of it - the negative momentum on earnings is too much for the stock to bear. Once LNUX inevitably goes under $1, the dilution of the stock will bring the market cap to ridiculously low levels. Once the market cap gets under $80 million, the assets of the company are valued more than its valuation as a publically traded company (I believe VA has $83 million cash and securities).
Why not just sell off the assets and simply redistribute the funds to shareholders? Really, this isn't a slag on the company or its employees - the math is simply against them. Morningstar has given them five more quarters and then they predict it is all over for them.
I can't figure out why companies insist on spending every last dollar when its obvious that it isn't going to happen.
Under copyright law, it is my understanding that you own your creative works and all derivatives. That means, if you made a change in their system, you haven't created a work. VA automatically owns the copyright on your derivative work.
If you were to write a module that incorporated the code, the custom code would be yours, but it would fall under the GPL as a derivative as well.
However, patches/tweaks aren't creative works and therefore shouldn't grant the author any protection.
There may yet remain factors beyond the consideration of business.
You don't plonk money down for support from a company that isn't going to be there in eighteen months, and in VA's case, this isn't even up for debate anymore - Morningstar has put them down for five more quarters until they are gonzo.
Really, read it again. Especially the part where I agree that there is no conflict!
It's just an insult to the community that a company that has claimed for years to agree with the idea that information wants to be free suddenly decides that some information for their customers doesn't want to be free.
So maybe now we discover, that they never got it at all.
Well I found out about sourceforge last week. The funny thing is a banner ad at slashdot tipped me off. The company I work for happens to be in the market for collaboration software. Unfortunately, I was too late to throw this one the bucket. The decision had already been made for another product.
After talking to a sales rep from VA Linux on the phone the advantage of buying sourceforge is support. Which I'm sure is the same reason businesses buy RedHat. Time is money to business and I know first hand we cannot be down from a bug in software or at the mercy of newsgroups for technical support answers. What I found really interesting is VA Linux no longer sells hardware, but they do still provide support. Anyway, good move VA Linux. I really appreciate the open source collaboration sourceforge provides and I think its a great move to supply the same great tools at a price to businesses for proprietary development. Lets hope their stock prices reflect this decision.
JOhn
Campaign for Liberty
The people controlling the site are the people who hold the pursestrings.
People are free to change their mind of course, but it does not help your credibility when you turn away from a license or a philosophy that is espoused as the only righteous and moral path by the "community".
What is hypocritical is that employees of VA Linux, namely the editors of this site, constantly and consistantly challenge the validity of copyright & patents as it pertains to "bad" organizations.
Will those feelings change when VA feels the need to defend it's intellectual property? How about when Slash become a proprietary product? You better believe it.
Feel free to moderate down to -1 Troll. I don't agree with the hivemind, sorry.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Ummm, SourceForge is not an ERP system, won't become one, and the article you quoted doesn't claim that it will. "The impact of SourceForge could be as great as ERP or CRM" doesn't mean that SourceForge is an ERP system, it means that VA Linux believes it might become as important as an ERP system.
Maybe they would not download the source and compile it themselves, but why would they not use a GPLed ERP system? Do you seriously think SAP's market share would drop to zero if they decide to free SAP R/3? Also, if that were true, then why do people run SAP or their databases on Linux systems? If you "don't trust a free ERP system", then why would you install it on top of Free Software?
I'd agree if you say there is no free enterprise level ERP system available yet, but this doesn't mean there won't be one in the future.
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
what about Red Hat?
Red Hat has never made a profit. Citing a money-losing company as an example of the profits to be made from open source does not make a lot of sense to me.
Sure, if people sink lots of money into developing free software, it can sometimes be good, but the question is sustainable profitability.
Tim
When people say "SourceForge is the new ERP" they mean SourceForge is LIKE ERP. They mean it in the sense that "Grey is the new Black." Sourceforge will play the role in software development that ERP pays in purchasing/accounting/whatever. VA Linux is not literally going to go into ERP.
Will they now set up a Closed Source Developer Notwork?
My understanding is... the copyright holders may relicence the material as they see fit.
Since, I presume, they own the copyright, they can relicence it to other people, along with any additional code they see fit.
May contain traces of nut.
I don't think that will ever happen, mind you. But if it did then fork it and do your own. In fact the same thing goes with SF. IF you want to write the interfaces to rational, pvcs , and open it up. Go for it. Have fun. This is part of what open source is all about.
Honestly, sometimes I think that 99% of open source software is the willingness to do the work. I don't want to sound blasphemous, but it's just software. Anyone can write software and release it. And , looking at some of the code (oss and proprietary) just about anyone has.
Chris DiBona
(speaking for VA)
Co-Editor, Open Sources
Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
chris DiBona
Co-Editor, Open Sources
Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
"Honestly, sometimes I think that 99% of open source software is the willingness to do the work. I don't want to sound blasphemous, but it's just software. Anyone can write software and release it. And , looking at some of the code (oss and proprietary) just about anyone has."
I agree with you, but I am critizing those who harp on with nearly religious fervor against the notion of intellectual property, patents & copyright and for the GPL and other "open" licenses. (the editors and bulk of the posters to this site in particular)
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
If all flight research was GPLed... it might have made no difference. Certainly companies like Boeing amassed huge amounts of crucial data and 'intellectual property', but NACA also contributed greatly to research, plus you have to understand that in aviation, corporate espionage is as old as aviation itself. You're expecting that if people GPLed aviation research, everyone would honor this and go 'oh darn, now I can't use that without opening all my research!', and you're expecting that WITHOUT the GPL, everyone goes, 'woop! That information is not open source, therefore I'd better not steal it or anything!'. This is naivete.
This fits into ESR's model quite nicely. See , particularly this section. Zope is an excellent example of what SourceForget is doing...
My journal has hot
Couldn't VA have simply sold "Enterprise Support" for the open product (a la Red Hat)?
Red Hat is the leader in their market, and after several years, they now make enough money from support, sales, and training to barely make a profit. Source Forge has a much smaller market. They don't have the partnerships that Red Hat does. I don't see how they can make enough money selling training and support to pay for the development costs. A smaller market means you have to have larger margins to make money. Source Forge just doesn't have the kind of mass appeal that Red Hat's software and services have.
They've got 80 million left, and they're burning it at a very high rate. Once it's gone, they're done, and the stockholders get nothing. Selling proprietary software is obviously something VA doesn't want to do. It looks like a last ditch effort to stay in business. If they can't make it fly, then things are going to look real bad for getting funding for Open Source based companies. This type of company might be able to do ok when the economy is strong, but they seem to be very vulnerable to economic downturns. Maybe free software is popular when money is tight, but support contracts and training sure aren't. At least with the code under GPL the stockholders can't close the source and sell the IP to pay off the debts if VA doesn't survive.
Good point - so show me one SAP implementation running on linux (i have looked at documents from across the world and i can find none)
Pleant run it on Solaris etc but i have seen no unix
But maybe GPL is an answer for SAP - might make the products a bit cheaper
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
In all of this, it pays to bear in mind that the GPL was originally created by Richard Stallman as a way of destroying companies such as Symbolics and Lisp Machines, Inc. -- two companies which tried to build specialized hardware that was differentiated by uniquely powerful software. Just like VA. By embracing the GPL, VA Linux unwittingly clasped the serpent that was designed to hurt these two companies to its own breast. By backing away from the GPL and moving toward a win-win strategy that combines the advantages of open source and commercial software, VA can embark upon a sustainable business model.
--Brett Glass
SAP has posted three success stories of companies running SAP on Linux: Penguin Computing, Siemes Business Services and InterComponentWare. Unfortunately I can't read them because Acrobat Reader won't work on this stupid computer I'm working at right now, so I don't know how exactly they use Linux.
You can find the links to the documents at http://www.sap.com/linux/.
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)