Corporations Getting Into The Open Source Spirit

Anonymous writes "Some bastions of capitalism are getting into the open-source spirit -- not only using the software, but contributing code fixes and other mods, according to an article in today's Computerworld."

Comments

yea, but how?

[matt4077]

I run a moderately-sized software company.

We use a lot of open source software, so I'm always looking for good ways to contribute to the oss-movement, but the consequences are too difficult to judge.

We actually thought about making our source open for the benefit of non-profit organisations (it's a project-management software).
Has anybody made any experience with something like this? We are talking about enterprise-level software here, not your average free-for-students-ide.

Re:yea, but how?

[Ogerman]

We actually thought about making our source open for the benefit of non-profit organisations (it's a project-management software). Has anybody made any experience with something like this? We are talking about enterprise-level software here..

I think it depends on how much your revenue stream relies on this software. It also depends on how similar your software is to existing free solutions (there are dozens of OSS project management packages, for example..) I firmly believe that there is plenty of money in providing free software, but you can't just jump right into it blindly without first thinking about how you're actually going to make money. (assuming the software *itself* is currently a significant source of revenue.. if not, there's no excuse for it to be closed) In my experience, customers have two criteria when choosing software: 1.) a solution that works perfectly for their needs and 2.) software that is reliably supported in case something goes wrong or the sysadmin quits or whatever. Neither of those require proprietary licensing to find a market. It's all about TCO. If you don't charge money for licensing, you can afford to charge *more* for support / customization services as long as what you offer is still overall cheaper / better than your competitors' solutions.

It is true that some potential customers will choose to free-ride on the software if it is openly licensed. However, those who do this also tend to be the ones with enough technical experience to contribute back.. to fix your bugs, offer valuable suggestions, or even add features that paying customers will then enjoy. And if not, there's no reason to feel like you must support them in any way. They're using the software as-is and if they need help, they must pay for a support contract.

Choice of open source licenses is also important. Using the BSD license potentially helps your proprietary competitors and should be avoided. (it allows them to take your code, modify it, and then *sell* it as a different and closed-source product.) GPL and many others force modifications to be re-released to the community. So even if a competitor was to decide to base their business on software you originally developed, they can't claim any rights to modifications and improvements. All they can do is offer competing support services. In practice, this is unlikely because they will lack credibility, product image, and your own intimate knowledge of the code. There are, of course, other licensing choices. You can, for example, forbid forks of the code into new projects or require that the certain trademarks, product names, and credits remain intact. Technically, this makes the software less than free, but it's still better than closed source from a purist perspective.

And remember, you can always experiment.. try opening up some software and see how it goes. Good luck! (:

Re:Getting the corporate word out

[dtolton]

It's really nice to see an introductory article written on Open Source. Particularly one written in a positive light, and without reference to Geeks or Zealots.

I wonder how long it will take the M$ team to start churning out response articles alleging that Open Source is destroying capitalism.

Security Risk?

[BarryJacobsen]

We're now trying to set up [an online] repository of which state agencies are using open source and for what projects

So you're going to create a database telling people exactly what software government agencies use and give them the code. Does anyone else see this as a security risk?

Holy freaking crap!

[qwijibrumm]

You're trying to tell me that buisnessmen, with their buisness management degrees, in charge of big buisnesses, finally are figuring out the buisness model that is the opensource concept.

Seriously I'm acctually shocked to see this in the press presented in such a clear and logical manner. Usually when the press refers to any Free/Opensource project they place a little blurb about how anyone can make contributions to the code. Almost never do they drop names of companies/governments who do. I guess this just goes to show after a while people can unlearn the proprietary method of software development.

Phase 2- get them to realise the idea of Free Software. Let them know it should be their right to change, develop, and distribute code.

Re:Holy freaking crap!

[perky]

Which "business model that is the open source concept"? ML make money out of investment banking, not from writing software. The fact that they are contributing their fixes probably has more to do with an enlightened mangler who realised that their developers were submitting their patches anyway, so they ought to have an official policy on the matter. This is just good sense, so that ML don't release things that the various groups mentioned in the article would rather stay closed. It in no way represents a business model, and does not directly generate a cent of revenue for the firm.

Motivated Self Interest

[defaulthtm]

The most interesting part of this is the reason Merril Lynch gave as to why they posted patches back. They wanted to have a seat at the development table and did not want to have to maintain a fork of the product forever. Certainly not a RMS view of OSS, but one that makes more sense (and dollars) in the long run.

Re:Motivated Self Interest

[jonadab]

> The most interesting part of this is the reason Merril Lynch gave
> as to why they posted patches back. They wanted to have a seat at
> the development table and did not want to have to maintain a fork
> of the product forever. Certainly not a RMS view of OSS, but one
> that makes more sense (and dollars) in the long run.

RMS, notwitstanding the undebatably significant contributions he
has made, is full of bologna in regard to this issue. Here's why...

It's called bitrot, and it's been a known phenomenon for a long time,
but the speed at which some OSS projects develop (the big ones, e.g.,
the Linux kernel and Mozilla) makes it a major issue. Keeping just
a small handful of patches for an active project current (even as
many as three or four patches in some cases) could just about be a
full-time job. So you Don't Do That. You create them one at a time
and get them committed to CVS, and once they're in (and don't break
the tree) they become to a large extent Somebody Else's Problem.
Everybody else who was working on their own patches now has to fix
their patches to work with *your* stuff, because *your* stuff is
in the tree. Your workload drops off, and you move on to the next
thing you want to get done. Think of it as a race: two people are
working on patches that touch the same code. Whoever commits first
doesn't have to deal with the other guy's changes. They guy who
gets his stuff in second has to merge the changes. More, the guy
who gets his stuff in tenth has to merge nine sets of changes, and
the guy who never commits his stuff has to spend the rest of his
career merging changes until he gives up in dispair and declares
that the company must standardise on one version of the software
for the rest of time. In the long run, the price of not committing
your changes is that you either never get upgrades, or you have to
give up your changes.

Now, this assumes that you make changes in the first place. People
who are content to use the software in its out-of-the-box state
derive less benefit from open source (though they still get the
improvements other people make, they don't get to put in their
own stuff for their own special needs). But if it's worth your
time to fix up the software to meet your needs better, then it's
worth contributing it back.

So, as I said, RMS is full of it. We don't need the GPL to get
people to contribute back their changes. If the software is of
sufficient usefulness that a lot of people are using it and
making improvements for their own use, bitrot will punish anyone
who doesn't contribute their changes back. The license lets us
also sic lawyers on them, but that's not necessary; if they have
enough resources to maintain a fork, they'll find a way to do
that anyway, or cruft up something from scratch. Most outfits
can't afford to maintain a fork of an active project.

Now, a small and relatively static project is another matter,
but I would argue that if it's not important to enough people
to attract very many improvements, then it doesn't matter very
much whether it's open or not.

The GPL has had some positive effects, but these can mainly be
measured in terms of the confidence that its terms give to people
who otherwise might have been afraid that their code will be
taken over and made proprietary by some third party. In practice,
this won't happen to an active project. When Apple based their
OS on existing components, they kept the open components open,
even though some of those components are licensed under a BSD
license which does not require it. Why? Those components are
actively developed, and Apple doesn't feel like spending ten or
fifteen full-time developers maintaining a bunch of forks. Duh.
(Yes, they also like having goodwill, but that additional
motivation is icing on the cake.) If your code is something
sufficiently useful to creat

Re:Goodwill as an asset?

[derF024]

Bug fixes and other contributions to open source software are in and of themselves valuable, but creating them will always be an expense to companies.

actually, the article talks about exactly this.

What's the payoff? It makes for better software. "If we find a bug or a problem, we're interested in fixing that problem. We're also interested in not fixing it again in the next version," explains Robert M. Lefkowitz, director of open-source strategy at Merrill Lynch & Co. in New York.

contributing to open source projects ends up costing these companies less, because they don't need to maintain an internal version of the software.

This was already done a while ago by accident,

[Anonymous Coward]

by slashbot sawilson. Here is the text.

Microsoft is dieing. No trolling intended here

Seriously. How can you stop a compeditor that doesn't have bills to pay, or debt? I mean, I was worried back in the day. I was sure they'd come up with some way of simply taking advantage of strong political ties to make Linux essentially illegal. That doesn't even matter anymore. Money is getting invested. Huge companies are in. I used to flat out laugh at the "world domination" types on here because it just sounded so silly. My argument was always, who cares about the rest of the world. How can they stop something free? It's turning out to be their achilles heel. Microsoft can't buy Linux out. Microsoft is moving too slowly to make something that can compete on cost. They've spent a fortune on trying to market their way out of this inevitable approaching death, and people just don't buy it anymore. I'm not saying that Microsoft will fade into the distance. That's just not realistic. But they will have to give up the childish name calling and get onboard at some point. The sooner they realize they need to give up the server market and embrace Linux as much as they can, the less money they'll bleed down the road. If they don't, they'll lose the server market within a short time, then they'll slowly lose the desktop market. It's all right there in black and white. It's what I see. I can't be the only one. Imagine all the PHB's reading articles going "wow, that geeky guy telling me about Linux years ago was right. We need Linux now". I don't even feel silly saying that. I would have a year ago. Scott McNeilly in a Penguin suit speaks volumes. It's only a matter of time now.

Re:Getting the corporate word out

[jdray]

The most surprising thing in an article like this is the fact that it is getting written at all.

Agreed. And it has been a long time coming. I work in the electric utility industry, and I've been trying to convince my management that embracing the open source model is the only thing we can do to make dramatic changes in our bottom line in these times. Unfortunately, they laid people off around here instead. Well, okay, that's a little unfair, but not too much.

Our industry, as I suspect is the case with a lot of industries, is bursting with opportunities for community-built standards-based software. Instead, we'd rather pay vendors and consultants millions of dollars for niche market software that we don't understand. Bah!

Sometimes it's hard to keep up the fight. It's a good thing I've got /. to keep my spirits high!

JD

Re:Goodwill as an asset?

[Beatbyte]

goodwill creates a REPEAT customerbase.

I would tend to trust and appreciate a company more that has spent its money to better the world of OSS and the world of computing with the interest in making a better product for everyone and not just its customers...

Alot of this is free advertisement

[Billly Gates]

IBM was shunned for many years by both the Unix and opensource communities.

However they are now looked upon as the good guys and their bussiness skyrocketed as a result. IBM is what most hackers have on their minds if their employer needs support and consulting for huge projects. They are not free or cheap but you get what you pay for.

I use to live in NewYork and the NYLUG is one of the best in the country. IBM for years has been generious in donating their rooms for the meetings and group gatherings. Alot of the locals in the meetings have consulting contracts with IBM as a result.

The more they help free software advocates the more advertising they get as well as improved software they can sell for their clients. We all win.

I believe JBoss is also an advertisement for a consulting firm who produces it. There bussiness has taken off thanks to free advertising from their product.

Opensource does work well in getting your name out. Alot of PHB do not trust salesmen because they do not know if their products are any good. With opensource software they can test them out.

Capitalism..

[Ogerman]

"Some bastions of capitalism are getting into the open-source spirit"

This really isn't unexpected seeing as how Open-Source itself is a natural bastion of democracy and capitalism.. unlike certain very socialist-style "intellectual property" regimes of broad government-issued monopoly powers.

Software development and support should be a service! (:

Re:Getting the corporate word out

[new-black-hand]

I wonder how long it will take the M$ team to start churning out response articles alleging that Open Source is destroying capitalism.

Open Source helps capitalism. These companies that have implemented, and then contributed any changes back into the community have saved time and money. This saving from not re-inventing the wheel benefits employees (who can spend more time innovating), managers, shareholders etc. Microsoft have no argument against Open Source (in terms of the development model, rather than technical advantages (if any still exist)), see The Halloween Documents

Uselessness of comparing Capitalism & Open Sou

[NaugaHunter]

The main crux of this comparison, as far as I can tell, should be made in reference to other aspects of business. Consider a manufacturing plant of some kind. In this plant they have equipment that they built, equipment they bought on contract and have serviced, and equipment that they bought but maintain themselves. The equipment they build or maintain is directly related to their business, and the operators/engineers are sufficiently trained and experienced to cover the majority of their needs. Over the years they have filled each equipment need they've had with the solution that was best at the time, and presumably address their solutions over time when difficulties or cost concerns come up.

This is roughly analogous to in-house software, proprietary software, and open source software. A company is free to pick and choose which solutions work best to remain in business. The main difference is very few companies naturally have Software Engineers/Designers/What Have You in the course of their normal business developments. Whereas a small manufacturing company is likely to have been founded by people making the product by hand, rarely are office environments founded by programmers (Exception: software companies which by this analogy are manufacturers of software and would fit with them).

The important thing to remember is that software isn't the only third party products these offices, or even manufacturers, use. There aren't many advocates for Open Source Copiers, or Open Source Pens, or Open Source Coffee Makers, all calling for GPL'd blueprints. The significant difference with software is that the only real resources required are the source code (or blue prints) and the person capable of understanding and modifying them. Virtually everything else would require a parts supply chain which, if not part of the main business, usually isn't an economical path to follow.

In conclusion, the cost of maintaining anything utilized by an organization that isn't directly related to the organization should be compared with the costs of outside solutions, whether talking about software or coffee makers, and whether talking about businesses, governments, or even your own house.

Re:Getting the corporate word out

[cmacb]

I would guess that the industry rags are no longer getting the bulk of their ad revenue from Microsoft or any of its competitors. Instead the ads are selling web services, routers, CRM applications, and other things in which Microsoft is not a player.

These publications can aford to be brutally honest with everyone except their one or two largest advertisers and I bet Microsoft is no longer in that club.

Anchordesk continues to say glowing things about Microsoft products though, and almost every issue comes with an ad from Redmond. Coincidence?

Re:Open yes, but free of charge ?

[cfury]

>> Aligned interests (good code in exchange for good money) can be a much better model in the long run.

Hogwash. I'm sorry, but good money almost *never* gives good software. I've read where something like 80% of software projects fail... fail to meet deadlines, fail to meet price schedules, and fail to meet user requirements.

Personally, I have been witness to several software projects that were paid for with good dollars... Nothing good came from them.

Also, I have seen almost every proprietary, closed, "packaged" product that my company has used fail miserably to deliver on patches, updates, support and functionality.

On the other hand, more open, available tools tend to get the job done -- and if it doesn't, we have the source, and the *user community* to find out why and *fix* the problem.

Granted, some companies may have a valid reason to close their product (ie, vertical markets...)
But even these can benefit from OSS... Ever heard of the LGPL?

Thanks,
Chris

Re:Not exactly news ...

[Jason Earl]

I am unaware of any commercial software company posting an 80% profit margin. Perhaps you could clarify this claim?

That's simple. Just take a quick look at Microsoft's public financial statements. They make absolutely ridiculous profits on both Windows and MS Office. Here's a link.

Except it promotes crappy software, like what we currently see with Open Source. Software that is difficult to install, difficult to administer, difficult to use... thus encouraging support calls and customization contracting. This isn't in the best interests of consumers.

Linux has actually got quite a bit of high quality software. The desktop software is still maturing, but there is plenty of high quality server software and development tools. Give the desktop a few more years and Free Software will be competitive there as well. You have to remember, in 1995 the only GUI application that Free Software had worthy of the name was Emacs. On the server side, on the other hand, I personally find Linux much easier to admin than Windows, and I come from a Windows background (that's an entirely different discussion).

It puts geek users back in control, at the expense of software developers. That's the difference, and it's the point you can't seem to grasp.

The point that you don't understand is that the the folks purchasing software don't care about commercial software developers anymore than they care about buggy-whip makers. If Free Software produces a product that is "good enough" at a lower price, then the market is going to be interested. Free Software is now part of the software ecosystem, and all signs point to it becoming a larger part of the ecosystem in the future.

Yes Bob Young has definately done a fine job of taking billions of dollars of investment capital and turning it into something worth mere millions.

Bob Young did an excellent job of selling RedHat as a commercial enterprise, and he was able to raise quite a bit of money in RedHat's IPO. I don't think that RHAT is worth anything near its present Price/Earnings ratio, but I do think that they are quite likely to be profitable in the long run. Not ridiculously profitable, but profitable nonetheless.

All I'm asking for is the free market to be allowed to work. That means no government laws mandating open source, no government funding of open source, and news based on actual results not speculation.

Government are somewhat different for two reasons. First of these is that left to themselves government employees tend to purchase $300 hammers (or a quadzillion Oracle licenses). Oversight of government purchases is a good thing, and making government employees cost justify their software purchases is a definite benefit for the taxpayer. This is true if the government employee is purchasing Oracle licenses, or paying for customizations to the Linux kernel. However, I think that this is likely to get worked out in the long run by companies like IBM and Sun that know how to sell software to the government. The fact of the matter is that quite a few of the larger software firms are some of the major catalysts for a push towards more Free Software.

The second reason that governments are different is that governments can force people to use a particular piece of software. For example, if my county clerk wants all digital documents in WordPerfect format, then sending a Word document isn't going to be good enough. I think that it is in everyone's best interests to nudge our governments towards open formats. Open formats don't preclude commercial software, of course.

In the end I just want software that doesn't suck. Is that really too much to ask for?

I feel your pain. Free Software has a lot of shortcomings. At