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.

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.

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: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.

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

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.