Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Seven Open Source Business Strategies

Posted by Hemos on from the building-an-economic-future dept.

Openstandards.net writes "One of /. posters' favorite discussions is the value of open source as a business model. OSDN has an article on IT Manager's Journal that highlights seven business strategies for open source. " Slashdot and ITMJ are both owned by OSDN.

97 comments

  1. One interesting thing by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One thing I noticed about that article when reading it yesterday was that only two of those business models actually include writing open source code. This fits with my thoughts that there's plenty of money to be made from open source, but not necessarily from creating open source.

    1. Re:One interesting thing by fbrain · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My company implements open source solutions for a small fee, and when asked to install some OSS we always donate a percentage of the fee towards the projects we use. It would be great if everyone 'played nice' but I can't see that happening.

      --
      Avontech | Play dirty! They started it!
    2. Re:One interesting thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Indeed you are correct. Amazon and Google are but two testaments to the idea of using open source for business purposes, and neither is exactly a "software" company.

    3. Re:One interesting thing by tanguyr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Forget the money, send the patches you had to write.

      Open source shouldn't have to count on people "playing nice" - it's about enlightened self interest: sharing your patches decreases your costs in the long run, because you can apply other people's patches more easily.

      Convincing MBA weilding bosses of this is more than half the fight.

      --
      #!/usr/bin/english
    4. Re:One interesting thing by platos_beard · · Score: 3, Informative

      Huh? All except one involve distributing open source code:

      Optimization - give away good, sell better code.
      Dual license - give away good code, sell same code to anyone not wanting to GPL their modifications.
      Consulting - give away code so people will hire you to customize it.
      Subscription - give away code, but get people to pay for more convenient distribution of it.
      Patronage - find someone else to pay you to give away code.
      Hosted - (this is the one) write code based on free software that only you use.
      Embedded - Give away code tailored to hardware you sell.

      --
      What's a sig?
    5. Re:One interesting thing by hazem · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm newly MBA-weilding, and hopefully former-sysadmin.

      The good news is that business people ARE starting to hear about F/L/OSS. Within my own classes, I tried to inject presentations about it whenever possible. In my last class, a business strategy class, my prof allowed me to deviate from the normal "find a way to help a business" project to doing one on "what every manager needs to know about OSS".

      It will take some time, but the word is getting out!

      It's not the MBA that makes people stupid. Stupid people have amazing ways of getting all kinds of degrees and certifications!

    6. Re:One interesting thing by torpor · · Score: 5, Insightful


      I think the problem is that its so difficult for 'accountants' and 'evaluators' to really put a value on any open source which a company may end up contributing to with .diffs ...

      With software, there are a number of different approaches for 'valuating' a company codebase and sticking that figure in a spreadsheet along with all the company's other assets, such as account balances, etc.

      With OSS though, how does that valuation occur? Its a public trust sort of scenario - as if the tax which all employees paid the government each year was 'also valuable' to the company, whose cash it was originally before payroll was paid.

      OSS 'contributions' are a strange beast to an accountant, and unfortunately, many companies these days rely on valuations and assessments from 'traditional bankers' for things (such as getting loans to cover payroll, or new inventory for sales seasons, etc).

      I know that EFF donations and all those 'tax-free writeoffs' are also valuable too, but these don't get thought of as 'investment return', generally. So if you put your main codebase development out into OSS, and your accountant wants to write all your primary code off as 'donations and contributions, non-return expected', then it gets a bit weird...

      I think groklaw really ought to spend some time on this sort of thing; the more boring side of supporting linux/OSS on the legal fronts may well lead to a solution to this accounting dilemna, and that would surely be nice for a lot of companies that want to get into OSS ... and still keep the books in order.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    7. Re:One interesting thing by tommasz · · Score: 1

      The ability to modify open source software is part of the value proposition for those organizations that can take advantage of it, in other words those that have in-house programming capability. The advantage becomes less clear when you have to pay someone from outside to do the modifications but may still be less than proprietary code (which, in some cases, may also need customization). So you're right on about the money angle, even if the per-job income is smaller, you can do a lot of customization jobs in a year vs. writing applications from the ground up.

    8. Re:One interesting thing by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1

      The Optimization, Consulting, Subscription, Hosted, and Embedded strategies don't require writing any open source code; they work better if you just use existing code.

    9. Re:One interesting thing by pavon · · Score: 1

      No, I agree with him. While they all involve open source software (how else would they get on the list), only one of those business methods actually involved making money off of open source software that you wrote.

      Optimization: Align your proprietary software with someone else's open source software to make the total package less expensive for your customer without giving out any code yourself.

      Dual license: Subsidize open source development with licensed version.

      Subscription: Subsidise open source development with support subscriptions.

      Patronage: The same as optimization, but actually subsidize the open source software you are aligning yourself with.

      Hosting: Build off of open source for internal use, but don't release source.

      Embedded: Subsidize open source development with hardware sales.

      Consulting: This goes hand in hand with all the other models, but instead of being hired to work oh the software, you are contracted. This is the one where writing open source software *is* the business model, but it really just amounts to leveraging your knowlege with the software to get a foot into one of the other methods above.

      In all of the rest of these the open source software is not the primary money maker, but either a money saver, or an added value. It is hard to talk about an open source business model, because all the places where open source thrives, the software itself isn't the focus of the business - it is just a tool that they used to get the job done and save money.

      That is the mainstay of how open source software always has and always will be successfull. Group needs software to do X. Shrinkwrapped solutions are not flexible enough, and writing from scratch costs too much and will take to long. But here is an open source package that will do most of what they need. So they improve it to fit their needs, and in many cases it the added benifits of getting involved with the community* outweigh any competitive advantage they would recieve by keeping the code private, so they release it.

      But is this an open source business model? Not really, it is just a small part of the implementation of an entirely different business venture.

      *This includes more help and cooperation from the experts who wrote the software to begin with, a wider more varied deployment base which helps bring more bugs to surface, and less hassle with keeping the patches in sync with the main branch.

    10. Re:One interesting thing by tanguyr · · Score: 1

      I have never thought about that, so thanks for the brain jolt. In my job (contract developer for medium-large company), i'm more likely to wind up arguing with the marketing guy who thinks "free software" = "people working for you for free" or the development manager who still thinks "open source means no support" than the accounting guy.

      Over the last year to eighteen months, i've seen the words "open source" become more buzzy around here, but no real understanding of what they mean. Like i like to say: "it's Internet all over again".

      --
      #!/usr/bin/english
    11. Re:One interesting thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My concern is that MBAs will learn about FOSS and go, Woo! Low cost resources! And it'll be more about the taking than the giving. And when it all turns to custard (as it does for some folks) there will be the court actions and other sillyness that business folks are unsed to.

    12. Re:One interesting thing by platos_beard · · Score: 1
      In all of the rest of these the open source software is not the primary money maker...
      Well, yeah. That's the whole point. You don't make money by giving away stuff for free. Ever. These business models are ones where it is to a company's advantage (usually indirect) to develop and distribute open source software. Of course you can be a consultant without writing open source software. I would think that point is so obvious, no one would misconstrue the article as suggesting anything else.

      It isn't hard to try to find for a profit making enterprise NOT to work on open source projects. These are strategies which provide a reason TO work on them. Even hosting provides a reason to contribute to open source projects (so that you're improvements to core code get into the open source version and you can then take advantage of other improvements to the open source version without having to redo your modifications), but I'd say its a much weaker one.

      --
      What's a sig?
    13. Re:One interesting thing by platos_beard · · Score: 1

      Doh!

      P2 should begin "It isn't hard to try to find reasons for..."

      --
      What's a sig?
    14. Re:One interesting thing by torpor · · Score: 1

      "it's Internet all over again"

      heh heh, thats a good one. i'm gonna start using that, too. nice!

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    15. Re:One interesting thing by persaud · · Score: 1

      Book OSS development expenditures as advertising. There is ample precedent for corporate sponsorship of arts and sporting events. Such investments have a goal of increasing brand recognition and other metrics of corporate reputation. If this approach were adopted by more companies, standard metrics for evaluating brand returns on OSS investment would emerge.

    16. Re:One interesting thing by Ratfactor · · Score: 1

      The good news is that business people ARE starting to hear about F/L/OSS.

      I, for one, am overjoyed to hear this!
      Business people with things stuck between their teeth are the scourge of the Earth!
    17. Re:One interesting thing by Reteo+Varala · · Score: 1

      I think the point that was being made is that a lot of stupid people who wield MBAs use those certifications as proof that they're right.

      In other words, stupid people made dumber by arrogance.

      --
      The Penguin Producer
    18. Re:One interesting thing by torpor · · Score: 1

      Source code as an advertisement for hardware?

      Succinct. It is 'language', after all, maybe it belongs in the 'language' department ...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    19. Re:One interesting thing by hazem · · Score: 1

      That reminds me of something someone else wrote on Slashdot:

      A wise manager once said: "Obviously you want smart, productive people on your project. Note that dumb, unproductive people are relatively harmless, because they are not productive enough to cause much damage. What you need to watch out for are dumb, productive people."

    20. Re:One interesting thing by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Or heads stuck between their cheeks.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    21. Re:One interesting thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Contributions' to OSS are easy to justify. They aren't an ROI proposition, however. They are a cost of doing business in a new software milieu. Anybody not on the bandwagon will soon see that they are pushed to the periphery. You will have to play to stay in the game before too long.

  2. Data Strategy? by Mr.+Sketch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It was a nice read, but I was curious about one additional option, the 'Data Strategy'. This is specific to games where you may develop the engine using open source tools and release the engine as open source, but charge for all your data files the engine uses for your particular game. Or has this just not been proven as being a viable model?

    --
    Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
    1. Re:Data Strategy? by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I think that's a version of the optimization strategy.

      The problem with any strategy that involves giving away code and making money on something else is that there's a first-mover disadvantage. You're better off waiting for someone else to give away a game engine and then building games based on it. (Although I could be wrong, considering how little I know about business.)

    2. Re:Data Strategy? by A.+Pizmo+Clam · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is specific to games where you may develop the engine using open source tools and release the engine as open source, but charge for all your data files the engine uses for your particular game.

      Let's take a look at gaming development under the GLP. It offers an excellant case-study of how GNUlatic-ism will destory America.

      1. NetHack: This game promises to connect your computer to a "net"work and expose it to "hack"ers. This is not a good model for a law-abiding company

      2. Frozen Bubble: I'm not up on the street-lingo these days, but I'm 101% sure this is a drug reference; perhaps to "crystal methane" or "the acid". Do you want drug users working for your firm? Is that a way to be profitable? Also, I believe it comes from France, that notorious hangout for Maoists and ne'er-do-wells.

      3. Klotski: Like many pinko names, it begins with a "K-" and ends with a "-ski". It's also affiliated with a sinister group of known East German "hackers" whose avowed goal is to "conqer" the American workplace.

      I could proffer further examples, but any healthy-minded citizen will clearly see that GLP games encourage roguery of the worst kind and are unsuitable for emulation by the large, dependable corporations upon which our Constitution is based.

      --

      Thank you for your support.
    3. Re:Data Strategy? by drmike0099 · · Score: 1

      Considering that nobody has really done this (there's one that I know of, can't remember the name, but the one that ran Tribes) with an engine that anybody would actually use, I think it's safe to say it has not been proven. It is certainly attractive, since game companies spend a ton of money reinventing the wheel by creating yet another game engine, but I can't imagine someone open sourcing one of the very popular ones because they derive a ton of revenue selling that engine to other game companies.

    4. Re:Data Strategy? by jorupp · · Score: 1

      The engine that runs Tribes is called Torque

    5. Re:Data Strategy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can delay releasing code until you get your software selling (of course). That way you still have the advantage of hitting market first.

    6. Re:Data Strategy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Or you do something that makes sense, and proven to work.

      Do not release engine code, since that will remove the option of licensing it to other companies.

      Release game specific code, so that your paying customers can modify game play elements as they see fit, and by doing so increase the number of people who will by your game (continues flow of customers by continuously updated content, with minimal time and money investment from the game developer).

      All this has proven to work, and there's absolutely no sense (from the pov of the game developer) to release the engine code for free.

      Of course, once the game has stopped selling you can always release the engine code, like Id did/does with its games.

    7. Re:Data Strategy? by jenkin+sear · · Score: 1

      Well, the question is whether the first-mover also gains credibility beyond all the others in customizing / optimizing the codebase.

      The question is whether the credibility and knowledge gains outweigh the cost of the original development - and that varies from product to product. In games software, it probably doesn't- but in monitoring systems, it may.

      --
      What a strange bird is the pelican, his beak can hold more than his belly can.
    8. Re:Data Strategy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First mover also gets to push the standards in the direction that is most compatible with their systems.

    9. Re:Data Strategy? by hayriye · · Score: 1
      KDE's KVisio program is free with no stencils, and you must buy stencils to do anything useful.

      See here

  3. VA's strategy by Triumph+The+Insult+C · · Score: 1, Funny

    don't follow ours

    --
    vodka, straight up, thank you!
  4. Adapt... by carvalhao · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I found this article quite insightfull. One of the paradigms of modern business is the outsourcing model, and that is due to a recurrent need to reduce overhead in any kind of business (overhead always looks like bad news for stock investors). And software aquisition and maintenance IS a major overhead in any IT oriented enterprise.

    The obvious solution is to get the resources as they are needed. And that business frame fits perfectly on the OS business model. That, and not Open Source fundamentalism, is what may make or mars OS.

    Therefore OS must continue to focus on enhanced flexibility and customization, not offered by other non-OS platforms, as a way to thrive. Then, let us consultants do the rest of the dirty work :)

  5. Missing option: consumer desktop business models? by G4from128k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unless you count WalMart/Lindows as embedded, the only business model that seems remotely geared toward consumer desktop is a subscription model. I can see how Linux provides multiple sound business models for b2b, but wonder if any company can make money off consumer desktop linux.

    Any thoughts?

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
  6. Sleepycat license question by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Does anyone have any more details on this?

    Like if I submit a fix/enchancement to MySQL in the GPL version, can they as the 'owners' put that in their commercial license which their customers can release without the source code?

    1. Re:Sleepycat license question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      No. They would require a copyright assignment from you, as seen in projects such as GCC and Cygwin.

    2. Re:Sleepycat license question by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 4, Informative

      Like if I submit a fix/enchancement to MySQL in the GPL version, can they as the 'owners' put that in their commercial license which their customers can release without the source code?

      If you (foolishly) assign the copyright on your code to them, then they can do whatever they want. If you keep copyright to your patch, they can only use it under the license you have chosen.

    3. Re:Sleepycat license question by drmike0099 · · Score: 1

      Your fix will not get implemented, is my guess, unless you agree to the potential licenses that they use. Since you used it as GPL, you really couldn't claim copyright on it any more than they could. It is an interesting question, though, cuz by nature the fix you make could not be licensed in a dual nature unless you originally had the non-GPL version, which I'm guessing you would not. If you started with the GPL you couldn't relicense it as dual-license for them to reincorporate back into their dual-licensed version.

      Anyone with some legal knowledge know if this has played out before anywhere?

    4. Re:Sleepycat license question by arethuza · · Score: 1

      I think they rewrite all submissions to keep their codebase 'clean'. If they take rough ideas from the submitted code but rewrite it from scratch then AFAIK they have copyright.

    5. Re:Sleepycat license question by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      That sounds reasonable. Of course, with bug fixing, identification is often more important than cure.

      Question is, do you think many developers would allow their code to be dual-licensed?

      In other words, if I made a piece of software that was quite useful, but dual licensed it, do you think a lot of people would be happy to have their GPL code dual-licensed (for reasonable payment).

      Personally, if I were selling a dual-licensed product, I'd probably rather just pay people for their fixes and assignment of copyright (and the code would also remain in the GPL version as well) than spend the time doing them again myself.

    6. Re:Sleepycat license question by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      As someone else commented, the only way would really be to analyse GPL changes, rewrite them and implement them in a non-GPL version, and then release the amended non-GPL code as the new GPL code.

      Sounds complicated, and a pity as I can see dual-license as a really good option from all perspectives.

    7. Re:Sleepycat license question by arethuza · · Score: 1
      I suspect thats why organisations that dual-license probably have to rewrite contributions or get explicit assignment of copyright. Given the administative hassles of keeping track of the copyright issues with a large number of contributions I would expect that this explains the 'rewrite contributions' model.

      I would not want to be involved in surviving legal due diligence for a company that was careless about re-using contributions without managing the copyright issues.

  7. Re:Missing option: consumer desktop business model by DR+SoB · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yes, with a few simple steps:

    1. IBM dumps tons of money into marketing Linux (any distro..)

    2. IBM upgrades OO..

    3. IBM allows blatant pirating of OS, and offer's free (or next to free) training. Pirates = Free training..

    4. IBM reduces price of x desktop model that comes with Linux.

    5. IBM sell's business licenses because now it's desktop version is well known to market/consumers/PHB's..

    6. Profit!

    --
    Mod +5 Drunk
  8. Re:Obligitory Profit Scheme by DR+SoB · · Score: 1

    At least someone saw the humour in that post...

    --
    Mod +5 Drunk
  9. Quick answer: No by pegr · · Score: 3, Informative

    Like if I submit a fix/enchancement to MySQL in the GPL version, can they as the 'owners' put that in their commercial license which their customers can release without the source code?

    Assuming your fixes are GPL, they cannot put your changes in the commercial version without first negotiating a separate license from you.

  10. The Steps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    1) program open source thingy
    2) make it free to everyone
    3) ...
    4) don't profit

    (ok its early, i got nothing)

  11. Re:Missing option: consumer desktop business model by idfrsr · · Score: 3, Informative

    I would imagine that in order to successfully do this you need be a hardware company. If you can provide commodity hardware with commodity software that presents a viable consumer alternative (read marketable to average joes as the best thing since a toaster for this new sliced bread stuff) then you might be able to make it. This is really a marketing problem rather than anything else. Generate a kick ass device by intergrating open source solutions with commodity hardware and your product development is much cheaper.


    For example the L600.

    In the end, to be successful with this strategy you have to be a kick ass marketer to deal with the big guns at the top of the food chain.

    --
    "The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" -Tom Waits
  12. Re:Obligitory Profit Scheme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    1. Work for Microsoft

    2. Help Microsoft consolidate 100% of the software industry

    3. Microsoft outsources your job to India

    4. Beg for food since there's nobody other than Microsoft to work for in the software industry!

  13. D'oh! by deadgoon42 · · Score: 1, Funny

    There's an open source business model?

    --

    Smeghead every day of the week.
  14. Cygnus by Henrik+S.+Hansen · · Score: 5, Informative
    Cygnus was actually the very first company to deal exclusively in Free Software (back then the term 'Open Source' was not yet coined). The company's founder, Michael Tiemann actually got the idea from the GNU Manifesto, which outlines ways to make money from Free Software.

    Cygnus primarily provided support, but I think they also did some development. Maybe someone can elaborate?

    In my mind, Cygnus is a good example of how a small company can survive on just dealing in Free Software. Many people need support, or perhaps need custom-made changes to Free Software.

    AFAIK, Cygnus is now part of Red Hat, and Michael Tiemann is CTO of Red Hat.

    1. Re:Cygnus by yarbo · · Score: 1

      In RevolutionOS, Michael Tiemann talks about porting GCC, working on Emacs, and doing some other GCC related work.

    2. Re:Cygnus by PhilipPeake · · Score: 3, Informative
      I was a Cygnus customer - yes, they did do development work and provided support for the GNU compiler which was much better than you would get from any commercial compiler vendor -- particularly hardware vendors (SUN, HP, IBM, etc).

      One of the problems that they always had was that they were "customer driven", and tried to evolve the GNU compilers in the direction that favored their customers. This put them in direct conflict with the "official maintainer" of the GNU compiler suite, and, from time to time, with RMS himself.

      I was rather sad to see Cygnus swallowed up by the RedHat monolith.

    3. Re:Cygnus by sashang · · Score: 1

      Michael Tiemann's name is in at least one file in the gcc source code
      Judging from this changelog there have been various people from cygnus who have contributed.

    4. Re:Cygnus by fm6 · · Score: 1
      AFAIK, Cygnus is now part of Red Hat, and Michael Tiemann is CTO of Red Hat.
      And Red Hat seems to be backing away from the whole Open/Free concept. FIFO, I guess.
  15. Re:Quick answer: No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, technically they can't, but do they do this anyway? A lot of companies are doing the dual licensing thing, but this aspect is rarely mentioned. For example, I'm aware of folks who contributed to SAP DB back in the day on the understanding it was GPL'd, but now MySQL has partnered with SAP AG and is dual licensing that as MySQL MaxDB. It doesn't seem right to me, but in the real world, who's gonna go to court against a big company over a few (or even a few hundred) lines of code?

  16. Eighth Open Source Business Strategies by turnstyle · · Score: 3, Funny

    Demand more allowance!

    --
    Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
    1. Re:Eighth Open Source Business Strategies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sublet the part of your parents' basement that you're not using?

  17. Re:Missing option: consumer desktop business model by pavon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't think there is much money in developing a Free home desktop OS. There is money in packaging and supporting it, and you can certainly subsidize some development using that money. But more importantly, there is money in the business desktop, and if you look at the current state of affairs, the business desktop and the home desktop are extremely simular. Furthermore, most people aren't confortable switching to a new system once they have learned windows, but having used open source software at work will remove those concerns (assuming it was a good experiance :). So I really don't think there will be much of any demand for the home desktop until OSS becomes more prevelent in the workplace anyway.

    In other words, not having a viable business model for the home desktop is not important, because it will ride on the coat-tails of the business desktop.

  18. must be nice.. by js3 · · Score: 0, Troll

    as a business to get free software. not so nice for software developers

    --
    did you forget to take your meds?
  19. Re:Obligitory Profit Scheme - More likely with OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    As always, this scenario is much simpler with OSS:

    1. Write an Open Source program for free

    2. See the guy in India maintaining it for money :-)

  20. Aren't They Forgetting.... by bfg9000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    .... don't actually create a competitive product, fire all your coders and replace them with lawyers, and sue everyone in existence in hopes that somebody will give you money to leave them alone?

    Of course, that strategy has yet to be proven, and it seems to have a few holes in it....

    --

    I'm not normally an irrational zealous dickhead, but I figure "When in Rome..."

  21. software dumping by lkcl · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Contributing software to the open source community alone was not sufficient to save the successor to the Netscape browser."

    very very interesting. recently i just ran Microsoft Office under Crossover-Office (Wine with codeweavers improvements) and on a pentium 400 with 128mb of RAM it took 5 seconds to load a word document.

    the SAME document took OVER A MINUTE to load with OpenOffice.

    open source software does not automatically mean better.

    as a community we are almost entirely dependent on the goodwill of large corporate sponsors to back their own aims, shoring up linux and its applications in areas suited to them.

    1. Re:software dumping by Marcus+Green · · Score: 1

      How long did it take OpenOffice to load the equivalent file in native OpenOffice format?

  22. Re:Quick answer: No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who's gonna go to court against a big company over a few (or even a few hundred) lines of code? Darl of course!

  23. OSS Support company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    My company (www.idreus.com) supports OSS projects and most everything we sell and support is OSS based. Even down to the firewall/vpn appliances from snapgear based on uclinux. We have and will continue to donate to the projects we make money off of.

  24. Mozilla is a failure? by bzipitidoo · · Score: 3, Insightful
    From the article:

    The Mozilla project continued to deliver buggy, late releases

    That can be said of most successful software projects. Why is the article picking on Mozilla especially? Because a superficial look at their Bugzilla database makes it seem like Mozilla has lots of problems? IE is worse.

    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    1. Re:Mozilla is a failure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Mozilla can be considered a failure because it lost the browser wars.

  25. Re:Obligitory Profit Scheme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, it's funny, but Microsoft is actually "insourcing" development jobs. They're actively bringing projects that were started in India to their Redmond campus. They really believe that there's value in having your teams be in the same place, such that they can talk to each other when it's required. Ironic that so many people here are rabidly anti-Microsoft, but Microsoft is actually willing to pay more to get higher-quality developers.

  26. Translation: by Chemisor · · Score: 1

    > only two of those business models actually include writing open source code.

    You know what this means, though: you write the code, and somebody else gets the profit. Is it any wonder Open Source is so popular? It lets everyone live off the geeks for free. Most geeks are just interested in writing code (and good code, mind you, not some boring database screens for those customization scenarios) and are not likely to actively pursue any of the mentioned strategies. They don't even have enough time to try, working the day job all day and hacking OSS all night.

  27. Thank you by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    I want to start a company writing F/OSS but do not want to go broke. This is a lifesaver for me! Better than a starburst, which is what I had before and it does not last as long as a lifesaver. Anyway thanks for the info.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  28. Re:Obligitory Profit Scheme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    Microsoft is actually willing to pay more to get higher-quality developers.

    But what are they doing with them? Is this like collecting action figures and leaving them in the package? Does Bill have a roomful of never-opened developers?

  29. Linux on the Desktop - NOT by argoff · · Score: 1

    After reading this, I finally understand why my company is not putting Linux on the desktop. It's because all the linux IT people are making such a killing for the company in the server space, they don't want to waste their resources on the desktop, which everyone needs to use, but in terms of revenue generation (for my company at least) means little.

  30. Reply: One interesting thing, maybe missed .... by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

    Good SOS BS examples, and all have proven examples of ROI value.

    However, the examples only show ways that businesses can exploit OS "software products" for ROI. Businesses using these SOS BS will outlast/outperform other business making the proprietary "stovepipe" (one choice, no options) mistake.

    The big businesses of the future will discover ways to use/exploit the real international value of Open Source which are the methods, values, processes, ... of the Collaborative Open Community (COC) that promotes frugality, quality, performance, and success of projects and mission.

    The loyalty, commitment, skills retention, work satisfaction, change adaptation ..., .I have observed over the past decade in the Open "consensus building" Community is a powerful force. Business organizations (in the future) that incorporate such OS nimbleness and finesse will control the global markets. IBM, SUN, ... others may change internally over the next decade, because "stovepipe" management structures are frequently populated totalitarian groupthink managers and marketing deaks (QWERTY-typo desks). [many-heads-are-better-than-one; So, how do you get them to work and succeed together internationally. COC did it].

    Maybe COC NP-foundation management jobs in your 20's/30's/40's/50's will be a significant qualifier for future CEOs, CTOs, .... Anyway, I think it will prove to be a deciding factor for major technology companies that want to get/stay competative and retain their best folks.

    OldHawk777

    --
    Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
  31. Give back code or money by ddebrito · · Score: 1

    I don't have code contributions to return to the community, so I give money to the The Perl Foundation". I then get the company to pay for it via our reimbursement system.

  32. Re:MySQL license question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Like if I submit a fix/enchancement to MySQL in the GPL version, can they as the 'owners' put that in their commercial license which their customers can release without the source code?
    If you (foolishly) assign the copyright on your code to them, then they can do whatever they want. If you keep copyright to your patch, they can only use it under the license you have chosen.

    I don't see what is foolish per se about allowing them to use their license on my code, considering the huge benefit I got from getting MySQL for free (except if you think copyleft is the only way, of course)

    And to all the sibling posts, as someone who actually contributed to MySQL (although nothing
    worth mentioning), let me clarify a bit:
    • If the contribution is a mere two liner or so, they don't ask for anything, as such a fix is not really copyrightable (because it's usually the only straightforward way to do the fix)
    • If it's more than that, they ask back for the right to dual license your contribution, and from what I have seen, most people give the permission to do so.
    • I haven't seen someone making a significant contribution and denying them the right to dual license, but from the looks it could be that the author of the InnoDB table type has a special agreement with them.
    • And with smaller contributions which they don't get the persmission to dual license, as others have said, they re-implement them on their own, if they want to include the idea.

    (And if you are wondering why I am posting anonymously: I just like my privacy.)
  33. How about a business model based on need? by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

    Instead of looking for some way to make money from Open Source, how about looking for a market need and selling a product or service that addresses that need?

    I guess the question you have to ask yourself is whether you are looking for a business or a hobby. If it's a business, then follow the money. Looking for a way to make money with open source is like deciding that you want to win at a track and field event while wearing galoshes. You might manage to win despite the galoshes, but you'd be better off deciding on an event and then choosing the best footwear for it.

  34. Re:Missing option: consumer desktop business model by iabervon · · Score: 1

    It's the "optimization" strategy for WalMart. You build desktop computer hardware, and sell it. If you put Linux on it, all of the software is free; if you charge a little less for Linux than for Windows, your margin is still higher for Linux. For Lindows, it's the subscription model.

  35. Out of curiousity... by loconet · · Score: 1

    Serious question, Why do articles linking to OSDN owned sites ie: NewsForge, ITMJ, etc have to always have a remark like: "Slashdot, , are owned by OSDN" ?

    --
    [alk]
    1. Re:Out of curiousity... by flonker · · Score: 2, Informative
      Serious question, Why do articles linking to OSDN owned sites ie: NewsForge, ITMJ, etc have to always have a remark like: "Slashdot, , are owned by OSDN" ?


      It's common practice in journalism, so that the reader is aware of any potential bias caused by the relationship. So, I'm not sure why slashdot does it.
  36. Re:Obligitory Profit Scheme by Canberra+Bob · · Score: 1

    "Are you twelve fucking years old or something?"

    This is Slashdot, you have a good probability the answer is Yes.

  37. How is parent flamebait? by Canberra+Bob · · Score: 1

    It is a very valid point.

    Example. You develop software, license under GPL. It is an excellent product that fills a niche in enterprise level applications. You go out to sell it and guess what, nobody even acknowledges your existence.

    Forward a few months. IBM have noticed your GPL'ed application. They download the source, modify it and offer it as one of their enterprise solutions. They make millions off it, still nobody will acknowledge your existence.

    And guess what, IBM do not have to pay you a cent. If you really believe that a large business would rather come to you for their support than going to IBM, you really need to get out into the real world more.

    So parent was quite right. Unless you already have a high profile, your open source solutions (whether software or support) are really going to struggle up against the big boys. No this view is not popular on Slashdot, but just because it is unpopular, does not make it flamebait!

  38. Or... by Canberra+Bob · · Score: 1

    1. Develop toy kernel
    2. Steal somebody elses code
    3. Ridicule company code was stolen from
    4. Profit!

  39. Re:MySQL license question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod UP! I was thinking about this approach and the problems it would cause and this really cleared it up

  40. Re:Missing option: consumer desktop business model by ahdeoz · · Score: 1

    If you sell hardware bundled with commodity software, you've just put yourself out of business. Unless you are in the commodities business.