Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Licensing - Cuts Both Ways?
shortscruffydave writes "The Register is running a piece Open source databases - a sword that cuts both ways? which mentions one of the potential pitfalls of open source databases: "Open source is just another licensing model: the more accepted it becomes, the more it is adopted at a strategic level, the more it plays back into the hands of the traditional behemoths that dominate the industry". " I couldn't disagree more with the author of this piece, since I think the success of Postgres & MySQL are already contra-proof positive, but the piece is still an interesting read.
It's still a good idea as it allows third parties to write plugins and conduits more easily for it.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
The arguments given in the article are inadequate IMHO, they are just as and mostly more applicable to closed source software.
The key argument for open source vs closed source is: The source is available, you can support/develop it by your own or hire in support/development/warranty, now try that with closed source.
All disadvantages for open source are at least applicable for closed source, closed source has no real advantage on open source.
Licensing is what keeps those behemoths from getting their hands on these
applications. It is interesting that the writer didn't tell us what option
he'd prefer - a closed license or no license at all. MySQL is offering a
choice of a commercial license or open-source. Money is important for the
survival of the company that markets open-source products but open-source
licenses don't restrict companies from charging for their product and MySQL
is a good example for how to deal with the issue.
Paragraph 1: Intro
Paragraph 2: Planning considerations
Paragraph 3: Existing players
Paragraph 4: Business considerations
Paragraph 5: Unsupported assertions
Paragraph 6: Unsupported assertions
Who founded Bloor Research? Who funds them? Who owns stock in them? Who are the members of their executive board and what are their social connections?
This is a really bad piece.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
The article is right, which ever piece of software, you are locked into using the program the way the author designed, you are locked into the upgrade paths the author leads you, you are locked into any future costs the author charges.
Yes you can change the platform you are based on, but this typically costs more money than it is worth.
Yes you could modify the source, but this will cost more money than it is worth in R&D.
I.E., yes you are locked in, in the same way that the traditional behemoths that dominate the industry haved succesfully negotiated.
I may have misread TFA, but the author appears to have missed the strategic value that is to be gained from investing staff and company hours into F/OSS projects for internal use.
The article seems to view the present hobbyist-driven projects as solutions procured in the same way that a company buys in commercial programming. The differences in modus operandi are so great that this cannot be the case. The trick is to find where the middle ground lies in order to profit.
"Dude, you're giving IBM free shit... they're not going to return the favor."
Except they have? Article looks like flamebait/trolling to me, or else just ignorance.
rooooar
The benefit of open source is that if the original corporation writing the code stops supporting it there may be a community behind the software that will continue to support it as you transition. Also, another company may spring up with the same codebase.
--Keith
the more it is adopted at a strategic level, the more it plays back into the hands of the traditional behemoths that dominate the industry
WHAT?!?!? You mean the "behemoths" can use open source too? How could this happen??!?! NO NO NO NO!!!!!
[Sarcasm off]Well what do you expect. Don't forget that opensource software != free software. of course the big guys will start using opensource too, now that they've started to see that light. What did anyone expect? Did you want to FSF to have a monopoly on opensource forever? I think not. I think the result of "big behemoths" switching to open source will be more secure software being delivered to end users. That's the whole point of OSS!
I for one welcome our opensource behemoth overlords.
A more full treatment of the TFA topic can be found in Coase's Penguin.
From the abstract:
My personal spin is that, just as the printing press broke down the medieval market on literacy, so the GPL will increasingly educate the masses.
Props to RMS, the modern Gutenberg.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
I'm sure some of you may know, but many of you may be unaware that large enterprises need to be really choosy in the database solution that they use. Its not simply a matter of installing the cheapest DB. When you consider the sizable investment made by an IT department on the hardware and operating system platform, it really makes sense to invest wisely in the product that will actually retain all your company's data.
With that said, given the choice between installing a poorly supported, poorly documented open source database, or something like Microsoft SQL Server, its obvious which solution will let you keep your cushy IT position. Furthermore, as good as I have to admit MySQL is, it still does not have support for such common things as triggers, views or even basic stored procedures never mind data warehousing.
For these open source products to be taken seriously, the same sort of fundamental support and functionality will need to prevail as the costs of not having these far outweigh the monetary costs of the common retail solution.
First off, open-source projects don't need to make money. Secondly, if users are dependent on them, they don't go away.
The "problem" that Bloor describes is either a phantom or self-correcting, whichever way you choose to look at it.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
This is the same view of Fortune 500 Enterprise that Toronto has of its role within Canada. Whether the other nine provinces have ceased to exist depends on who you ask.
I recently chaired a panel discussion on enterprise open-source, attended by representatives from several dozen Fortune 500 companies, and we turned the discussion back on them at one point. Turns out that:
1) all had made a "commitment" to open-source products;
2) almost none had done anything strategic up to that point (they all had a little Linux and a little Apache/MySQL floating around here and there, of course)
3) NONE were interested in the cost-reductions available with F/OSS
4) ALL were interested in the advanced technology which they felt was probably more available from F/OSS then from incumbent vendors
5) ALL were holding back waiting for better support options.
There was a lot of discussion about the latter point, including some really fascinating suggestions that belong in another discussion. But for here and now, the key thing is that you don't necessarily look for support for OSS DBMSs from the developers. Something like the Pervasive model is interesting, as long as they continue to maintain close ties with the developer communities. But OSS support is a service business, with linear cost-scaling characteristics, so we will need a lot of vendors to pitch in. I think it's a nascent large opportunity.
Whenever I see an article criticising open source software, I do a quick check to see if the author has his head up his ass:
Step 1: Replace the phrase "open source" with "closed source."
Step 2: Replace names of open source products with the names of their closed-source counterparts.
Check if the article's arguments and criticisms still apply. If so, the author hasn't written a critique of open source software, he's written a critique of software, and probably not a terribly insightful one at that.
The article brings to my mind an interesting scenario...
... great! Until you realize that your OSS program is now the cornerstone of a BUSINESS. *YOUR* business. How will money be divided? Taxes taken out? Accounting? (Now we rue the lack of financial packages for Linux!)
You're a developer of an OSS project, along with several others (geographically diverse). You get a call one day...
"Hi, This is Clueful Manager from MegaCorp. We'd like to use your software in our business."
You say "Sure, go ahead; it's open source. Of course it'd be nice if you'd donate to our project..."
CM says "Yes, that's why I'm calling. We'd like some extra functionality added, and we're willing to pay you to add it. What do you say?"
Maybe MegaCorp will hire you; but then you're their employee, subject to their restrictions.
Maybe they hire you as a contractor; but then what about the other devels? Are they out of luck just because it's your email that's in the README?
Maybe MegaCorp's expecting to treat you like a vendor. In which case you'd need to supply invoices, bills, tax info, and all the other things a 'real' business would supply.
WARNING TO OSS DEVELOPERS: Success is coming! You need to think about what you're going to leverage the success of your software. Do you want a profit? Or just enough to pay the bills? Do the other devels agree with you? Or, do you ignore all such requests, unless they interest you as interesting challenges?