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.

Comments

I call bull

[MPHellwig]

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.

Re:I call bull

[BabyPanther]

I want to write code that is so good it doesn't -require- support, and be paid for it.

The last time I saw a developer that good...was...well, hell, I haven't seen one that good.

I actually believe that developers should always sit on the support lines for the products they write. Surprisingly enough, practical, well-built interfaces start to appear after the developer is forced to take the 900th call concerning a poorly implemented feature.

Re:I call bull

[malkavian]

Actually, it was MS that turned Software into a Commodity by releasing things like Visual Basic.
Something that in essence you need half a brain and one finger, and you're now a 'Developer'.
Sure, the low end stuff done by people that don't know what being a Developer really entails are crap, fall over all the time, and are usually really shoddy..
But, a lot of the time they get things done, sufficiently to make people not want to pay for the real thing.

In the 'early days', before coding became popular (I started in the early 80's), you did it because it was a passion.
Then in the 'Golden Age', you could, and did, make shed loads of cash for being good.

Then everyone and their dog became a 'Developer' with the visual tools, and especially web front ends.
The market got saturated with a lot of low skilled developers that were good enough to be 'fit for purpose'.
Then supply outstripped demand. And wages plummeted.

So, it's not open source that's causing "Starving Artist" syndrome. It's your hallowed Closed Source businesses lowering the bar of entry, and creating the equivalent of a nearly automated software factory.

In a short time, AI should be able to code better than a skilled developer. Then all that'll be left is getting the spec right, and doing the design abstraction.

I'm sure that the Monks felt the same way when the printing press was invented.

What the "Idiots giving it away for free" are doing is simply making sure that there's more than one printing press out there. So at least people that want to learn, get to do so.
This way, the entry bar pushes more towards having the skill and aptitude to perform a task, rather than having to have massive funding.
And the meritocracy is beginning to reappear.

The Free software that's extremely good will get used. If it's that good that it gets used, it WILL need support in enterprise/business.
If you don't want to do it, make a company, and hire some people that DO want to do support (and you only support them, as you'd have to do with ANY software you write, if you're serious about it). You pay the support staff less than the customer pays you.. And lo and behold! You get a salary (big if the code is something wonderful and useful) for coding! And you've created jobs for people that DO want to do the support too!

So, in reality those "Idiots" are rather smart, and quite able to make a sizable wad of money out of it.
If you want to make a lot of money writing software, go do it. But working out how to do it is the trick.

Licenses protect products period.

[NerdHead]

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.

Personally I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Misread TFA?

[wild_berry]

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.

software obsolescence (sp?)

[kfstark]

If you are making strategic decisions about software at your corporation, you had better take into account that the software may no longer be supported in the future. This applies to closed source and open source projects.

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

Where's the surprise?

[the_mighty_$]

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.

Re:OpenSourcing a DB

[kevin_conaway]

You don't need open source for this. Merely publishing an API and an SDK would accomplish that.

Re:Say what?

[gowen]

Look at some of they're other reports

In "The Road Ahead", Bill Gates himself wrote enthusiastically about the "software ecosystem" that surrounded Microsoft in its early years. It made a huge contribution to the success of Windows, by creating an application-rich environment. The same kind of ecosystem now surrounds Open Source and it is growing quickly. I am amazed by its potential. It could completely undermine Microsoft's monopoly, and it probably will. -- Samba, Soccer and Open Source

Microsoft has a horrible position to defend; they have created a monster of complexity by enabling such an open model. Whilst it is true that we as consumers have seen the benefits of lower prices and mounting capability, there has been a price to pay. When the foundation is so shaky, you cannot be certain whether you will derive benefit from an update or whether in fact it will cause untold grief. -- Further problems associated with Service Pack 2?

Doesn't read like a Gartner-style MS schill to me...

Re:OpenSourcing a DB

[nikai]

I absolutely disagree.

Take a company that is in control of an open source project. If they change their project radically, in a way other users of the software don't like, these can branch at any time. This allows them to at least maintain the old version of the software.

However, there has to be open source code for that. If all you have is an API and an SDK, you can't maintain such an older version for your ever-changing environment, should those in control of the closed source move into a direction you don't like.

What you gonna do when they come for you...

[cliffiecee]

The article brings to my mind an interesting scenario...

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?" ... 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!)

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?