Matt Asay on the Status of OSS

OSS_ilation writes "An interview with OSBC director Matt Asay at SearchOpenSource.com gives some insight into where open source software (OSS) has been, is today, and where it hopes to be in the future. A common trend identified by Asay in the interview is that OSS has become very profitable. Asay also touched on the hot-button issue of where the GPL is headed, as well as how open source vendors shouldn't let high download rates give them a big head about the real validity of their projects."

Comments

Summation

[Kylere]

If people use it, you can make money from it.
If people download it, it does not mean they are using it.

Funny, but I already knew that. Now I just have to find something people will use besides Video Fish :-)

Snort and Nessus

[Cally]

In the week that Nessus went closed source, spitting in the face of all those who helped the project thinking it was free software, let's hope that the Gnessus project (based on the last Free version of Nessus) takes off, and that the continuing-Free Snort and Nmap continue to flourish. The progress of Sourcefire and Snort will be particularly interesting to compare with that of Tenable (Renaud's company) since Marty Roesch has been clear that Sourcefire (his company) being bought by Checkpoint won't affect Snort, which will continue to be Free software under the GPL.

Re:Snort and Nessus

[ponds]

Uhh, the VAST majority of the nessus work was done by Tenable. I doubt I would call it "spitting in the face" of anyone. Also, the GPL does not allow Tenable to use code that has been contributed from third parties in future-closed source nessus. Only code that Tenable owns the copyright to (which happens to be something like 98% of the nessus code). All of the contributed code will not appear in closed-source nessus. So, I daresay that Tenable is spitting in the face of anyone.

I really hope the Gnessus project rethinks their name, as a fork they should really try to take a different name so as not to confuse users. Also, I'd hate for this to cause trademark/copyright issues down the road...

A Lesson for RIAA ...

[slashbob22]

Just because someone downloads music, doesn't mean they listen to the crap...

Source of revenue...?

[sczimme]

[I did RTFA, though it's entirely possible I missed something.]

Mr. Asay did not clarify the distinction between revenue from product sales and revenue from support and other services. He mentioned Red Hat as an example of an OSS company that is making money, but he didn't indicate how much of that money came from selling RHEL and other products vice the consulting, etc. that RH also offers. He alludes to it briefly when he says "OSS has trended toward examples like the Red Hat Network and the MySQL network" but leaves it at that.

This is not a slam on Asay, btw; it's just something I thought would make the article more useful.

Re:Oracle (Household Name)

[MmmmAqua]

Ancient Greece?

Re:Professionalism in the open source world.

[CyricZ]

I agree, nobody should be forced to contribute to an open source project. But then again, I think there is a certail level of honour that the developers of a larger project (such as KOffice or KDE) must show. That's not to say that they have to suck up to their users, or anything of that sort. What they should not do, however, is blatantly insult users in public while mentioning their contributions to said projects.

There's a minimum standard, and that particular developer sunk below it in that particular instance. Intentional or not, it did reflect poorly on the entire project, including all of those individuals who have been extremely helpful in the past. If anything, such insults are more disrespectful to those with the KDE project who have helped built its fantastic image, rather than to the person the insults were directed towards.

OSS has been profitably for very few

[AutopsyReport]

An OSS company being profitable is a rarity. For every OSS company and every OSS developer, the chances of profitability are slim. Contrast this with a typical proprietary software company, and there simply is no comparison.

When more than a select few companies (only three listed) prove to be capable of pulling a profit, then I'd call it a trend. But considering that most open source development teams pursue their software with little to no financing, it's far too early to even call this a trend. I'd call this the beginnings of a foundation that may begin to include other viable open source products.

Re:OSS has been profitably for very few

[bladesjester]

The simple truth is that most new businesses (something like 2/3 or 3/4) fail. It doesn't really matter what field they're in, most of them tank. The thing with basing a business around open source software is that you can't really expect your money to come from the software itself, but rather you have to find something to leverage with the software (services, hardware devices, support, etc).

Every business has pitfalls. This one just happens to have some weird ones.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Matt Asay's credentials and achievements.

[Subrafta]

Matt Asay has been involved with Linux for the past few years, both professionally and academically. Asay is Director of Novell's Linux Business Office and Open Source Review Board, and is responsible for laying the strategic and business foundation for Novell's use of open source software.
Before Novell, Asay was General Manager at Lineo, an embedded Linux software startup, where he ran Lineo's Residential Gateway business. Asay earned his Juris Doctorate degree at Stanford Law School, spending two of his three years studying software licensing and innovation, and specifically the GNU General Public License, under Professor Larry Lessig.
http://conferences.oreillynet.com/cs/os2003/view/e _spkr/1627