Slashdot Mirror
A New Spin on Open Source Business Models
IT Managers Journal is reporting that a Canadian communications student is trying to put a new spin on open source business models. Greg Dean, a student at Simon Fraser University, is attempting to merge the principles of open source with that of a co-op and a regular corporation. From the article: "On the first slide of his presentation, Dean described the ICT/OS as a 'participatory, self-managed workers' business' designed for 'getting the benefits of a corporation through the convivial democracy of a co-op.' Punctuated by dozens of questions, the rest of the presentation explained exactly how he thought this goal could be achieved. In his vision, the co-op would involve three types of members: full members, who are freelancers in high-tech professions and have full voting rights; associated members such as lawyers who provide services to the co-op; and non-members with an investment in the company."
This looks like more of that randomised babble I get from my junkmail folder... Could anyone translate into inoffensive plain english? How is this different from any other business plan? Honestly?
Let me know if they ever actually do anything with this. Until then, who cares?
This looks like more of that randomised babble I get from my junkmail folder... Could anyone translate into inoffensive plain english? How is this different from any other business plan? Honestly?
Every business plan I've ever seen (for something beyond a sole proprietorship or partnership) takes for granted that the business will be established as either an S-Corp, LLC, or C-Corp. I'm not sure how business formation works in Canada. However, based on the article, it appears that the idea is to create a business structure that borrows features from a co-operative association (ex: a co-op grocery store or a co-op lending organization), while retaining features of a corporation.
Just because the concept seems a bit convoluted doesn't make it particularly "offensive" to my mind. Many extremely successful businesses have structures that can't be explained in less than 10,000 words, anyway. I'm of the opinion that part of the reason we have companies that do stupid and destructive things is because the legal structures for those companies encourage buck-passing, groupthink, and sublimation of individual responsibility. The article indicates that this new structure attempts to avoid both of those. It will be interesting to see if anyone gives it a try.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I read TFA and I don't understand why the Slashdot title is "Open Source Business Models". This sounds more like an organisation structure (and a fairly lame one at that) than a business model. Shouldn't a business model outline what they're going to sell, how much they're going to charge, potential revenues, etc. etc.
This just looked like a load of fluff to me. Did I miss the point?
The way most open source software gets created is by businesses that need to solve a problem but don't want to be in the software business. These people pay for and/or contribute to an open source project because making the project open source lowers their costs and risks. It is essential for them and the other contributors that there are no legal obligations to each other, other than to keep the software itself open and freely distributable.
What's wrong with Dean's proposal is that it makes the false assumption that there is income that's distributed, or that there should be a group of people with decision making power. In fact, most commercially developed open source software has no income that's directly derived from the software, and the ability to fork a project freely is an integral and essential part of open source development. If you take away either one of those properties, you end up with software that may ship under an "open source license", but it's not truly an open source project.
Monetization means to establish something as being a currency, e.g. gold, silver, perhaps grain in agricultural communities. You mean "of making a profit or getting an income from Open Source." Why can't you just say that instead of using a word that you think makes you sound like some kind of economist? When there is an exchange rate on the currency markets of lines of source code to the dollar, your comment will make sense.
Morning rant over. Back to doing documentation.
Pining for the fjords
If the business plan is too difficult for slashdot geeks to understand, it's too difficult. I failed to see such an incomprehensible business plan would convince enough number of people to invest their precious money, time and energy. I'm a student majoring computer science at Simon Fraser University, and I believe I know a little about co-op, open-source, and business (well, give me a break), but have no idea what the plan is. Count me out.
Before I start laying into this guy, may I say I'm from Scotland and a left-wing voter. I think there's a lot to be said for socialism, social contracts, national health etc. But I'm also met any number of people who like this kind of structure primarily because it gives them a degree of power and influence that a meritocracy wouldn't. I reckon I'm a smart guy (don't we all) but when I see phrases like "we need a sea-change in civilization in order to maintain homeostasis survival" I really want to punch someone...
After RTFA, I can only say the guy is letting his self-confessed bleeding heart get in the way of clear thinking. There is nothing in the business model that is inherently open source. And cooperatives - the examples given from Canada are credit unions and wheat pools - are typically groups of people that have separate businesses or interests but benefit from some kind of shared service or infrastructure. So if, for instance, some of your best freelancers got great opportunities, they wouldn't necessarily need to use the shared infrastructure and suddenly the cooperative is weakened.
When we're talking about shared infrastructure, given the competition in e.g. hosting services, I'm not convinced a cooperative would give you any better value than a reputable company. More to the point, shared infrastructure is a way to reduce costs, not generate revenue - so where's the business model?
Also, look at the structure. The board is also the executive i.e. in terms of decision makers, there's no check and balance. The board is made of at least 60% members. Apparently the board is there in part of prevent the "fascism of the group", which apart from the telling choice of knee-jerk political wording is nonsensical. If the board is mostly comprised of group members, if the group is dominated by special interest groups there's a strong chance the board will be as well.
The board is going to end up being the most skilled individuals. Personally, I'd prefer to have the best managers running a company and the most skilled technicians doing what they do best. I've had some good managers in my time and this is the method that works. Genius programmers who would actually prefer to spend their time managing politics, feel free to disagree!
You'll probably also have the odd board member who got there through politicking, which (forgive my cynicism) often seems to me the reason why people with an interest in community based politics are so keen on it. It can act as a substitute for actual skill and clear thinking.
To paraphrase the bible, there ain't nothing new under the sun. So nothing to see here, move along...