Is Commercialization Killing Open Source?

An anonymous reader writes "IBM, Sun, Novell, and Red Hat all have a very significant open source element to their businesses. In addition to these juggernauts, there is growing investment in various open source models. Will money flowing into open source destroy its roots? Mark Hinkle just posted an editorial asking the questions Is Commercialization Killing Open Source? in which he comments on 'opensville' and gives some actual investment data, and a lot of insight into the growing trend in 'open source commercialization'. Is there such a thing as 'too much money' when it comes to developing software?"

Comments

Just ask Clippy or Madden 200X

[CrazyJim1]

Is there such a thing as 'too much money' when it comes to developing software?"

Just like the movie industry, you're pushed to release sequels as frequently as possible even when you really don't have anything new or innovative to release.

Re:Just ask Clippy or Madden 200X

[owlstead]

"For this to work the project must follow the 'unix way' and have many more-or-less self contained modules that work together, rather than building monolithic do-everthing apps. Not everyone seems to grok that yet, but give it time."

You are completely right on that. Just have a look at the Eclipse framework (yes, I'm a Java user), and you'll see this executed in a very clear way. It's a complete set of modules. Even the base install contains many tens of modules. The number of plugins available for Eclipse is simply astounding. What's more, you can install quite a few of them and still leave a working system, even though the whole thing runs in a single process. The reason why this works is that it's pretty clear how to use and extend the module system (it's using the OSGi framework). If you don't know: Eclipse is both a Java Development platform, but the same components are used to create Azureus, the BitTorrent file sharing application.

You will see that many great open source systems will use these kind of frameworks. Of course many already do. The firefox/thunderbird extension framework is a great example of it, but also the apache module system, the openssl crypto engines. What I do think is needed are frameworks with good documentation (including overview pictures, pretty please) and protection from malfunctioning modules. Of course, the extention points must be well documented as well. Also, the modules should have a very clear versioning system so that people don't need to install all the components of the framework again and again.

The next step will be that applications will be running in parallel with each other, leaving the idea of a single process running everything an old fashioned concept. But - as the parent states for modules - this will definitely take even more time. The current idea that this has to be done using XML and HTTP is just - well - STUPID. On a single system you get problems like configuring sockets, authentication, doing complete validation on each packet send and - yes - a huge overhead. All this just to overcome the (important) principle of compatability. But look at concepts of ESB's (enterprise service bus) to see other ways of handling this problem.

Just my point of view.

Re:Just ask Clippy or Madden 200X

[samkass]

Ironically, the commercial and military software development industries have recently been heavily promoting a methodology that could enable this sort of specification without requiring a central authority. Software Product Lines is a formalization of hundreds of "good practices" of encapsulation and interoperability into a single methodology that is transforming the way some software is written. I see this as the next step in software development evolution, and one that the open source community might get more benefit from than others.

Probably.

[m0rph3us0]

Just like investment of capital ruined the roots of the automotive industry. However, cars are much cheaper now than they would have been being produced one by one in a garage. The roots of any industry or technique usually suck compared to results after the industry has been fully capitalized. So, yes it will probably ruin the roots, but its a good thing.

eh?

[rucs_hack]

Since when are the big players the backbone of Open Source?

Sure, some things will be dominated by commercial needs, they kind of have to be to compete. Anyone who pretends surprise and wants it to be otherwise is deluding themselves.

I've been an Open Source coder for six years now. Last time I checked the state of Red Hat et al made not a mote of difference to my project. I'm pretty certain that I'm not alone.

Are Micro-Breweries Killing Beer?

[darkPHi3er]

Among the many aspects of the Open/Free Source cultures is the essential characteristics of Choice and Free Will.

As we all on /. seem to love, beer, either Metaphorically or Analogously, Did the EXPLOSION of Micro-Breweries in the last decade kill off Beer?

Or did it offer many people the chance to experiment and introduce new types and varieties of beer to an entirely new audience?

Sure, as the the Giant Commercial Software Shops have participated in the process, they have occasionally Big Footed their way through some issues.

Sure, as they have ponied up large numbers of developers and other resources to promote their vision of Open/Free Source, they have inflected the growth and adoption rates of Linux, et al.

But would anyone seriously suggest, for all the real difficulties this has caused, and will cause in the future, without the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS that the Giants have poured into the world of Free/Open Source, that its adoption, growth and technological improvment would be anywhere near where it is now?????

They Pays Their Monies and They Takes Their Chances.....

I'd say we're all much better off with them, than without them. And those of us who want to work on porting LINUX or Java to our favorite Zilog 80 platform, can spend as much time as we chose to do so. Our own pet projects are, as always, up to to us.

As individual developers and contributors, we are as, "Free to Choose", as we have ever been.

Re:As a GNOME fan

[smittyoneeach]

Three flavors of license, and their target:
Closed...wallet (money)
GPL......heart (community)
BSD......mind (technical excellence)
The IT ecology is has an operating point in some abstract venn diagram with lots of overlap between the three.
Let the good times roll, and leave the religion in your community of faith.

Re:It's going to happen

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the key - as long as it remains under free licences then it doesn't matter what money flows in or out, the code is always there and can always be freely used and modified by the core community.

Of course if restrictions start being attached to the code, if patent threats start adding a layer of threat and restriction to the community then things could be jepordised, but the international nature of the projects mean that is unlikely to ever fully knock things out. Only the US element would fall, and as countries (quite a bit in the EU ATM) which have reliance on OSS realise that giving succour to MS patent lobbying will only harm them then they will be less likely to enact legislation.

I would say though that there was a danger - the whole community gets diluted fractured and broke up by money flooding through the system. The only saving grace is the militant wing - folks like Debian are always going to be there. I look at some of the lengths they go to and think it is just a bit daft (going to the entire bother of soft-forking firefox into Iceweasle for the sake of a couple of icons and the ownership of the name) but they provide a rigid core which can be relied upon, defended and where, if things got bad, the entire community could seek refuge at safe in the knowledge that nothing was undermined. The same can't be said of Ubuntu (great as it is from a usability POV), which can be likened to a very nice soft comfy chair, but one that is made out of a flammable material.

No

[Kjella]

Open source is growing, but it's not killing off its roots, it's just becoming so much more than it once was. There's plenty projects around that are still the same as they ever were, and just because there are commercial projects that go their own way, what does that bother anyone? Very often they contribute userfriendly niceties that are very handy to everyone, but that none of the "hardcore" people would bother implementing. And if someone can make up a business model where they earn money and contribute back, how can that be bad? Companies can turn into bad apples, projects scrapped or get bought out but the source lives on. If you feel the commercial interests are a problem, fork it and break new ground. I don't really care if the code came from RMS himself or a salaried in-it-for-the-money employee at Red Hat. The freedoms are the same, in particular the freedom to use their code to scratch your itch. In the end, isn't that what matters?

Money flowing into open source? Ha!

[Rahga]

Such a bunch of hot air.... I've done my time in a handful of projects, and would love to get more done and a lot of rough edges squared away in a very specific, visual spot of the desktop. My problem was lack of money... not just the fact that what I was doing had almost no ties to any "open-source money" at all, but the market has been quite a dog, and in my town I took a year away from programming and IT work to try my hand in the production department of a newspaper, in all places. Switching careers like that can kill motivation on an open-source project.

Without getting too personal, all I will say is that the vast majority money invested into open source is anything but... It's invested into companies that have a handful of people working on a handful of high-profile cases, usually doing a 20% job: 20% on open source, and 80% on projects that actually bring in cash.

Now, back to the article, those links support anything but what the /. post is talking about. Nagios being abused, and commercializtion of software itself killing open source... Taking open source projects and investing in project that build on top of that foundation.

Re:As a developer and a fan...

[garett_spencley]

I agree as well. The last time I did any "real" OSS development was when I was a teenager. I wrote really crummy code back then and didn't make very many useful contributions. But I had a ton of ambition and a "do-good" attitude.

Now that I'm an adult and have a family to support I really wish I could get back into the game. I know I could really make a useful contribution. I'm am much more experienced, have vastly more knowledge and am thus in a much better position to contribute.

I just don't have the time anymore. Now I'm profit driven. My kids need to eat. The only way I see myself doing open source work is if I get paid for it. I wish I had more time to devote to hobbies but I spend 100% of my professional life sitting at a computer and so my hobby time is reserved for non-computer tasks.

So if companies can take people that are in my position and enable them to contribute to the community then that can only be a good thing.

Open Source != Free Software

[Snospar]

In all this discussion of Big Business "Open Source" software let's tip our hats to the thousands of Debian Developers who help keep software FREE. Not just free in monetary terms, free of the stranglehold that big business can place on software development when they decide to move on to the next big thing.

I hope big business keep pumping money into worthwhile open source projects. I really hope they truly support free software. I'm smart enough to know that at least some of these players are only in it to foister some competition against the Microsoft camp and whether that is good enough for the community remains to be seen.

Sinple solution

[jd]

Draw up a league table, but credit all kinds of giving, in relation to their net worth to the community and to their magnitude. I reckon something like 3 points for an application or significant module, 2 for extensive reworking or contributing moderate code, 1 for minor bugfixes and applets, +1 for each significant political or legal hurdle crossed, -1 for every such hurdle added, 2/3 points if it's open source for a closed-source environment, 1/2 points if it is closed source for an open-source environment.

Points have a time-to-live of one year, extended by three months for every major maintenance cycle, two for moderate maintenance, and one if the updates are thrown off the back of a lorry at high speed.

Have three leagues. One league being major corporate entities, one being the smaller companies involved, and one for the genuine collective projects.

My guess is that IBM, SGI etc, would not care in the slightest, but I seriously doubt they'd refuse a plaque commemorating a successful year, either. The smaller companies - now, they might care. Publicity is the lifeblood of the small business, and this is easy free publicity - as well as steering them the right way. Collective projects SHOULDN'T care - if they do, their members have lost sight of the project and are focussed on the kudos. Bad mistake. Projects that do that are doomed, doomed I say!

Er.

[stonecypher]

Open source products are making inroads in most vertical markets, deposing commercial product after commercial product. Their user base is soaring, their legitimacy is solidifying, their media presence is expanding. It's actively difficult to find servers that aren't open source.

Exactly what definition of "killing" are we working by, again?

Money won't kill open source, but greed will...

[nologin]

A lot of projects have benefitted from having some money behind them. The article cites several examples, so I don't have to. But, if a open source project is really going to be threatened, it is likely not only because of the money, but also because of greed.

Do we need a better reminder than SCO to demonstrate that greed is what would kill open source? And while their recent actions seem limited to their legal battle against Linux, this same company used to be called Caldera (and was selling a Linux distribution of their own).

So, if there is an issue of too much money in open source, it really comes down to whether that money is being justly used to support the development of open source products or if that money is being used to line a greedy manager's/executive's pockets.

Quick answer: No

[Sigma 7]

Will money flowing into open source destroy its roots? If there is no money flowing into open source, the programmers will be limited to those who have time on their hands. This forces the exclusion of students undertaking exams, programmers with girlfriends, professional programmers bound by contracts, and so on. In addition, hosting resources will be limited to "free" services or be on the dime of the maintainer(s) - which will result in some problems if the project gets Slashdotted.

For open source to become more popular, money must flow in. The result is that some projects request donations to keep the project alive.

Now, I'll play devil's advocate for a second - would you prefer a version of Firefox that isn't up to modern standards (i.e. bloated, memory leaks, CPU hog, and won't render properly), or would you spend money to make it the best browser (i.e. lightning fast, lightweight, and perfect rendering)? I've considered allowing you to spend time to help the browser, but a project the size of Firefox isn't something that most programmers can jump into.

Re:Wasn't the right kind of licence going to fix t

[NovaX]

BSD developers don't complain, but in fact see it as a compliment. Their philosophy is that the license promotes the distribution of good code. (And if you have ever worked as a developer, then you'd know that by and large, good code is rare)

I have seen GPL supporters whine and pretend that somehow BSD code in proprietary systems is suddenly no longer free. There was quite a bit of FUD by the FSF regarding FreeBSD, claiming that the FreeBSD Foundation could go private and leave companies locked in. This was of course when FreeBSD was seen as more mature than Linux, and we had the SVLUG making quite a number of outlandish stunts trying to get Linux publicity. So many GPL supporters are pretty well known for publically stating their beliefs are better and all others are simply wrong.

Please remember, leaching to you is a compliment to others. Some of us enjoy doing good work and simply want to be appreciated for it (aka the Beer license).

Commercialization? No

[iminplaya]

Only one thing can hurt open source. Licensing. Too many licenses. Enough to make a lawyer jump for joy. Unless I'm a law firm, I would have great difficulty deciding to use OSS in my business. So far it's ok in the server market, but as more desktop apps come in from a wider variety of programmers, each with their own silly little license, it can only spell trouble. The solution is easy and obvious, but won't come about for many years, due to plain old stubbornness.