Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Is Commercialization Killing Open Source?

Posted by Zonk on from the argh-i've-got-a-quarter-in-my-eye dept.

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?"

32 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. Just ask Clippy or Madden 200X by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    God spoke to me.
    1. Re:Just ask Clippy or Madden 200X by buswolley · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah and these open-source roots are like movie extras; They all must die in the end.

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    2. Re:Just ask Clippy or Madden 200X by cshotton · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Is there such a thing as 'too much money' when it comes to developing software?"

      The issue isn't about whether too much money or commercialization is killing open source software (culture/roots/projects). It seems to me that the root cause has to do with the nature of the widely publicized open source projects. As open operating systems (Linux, NetBSD, etc.) and applications (Mozilla/Firefox, OpenOffice, etc.) grow in complexity, they outstrip the abilities of ad hoc, grass roots "open source" organizations to develop and maintain them.

      Simply put any serious, valuable, widely-used open source project today is very likely a large and complicated one. Open Source has outgrown its own infrastructure and the only one available that can pick up the projects and move them forward are those operated by commercial organizations with the resources to throw at these hard problems.

      --

      Shut up and eat your vegetables!!!
    3. Re:Just ask Clippy or Madden 200X by Arker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you have it exactly backwards.

      As projects become larger and more complex, they outstrip the ability of anything but a decentralised network of programmers. The resources of a traditional centralised software company, even the biggest in the business, is nothing compared to what decentralised networks of programmers have. The linux kernel team being one excellent example. And commercial software houses - *many* of them - are definitely involved, but the model is still distributed. No single company could handle that task - a widely distributed team from all around the world, with both commercial and noncommercial interests contributing, can and does.

      Projects that attempt to decentralise their development while still retaining a monolithic structure internally may find that doesnt work so well, of course. 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.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    4. Re:Just ask Clippy or Madden 200X by jacksonj04 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a good point, however there *must* be something specifying how those modules should behave when errors occur, handle input etc or the whole thing reaches the stage Linux has now where it works, and works well for the vast majority of tasks, but only if you remember the right combination of switches to make one module talk nicely to another module provided that you pipe it through a shell script to do something trivial like remove blank lines, because the first app includes them for readability but the developers of the second app decided that they should correspond to an EOF.

      The 'unix way' is great, don't get me wrong, but it's now reached the stage where there should be a central body saying "Here are various behaviours, you should use these switches to achieve them. Here is how you should format your output. If this happens, throw this specific error." and so on. People, especially businesses, don't like to have to learn the nuances of every individual app because the developers use -E and not -e.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    5. Re:Just ask Clippy or Madden 200X by samkass · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      E pluribus unum
  2. As a GNOME fan by Andrew+Tanenbaum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm happy about all the money coming into open source. If it wasn't for Red Hat's persistent support, GNOME would have died due to its awkward choice of technologies - and without that competitive pressure, Qt would probably have stayed closed-source, so KDE would have been dead in my book too. Big money in open source is win-win.

  3. Probably. by m0rph3us0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Probably. by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Funny

      There's such a thing as a useful wikipedia link?

      Sure there is, though as I write this, its utility is questionable...

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  4. Yes, there can be too much money. by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Production here at work has ground to a halt. we just bought 20 of the bar-stool racing go-karts and the programmers haven't done a thing since they started shopping at the Ferrari dealerships. If we did not get that $29Mill in venture capitol we would have been still working hard here.

    But no. Now we have a 6 hour golf meeting every day for all employees, Caviar and wine spewing drinking fountains.

    I heard rumors of $1000 a hour hooker fridays starting next month!

    Morale is high, but productivity has dropped way down.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  5. eh? by rucs_hack · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:eh? by chris_eineke · · Score: 3, Informative

      Last time I checked the state of Red Hat et al made not a mote of difference to my project.
      Is your program written in C? Or is written in a language that uses C as its intermediary? Or is it written in a language whose interpreter was written in C? Then RedHat does made a mote of difference since, afaik, they're one of the bigger contributors to gcc.
      --
      "All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
  6. Are Micro-Breweries Killing Beer? by darkPHi3er · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Ten quid, she's so easy to blind. And not a word is spoken...
  7. Re:Wasn't the right kind of licence going to fix t by ricree · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, the author was pretty unclear on this. Certainly, using the GPL or something similar will prevent companies from legally leaching too much off of the project. At any rate, it insures that any changes the company makes should be able to find their way back to the project itself. Of course, this can still be violated, at which point it becomes a legal question. Honestly, this is one of the big reasons that I disagree with many people who favor BSD style licenses. If that's what you want for your code, then it's all well and good, but don't ever complain about leaching, since the license gives complete permission to go ahead and do that.

  8. As a developer and a fan... by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Money is good.

    Without money flowing in to OSS, fewer people will be able to do useful work.

    Sure there is a perception of OSS being written by the selfless hackers giving all their spare time. In reality though, people need to eat, pay the rent and buy computers etc. When organisations fund OSS development they help make it real. OSS businesses have found various ways to make money and do so in various ways.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:As a developer and a fan... by garett_spencley · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:As a developer and a fan... by kestasjk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Money is good.

      Without money flowing in to OSS, fewer people will be able to do useful work.

      Sure there is a perception of OSS being written by the selfless hackers giving all their spare time. In reality though, people need to eat, pay the rent and buy computers etc. When organisations fund OSS development they help make it real. OSS businesses have found various ways to make money and do so in various ways.

      I think there's a distinction that has to be drawn. There are companies that hire programmers to work on Open Source projects, and return that source to the project. They'll do this to get their own features and be compelled by the license or otherwise to give the source back into the project. I think this is a positive thing, because it gets better as more companies use it.

      With things like Red Hat where they are making money out of the source it's not so clearly beneficial, because conflicts of interest arise. If Red Hat can get more money for support by making things more complex or more likely to break they will; they're no longer necessarily in it to improve things, but to make money. When the two objectives are the same things improve, and have improved, but when they're not you get things like security patches being sold.
      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    3. Re:As a developer and a fan... by zsau · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I doubt there's a true conflict here. It's in Red Hat's best interest to minimise the amount of time they spend doing support. They went as much profit from their support as possible, and every time they have to do something, it eats into their profits. Red Hat would do much better using other funds convince everyone we need their support.

      --
      Look out!
    4. Re:As a developer and a fan... by mackyrae · · Score: 3, Funny

      my hobby time is reserved for non-computer tasks.
      Hobbies without computes? Those exist?
      --
      look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
  9. Re:Wasn't the right kind of licence going to fix t by Dr_Marvin_Monroe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not sure that analogy is applicable. As pointed out in "C&B," the "commons" problem is that the value of the commons diminishes as more animals grazed there. In software, having other folks use (even if they never return anything) doesn't diminish your value of the software in any fashion.

    With commercial software, the value is only in it's artificial scarcity. As AOL has demonstrated, we could blanket the earth in install CD's, so the supply/demand price of the software enclosed approaches zero.

    I don't see any problem with it (companies using without returning everything/anything). They'll help fix the common roads when it's in their interest to do so. With more companies using OS software, they'll eventually end up using more of the "common roads" too.

    Don't worry, they'll get around to it once all this IP nonsense is settled.

  10. Opensource = Free Speech by fishthegeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The author laments the fact that there are some enterprises that do not contribute to the community yet draw substantial benefit from that same community. This is the same problem we have with free speech in that many people will benefit from the fact that they can speak, and earn a living from that speach (read: Dvorak) yet only a smaller subset of those speaking are actually saying anything that edifies society or benefits it meaningfully. If the FLOSS community is going to espouse freedom then they'll have to suck it up that the leeches are free to use it.

    Disclaimer... I personally can't program worth a crap. I get lost in my own 25 line shell scripts so I have to donate in order to contribute (go elive!)

    --
    load "$",8,1
  11. I completely agree by eklitzke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I agree with this 100%. If you look at the work that goes into Gnome, a very large proportion of it comes from developers at Redhat and Novell. A lot of the developers are still unaffiliated with any large corporations, but certainly if you browse through the Gnome bugzilla you will see that a lot of the core developers that are pushing Gnome forward are paid for their work. And this really helps the community. Furthermore, Gnome has lately benefited from the interest of late from mobile and embedded developers, who have done a lot of work in push down the resource usage of Gnome components.

    Gnome is a big project. There is a lot of code, and a lot of it is showing its age. If Gnome was an all volunteer effort, there would be a lot more focus on exciting new technologies, and less focus on fixing bugs and cleaning up old code. In a sense, this is how I see KDE. KDE is pushed forward by developing new projects and applications, but to a certain degree suffers from the fact that things are constantly being reinvented rather than refined. The hard work that has gone into Gnome by commercialization has helped reduced bugs in the code, kept it up to date, and continues to push the project forward.

    --
    #include ".signature"
    1. Re:I completely agree by Kjella · · Score: 3, Informative

      KDE is pushed forward by developing new projects and applications, but to a certain degree suffers from the fact that things are constantly being reinvented rather than refined.

      Well, I'm not that familiar with the KDE toolkit beyond being a KDE user, but I'd say the Qt toolkit is certainly being highly refined by Trolltech. With the release of Qt4, pretty much the whole KDE project has gone into a big upgrade cycle, with KDE4 out in late October. So while it might seem KDE progress has been slow in the last year or two, I think it will raise the bar when it arrives.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  12. It's going to happen by MrNormS · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Things get commercialized. If there's a profit to be made, it'll happen. As long as the licensing stays GPLish I'm totally okay with it.

  13. No by Kjella · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  14. Open Source != Free Software by Snospar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Moore's law is not a law. Theory, yes; Predictable trend, certainly; Law, no.
  15. It happens organically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One day you'll need to fix something or write a replacement for some piece of software out of sheer annoyance and you'll release the code because that's the sensible thing to do.

    That's our worth, freedom will always be more than a career path ;^)

  16. Er. by stonecypher · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    --
    StoneCypher is Full of BS
  17. Money won't kill open source, but greed will... by nologin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  18. Quick answer: No by Sigma+7 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  19. Re:Wasn't the right kind of licence going to fix t by NovaX · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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).

    --

    "Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
  20. Commercialization? No by iminplaya · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    What?