Think Tank Report On the State of Open Source

AlexGr writes to recommend an account of a meeting a couple of months back of representatives from more than 100 software companies discussing the state of open source software. The outcome is outlined in a 16-page report, 2007 Open Source Think Tank: The Future of Commercial Open Source (PDF). Among the surprising conclusions: participants noted a growing similarity in methods between open source and proprietary software development. They predicted some kind of convergence, where the best of both approaches gets adopted in each camp.

Comments

This article is nonsense...

[jkrise]

For instance, at last year's Open Source Think Tank meeting, participants were expecting open-source software to achieve greater predominance. However, licensing and support issues have slowed the adoption of open-source solutions at the enterprise level.

Licensing and Support issues with 'Closed Source' software is precisely what drove enterprises to Open Source! Enterprise care a hoot about GPL v2 and GPL v3 wars.. they aren't interested in redistribution.. just that the Damn Thing Works (TM) !

Re:This article is nonsense...

[level_headed_midwest]

They are either a masochist or a lawyer. Probably a lawyer as there is only so much self-flagellation that a masochist can take before he uses the safety word.

Surprising?

[dour power]

Among the surprising conclusions: participants noted a growing similarity in methods between open source and proprietary software development. They predicted some kind of convergence, where the best of both approaches gets adopted in each camp.

Why is it surprising that developers (open or closed source) have adopted the useful parts of each others' development models? They don't exist in vacuums...

Re:Surprising?

[jkrise]

Why is it surprising that developers (open or closed source) have adopted the useful parts of each others' development models? They don't exist in vacuums...

Once upon a time, Open Source developers were called all sorts of filthy names... like gypsies, hippies, communists etc. etc.

Now that 'Enterprise Customers' have adopted these software systems into their networks, the Closed Source world would like to inform you that they have changed... since it's now apparently fashionable to be a hippie.

Can I be a Think Tank too?

[CarpetShark]

Who declared these people a "think tank"? Most of the people on slashdot think about Open Source/Free Software sometimes. Bill Gates does as well. Is HE an "Open Source Think Tank"?

Think Tanks

[nabasu]

Am I the only one that thinks "Think Tanks" are payed shills and can never be trusted with _any_ report they produce?

The needs of vendors

[mangu]

FTFA: "establish an OSI-approved open-source license that better meets the needs of commercial open-source vendor"

How about meeting the needs of users? Any vendor is free to adopt any licence they want, it's up to the market, i.e. the buyers, to decide if that licence is acceptable or not.

All in all, the whole article seems like an intent to spread FUD against the GPL.

Wrong

[amyhughes]

The concern corporations have over licensing of open source has very much to do with licensing and support.

1) They do not want to be compelled to release their own software, and GPL does not make clear what constitutes distribution. They send their internally-developed software to company divisions all over the world, which may or may not be sold in the future, and to vendors and suppliers. Sometimes they make licensing agreements with third-parties to support or even take over internally-developed applications. Does that constitute distribution?

So, they play it safe and forbid the use of GPL code for development.

2) Who do you call for support?

mistake

[nanosquid]

The mistake these people are making is that they are still thinking in terms of "vendors" and "customers". The point of open source software is that the users are the developers.

As soon as you have vendors in the mix, companies that expect to make money from the software, you have conflicting interests: vendors want to make money, and that money has to come out of the pockets of users. It doesn't matter whether the software is nominally open source, these companies are going to find a way to get at the money somehow.

Often, a "hybrid (open source/commercial) model" translates into simply "we're going to let people do a lot of development and bug fixing for us for free, and then we're going to sell the stuff commercially.

A simple rule of thumb is: don't use software under a "hybrid" or "dual license" model; somehow, you are going to be paying for it sooner or later.

Re:mistake

[walter_f]

The mistake these people are making is that they are still thinking in terms of "vendors" and "customers". The point of open source software is that the users are the developers.

Well said.

Open source does not fit into a "market" model in many aspects.

There's also the term "market share" that does not make any sense here - nearly all PCs purchased as complete systems will contribute to the market share of Windows as it comes pre-installed, most notably on notebooks. Even if some of them will be converted into "linux-only" on the day of purchase, this will not be reflected in "market share".

The problem with think tanks

[durin]

is that there usually is not much thinking involved.