Slashdot Mirror
The Way VCs Think About Open Source: Mostly Wrong (infoworld.com)
An anonymous reader writes: In an epic smack-down, Simon Phipps examines a recent article by some VCs with an apparently strong track record in open source startups and finds the way they see the world makes them plain wrong about Red Hat, OSI licenses, Apache and probably everything else they talk about.
Even reading the article I'm not sure what they are referring to.
VCs who miss the point of open source shouldn't fund it
False, absolutely false. VCs view investing like a trip to the casino: bet on 20 longshots, hope to manage at least 1 of the 20 to a 100:1 win. Overall ROI: 500%
Fundamental understanding of the technology behind the business is not required - estimating its chances in the marketplace is.
Anybody who is seeking VC funding and also believes that the VCs will help them further some ideological agenda is either completely misguided, or attempting to further the ideological agenda that "greed is good."
Seeing as how the VP is such a VIP, shouldn't we keep the PC on the QT? 'Cause if it leaks to the VC he could end up MIA, and then we'd all be put out in KP.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
If they are still willing to invest in your business that you are able to make successful because of that, who cares what they think? What they may believe about Open Source, after all, does not change what it actually is.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
These guys didn't get rich by not knowing their ass from a hole in the ground. They got rich by using knowledge to strategically build on investment. I don't believe for a second that the misinformation spread around about Apache, RedHat, and OSI policy in general represents naivety; it represents protectionism. As long as people like for example, my non-tech-savvy relatives think that these assholes know more about the Open Source Initiative than I do, than my ethics and expertise, along with that of thousands of other Free/Libre Software advocates like me, will consistently be devalued by business. Saying these VCs are just unaware of the damage this misinformation does is like suggesting Apple and other Silicon Valley companies like them enter into no-poaching agreements on accident.
but that VCs don't have a clue about open source doesn't surprise me
I've met my share of VCs. I myself have been a VC (on much smaller projects) and I can tell you this: Your VC is only as knowledgeable as the people advising him (usually those getting funding). It's the same as your relationship with your utility. You trust the company to deliver it based on promises made in a contract between you and the utility.
I'm going to back track a bit. VCs aren't all made equal. Some are pioneers in their fields or have a large baggage of knowledge and experience. Really good VCs invest themselves intellectually into the project but that's only a handful and I'd consider them to be the elites regardless of their ROI.
The TechCrunch article referenced has a related article link to Where The Free Software Movement Went Wrong, which has the following nugget from a writer discussing the difference between Free Software and Open Source Software:
Morozov writes that the difference between the two is that free software emphasizes users and that open source emphasizes developers. But I would submit that free software is also primarily interested in developers as well, in that the freedoms it emphasizes are ones that matter to developers, but very little to the rest of us. That’s where the movement went wrong.
and then goes on to say
try telling graphic designers that they should use GIMP instead of Photoshop because they can study the code, modify it and release their own version. Or try telling a data analyst why they should use Libre Office instead of Excel, or a musician why they should use Ardour instead of Logic. See how far you get.
Where I think that goes wrong is one of educating the users, specifically that even if they can't code themselves, Free Software helps them by preventing lock-in. As an example, a friend has a bunch of stuff she worked on years ago, in Appleworks format. While there are still a few programs that can read that format (including Pages), they don't implement everything, fonts are different, pagination is different, etc. If Appleworks had been Free, and the fonts Free, it's much more likely that there would be programs and fonts that could perfectly reproduce what she originally had, and she wouldn't be relying on continuing support from any one source. Alternatively, if MacOS and the Mac ROM had been Free, she'd be able to LEGALLY fire up an emulator to run the original version of Appleworks. Even if she herself hadn't stashed away source code, it's almost certain that someone would have, and what she had wouldn't be locked away behind proprietary walls.
It's bad enough we have hardware obsolescence, we shouldn't have unnecessary software obsolescence when it's so easy to prevent (the entire source code to the Mac ROM and OS and all the development tools would be a tiny blip on any current storage device, I can transfer the entire hard drive of my first computer (Lisa, 10MB) in a couple seconds to almost anywhere in the world; the cache files for this page are probably larger than a MacPlus ROM image plus an early Mac boot diskette).
This is exactly right and the "open source community" needs to understand this or they will get nowhere. Even if the MS support is poor (and I assure you, it's generally terrible, even enterprise "platinum"), *nothing at all* or "go ask someone one a message board" is a complete non-starter.