Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Almost Two-Thirds of Software Companies Contributing To Open Source, Says Survey (networkworld.com)

Posted by msmash on from the open-source-ftw dept.

Reader alphadogg writes: Open source's march toward preeminence in business software continued over the past year, according to a survey released by open source management provider Black Duck Software and venture capital firm North Bridge. Roughly two-thirds of respondents to the survey -- which was administered online and drew 1,300 respondents -- said that their companies encouraged developers to contribute to open-source projects, and a similar proportion said that they were actively engaged in doing so already. That's a 5% increase from the previous year's survey.

30 comments

  1. Re:garbage in garbage out - survey is garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's ok, Black Duck is mostly garbage, too, from the few times I've had the (dis)pleasure of using it.

    The UI on Protex is something that only a lawyer who only knew enough about writing code to be dangerous could love, and the back-end server is ungodly slow for virtually every single operation.

  2. "Two third" by nyet · · Score: 1

    /. can't even manage basic editorial tasks?

    1. Re:"Two third" by WarJolt · · Score: 1

      Was it edited? I wish /. would post a note when they do that.

    2. Re:"Two third" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely you mean two thirds ?

    3. Re:"Two third" by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      /. can't even manage basic editorial tasks?

      Question mark at the end? Who did you buy that UID from, and how much did it cost? You must be new here.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. GREENWASHING but for Open Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is greenwashing, but for open source.

    THEIR WORDS DO SOUND VERY NICE.

  4. And less than one percent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    taking control and fucking it up.

  5. Another Survey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I (call me "Bob") recently conducted a survey.

    100% of the respondents Strongly Agreed that "Everyone who hears about Bob should immediately send Bob $10,000".

    The future is clearly that Bob is going to be a very wealthy man.

    How lucky for me!

  6. Important to note: the GPL is NOT being used! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    One thing I find very interesting is how nearly all are opting to not use and/or contribute to software with a license from the GPL family.

    These businesses are generally using software licensed under the MIT and BSD licenses.

    It does make sense, though. The MIT and BSD licenses are very pragmatic, and meet the needs of businesses and end users alike. The GPL family of licenses, on the other hand, are driven by ideology and a perverse sense of freedom-but-with-significant-of-restrictions.

    The MIT and BSD licenses maximize freedom for developers and users. The GPL family of licenses, on the other hand, gives slightly more control to the developer, but removes a lot of freedom from the users of said code.

    In a free-market environment, businesses will opt to deal with software having truly free licenses like the MIT and BSD licenses, rather than free-in-hype-only licenses like the GPL family of licenses.

    1. Re:Important to note: the GPL is NOT being used! by budgenator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The MIT and BSD licenses maximize freedom for developers and users. The GPL family of licenses, on the other hand, gives slightly more control to the developer, but removes a lot of freedom from the users of said code.

      In a free-market environment, businesses will opt to deal with software having truly free licenses like the MIT and BSD licenses, rather than free-in-hype-only licenses like the GPL family of licenses.

      Oh Bullshit, the only freedom the GPL limits is the freedom to be a commercial leach and sell other people's work as your own. If you don't want to play by the GPL rules, fine, don't, but quit whining about losing freedoms that you never had.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    2. Re:Important to note: the GPL is NOT being used! by tlhIngan · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Oh Bullshit, the only freedom the GPL limits is the freedom to be a commercial leach and sell other people's work as your own. If you don't want to play by the GPL rules, fine, don't, but quit whining about losing freedoms that you never had.

      Said the GPL fanatic who loves to leech BSD code as well.

      It's probably worse because GPL locks up the BSD code - any improvements made to the BSD code cannot be contributed back to the original project!

      So maybe it should be less about "closed source leeching" and more about "GPL leeching" as well. Because at least Microsoft and other closed-source companies either contribute, or don't. GPL code makes improvements that cannot be integrated back whilst claiming superiority. And parading the modified code as a big F-U to the BSD folks

      Always notice how GPL always claims "closed source exploitation" and not "GPL exploitation"? I think this attitude is worse than just Microsoft etc. "leeching"..

    3. Re:Important to note: the GPL is NOT being used! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh Bullshit, the only freedom the GPL limits is the freedom to be a commercial leach and sell other people's work as your own. If you don't want to play by the GPL rules, fine, don't, but quit whining about losing freedoms that you never had.

      Oh Bullshit, in GPL-only world not only "commercial leaches" (yes, we know, trying to earn money is eeeeeeevil!) will not be able to exist, but also BSD, and ANYONE who's not a part of the GPL-koolaid-drinking hivemind. In that aspect it's even worse and more totalitarian than commercial licences - after all opensource managed to flourish in a proprietary world, other way around would not be possible.

    4. Re:Important to note: the GPL is NOT being used! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      May you never get mod points again, abusive moderator. The BSD folks indeed value spreading their software higher than getting improvements back. If you disagree with that prioritization, then a BSD license is not right for you. Copyleft is the one thing which separates the GPL from BSD style licenses, so if you take issue with not getting improvements back, you're arguing for the GPL, not against it.

    5. Re:Important to note: the GPL is NOT being used! by khz6955 · · Score: 1

      @Anonymous Coward: "One thing I find very interesting is how nearly all are opting to not use and/or contribute to software with a license from the GPL family."

      Where does it say that?

    6. Re:Important to note: the GPL is NOT being used! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The problem with the GPL for a lot of companies is that it's an all or nothing question. There's a fairly common sequence of adoption for BSD licensed code in companies:

      First, they look at it and say 'this must be too good to be true, we can take it and not give anything back? Amazing!'. Then they get their lawyers to check the license and find that's really what it says, so that's what they do.

      After a while, they discover that they've fixed some bugs that are only triggered by their workloads or added some features that they particularly need. Then they find that someone else has implemented something similar (often less suitable for their requirements) upstream and now it's difficult for them to merge bug fixes and security updates from upstream.

      Next they realise that their business does depend on doing something that this code does, but their private fork isn't something that gives them a competitive advantage, it's just a cost centre (much like the rest of IT, according to their bean counters). Upstreaming their changes means that they get to design new features to fit their requirements and means that pulling down fixes is trivial, so they start doing that. At the same time, they may be linking the code with something that really does give them a competitive advantage.

      There's no real equivalent with the GPL. As soon as you start distributing (a fairly poorly defined term) the GPL'd code, you have to release everything that links it under a GPL-compatible license. That's a big psychological barrier to try to overcome all at once. The typical reaction is for companies to decide to not use the GPL'd code and write a new in-house proprietary replacement. If you're very lucky, they'll write a BSDL replacement instead and so at least this only has to happen once.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re: Important to note: the GPL is NOT being used! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that aspect it's even worse and more totalitarian than commercial licences - after all opensource managed to flourish in a proprietary world, other way around would not be possible.

        Nonsense. No one could prevent you from starting a closed-source project from scratch with your proprietary licence, just like GPL software did.

      The fact that no one would then want to use that project is not GPL's responsibility, just a sign of its superior benefits to their users.

    8. Re:Important to note: the GPL is NOT being used! by budgenator · · Score: 1

      >It's probably worse because GPL locks up the BSD code - any improvements made to the BSD code cannot br contributed back to the original project!

      I don't think you understand what the GPL is and isn't. I can author an improvement in BSDed code used in my GPed project and offer the improvement back to the original authors under the BSD license. If it's my code i can do what I want with, if it;s my code, you can only do what I allow with it.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  7. How can this be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With all those companies contributing to open source, how can it be that open source sucks so much?

    1. Re: How can this be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Said a comment posted on an open-source forum, delivered through the open-source infrastructure that runs the internet.

  8. "encouraged developers to contribute" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That is not the same as companies contributing. How many of these companies are allowing their developers to contribute on company time? Sure go work for free on a project with an MIT licence the company can then use for free.

  9. Re:Open SORES results in security? Not good... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A method of seeing truthful posts on /. home of the sockpuppeteers? See instantly downmodded posts! Means truths were spoken they can't handle on this site.

  10. Re:Open SORES results in security? Not good... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear APK:

    Your autism is showing. You should do something about that.

    Sincerely,

    Everybody.

  11. Re:garbage in garbage out - survey is garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "encouraged developers to contribute to open-source projects" on their own time

  12. Edited for clarity... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

    ...and rewritten as a car analogy, because why not?

    The automotive industry's march toward preeminence continued over the past year, according to a survey released by automotive manufacturer Toyota and people with a financial incentive to keep Toyota relevant. Roughly two-thirds of respondents to the survey -- which drew 1,300 online responses from Toyota's most loyal followers -- said that their companies had parking spots for cars, and a similar proportion said that they actually remember the last time they drove a car. That's a 5% increase from the previous year's survey.

    Most companies have the sense not to share numbers indicating that 1/3 of their most loyal followers have no active interest or need for their services. You'd just say that there's been a 5% uptick, year-over-year, and leave it at that. Sure, it's nice to see growth, but "encouraging" devs costs these companies nothing, contributing to open source is potentially of immense value to the developers engaged in it, and yet there's still a full third among the people most likely to be doing it who aren't doing it. That's the shocking thing here.

  13. Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very good. A little faith restored in humanity...

  14. Unjustifiably downmod me all day but... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear unidentifiable ac, your failed illogical ad hominem attack is showing: Evidently the best you've got vs. http://it.slashdot.org/story/1... an illustration of WHY I don't "Open 'SORES'" any code I write too. Want more? The Gov't. feels EXACTLY the same as I do for good reasons as well https://slashdot.org/submissio...

    APK

    P.S.=> The results of "all those BLIND EYES on Open 'SORES'" is showing (ANDROID does the rest)... apk

  15. Anecdotal, but this seems off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've worked in 4 companies to date. Not huge companies, but 30-150 developer head count companies. At every single one I've signed a contract stating that the company owns any/all of my creations unless I show it to them and they give me written permission to do something else with it. Currently I would have to set up a meeting with multiple people to do this, and the company has a deadline of a few months to make a decision. During interviews for said companies they frequently talked about encouraging employees to contribute to open source, and work on side projects. In reality the process to get rights to my own work that I do in my free time is so arduous that it's become pointless to bother with nearly anything.

    As far as I can tell from my own experiences and those of friends at other companies this is the norm.