Brian Behlendorf interview on Forbes.com

Brian Behlendorf, of Apache fame (and all around nice guy!), talked to Forbes.com about O'Reilly's new project, sourceXchange Read the interview for the full details.

Comments

Re:Hooey.

[Eccles]

>FDT: Why should a company pay for software it will not control?

First off, most companies pay lots of money for a whole lot of software they don't control. I work for a company that develops proprietary software, and we certainly pay substantial amounts for development tools, revision control, word processing, etc. over which we have little or no influence. If there's a bug in that software that requires workarounds or (worse) may lead to a problem with our software, we're out of luck.

Paying for bug fixes or new features in open source tools might be less expensive than buying proprietary stuff, and would allow us to exert more control over the issues that matter to us most. Would sponsors be exerting control over the direction of development? Of course they would be! But that wouldn't necessarily make the software less useful to others; at worst it could be forked.

Re:Hooey.

[Hop-Frog]

I think that's likely if a project only has one sponsor. But I just don't see that as a problem. Why would we want to resist bowing to a companies demands? After all, if they are the sole source of requirements, then that is exactly what should be done. I guess I just don't see your point, here.

However, it seems that sourceXchange is anticipating that some (most?) projects will be funded by several parties (and possibly many partise). I think this would provide a lot of balance. It might also make requirements gathering much more difficult. Well just have to see how it goes.

Hooey.

[laetus]

Check out the first question in the article. It goes to the heart of the matter:

FDT: Why should a company pay for software it will not control?

They won't, not in the long run. sourceXchange is kidding itself and so are any developers who sign on. When a company lays down cash as a sponser, they're expecting something. A developer who accepts this cash, no matter how much they espouse open source and its freedom, will know this deep down and eventually bow to the company's demands, direct or indirect. It's human nature not to bite the hand of those who feed you.

I believe that as an open source developer begins to rely on cash payments from a company (like using the casholine to help make car payments, pay rent, or buy food), they will become less and less likely to turn off the casholine spigot by ignoring a company's demands.