Slashdot Mirror
When Open Source Strikes Back
The following was written by Slashdot Reader J. Paul Reed
Open source is nothing new.
Neither are corporations' announcements that they are embracing the historically unconventional software development method.
In the past year or so, we've watched as big names like IBM, Netscape, Apple, and Sun make their internal software development efforts open to public eyes.
Everything from the design of a particular product, to its implementation, to precious developer comments within the source code never meant to be read outside of the company, suddenly becomes naked to the world. Typically, this occurs in a downloading frenzy the first day the source is released, after hackers, eager to pick apart code that has never seen the light of day, read the infamous press release.
And corporations know the benefits of opening up their source; in fact, they seem to bank on them when making the decision to take the open source gamble.
For a relatively small investment, the returns in improvements to the product, and thus a furthering of the company's motives whatever those may be, can be great.
In addition to the standard notion that numerous outside developers will benefit from being able to view and modify the source and thus be inclined to join the effort, one must never underestimate the power the free publicity of going open source brings.
Often, that slashdot effect within the first few days is worth more than any amount of advertising in trade mags, and depending on how they work it, sometimes worth more than releasing the code itself.
Companies seem to think releasing their software open source is more about setting up the media event and sending out press releases than it is about the more mundane activities that actually allow the open source development to take place, like firing up a CVS server or putting tarballs on the web.
Case in point, Apple did it with OSX to get the development community all fired up, or at least interested in if only by curiosity, about their new operating system.
Those following the Apple's OS development strategy knew of the BSD-based, server- capable OS for some time; but by announcing parts of were going to be developed through open source efforts, suddenly we have an article up on all the tech websites, and hundreds of developers and gawkers alike interested in downloading the source, generating more interest and buzz within the "tech" community than conventional advertising could ever hope to touch.
This use of publicity for a company's own purposes is forgivable; I mean, we do get source code out of it. So a little bit of grandstanding is acceptable.
One thing corporations don't take into account, however, is the time after the honeymoon-press release period ends, the period where the real magic of open source development supposedly starts.
The unique thing about open source development is that developers aren't responsible to anyone but themselves and the user community they attempt to support with their initiative. And thus decisions based upon previous agreements with other companies, or decisions by management based on politics fundamentally don't work.
This fosters an environment where developers are more interested in and committed to doing the notorious "right thing (tm)," rather than "the easy thing," the "thing required by our legally binding contract," or even "the thing the boss told me to do."
We find this environment exemplified in the channels through which open source development takes place: out in the open, through multiparty communication mediums, where anyone who has an opinion or idea can voice it, and all can attempt to convince others that their design is the sacred "right thing (tm)" to do.
This is fundamentally incompatible with the way closed source development works, and often companies, in a rush to reap the benefits of the open source, forget that little nagging fact.
Open source is about openness. To most slashdotters, this is a no-brainer, but the concept is foreign to companies where the "official company line," which is commonly different from developers' opinions, is kept very separate, and the PR department has the power over R&D to keep these two points of view isolated from the media and the product's users.
Open source, due to the absence of such a department and structure, forces an element of full disclosure that is foreign to the closed source development process. Because of this, most of the companies who have "embraced" open source are wholly unprepared to deal with this new tidal wave of open communication.
Netscape wasn't when Jamie Zawinski started posting rants on the development methods on his website after the Mozilla development effort started. And more recently, RedHat, hasn't shown that it was in any capacity prepared to deal with the situations open source communication has caused concerning Rasterman's recent departure or the whole LinuxExpo fiasco.
They've been very hush-hush about both.
Both are instances where the open source development model provided an open communications forum which developers, internal and external alike used, and information and opinions that would've been kept quiet in a close source environment leaked.
The PR department just lost control of what the R&D department says.
Suddenly, we have a situation where just as corporations have "embraced" open source, the open source development model has "embraced" these corporations.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing.
This open communication model keeps companies on their toes.
It reveals more about the internal feeling on projects and designs than the PR department would ever know about, much less care to comment on, and it keeps the public in the know as much as possible about what the company's management is doing as far as the open source project involved.
In many ways, open source forces the truth out of companies who employ its methods, an ancillary benefit not only for those working on the project, but those wanting to use the software.
Not exactly what most open source radicals think of when they think of "freedom," but another benefit for us all, none the less.
And it's worth a whole lot more than source code.
There is not yet a publicly available CVS tree, and the mailing lists are explosively overactive (I have no idea how the guys working on this project for IBM get anything else done), but they have been extraordinarily helpful and receptive to suggestions. Lesstif is being closely examined and apparently improved as a side effect (since most Linux users do not purchase Motif, duh). Distributed DX and an RPM are in the works thanks to the efforts of the IBM crew, and I am trying to SWIG parts of DX so it can be scripted from the web with minimal effort. And for whatever it's worth, I have started working on DX2Octave again now that I have access to DX on my machines.
As far as the code goes, it's a little crufty, but anyone who tells me that (for example) the original Mozilla codebase was any cleaner is insane. And OpenDX worked out-of-the-box, the day it was released, on many platforms. Plus, IBM is licensing some of its own patents to outside developers by releasing DX in its working entirety. They went the extra mile than Netscape did not, which is why I bring up Mozilla vs. DX.
I am very pleased with IBM Research's involvement in their open-sourced projects, and IMHO they are a great example for other companies to follow.
DX homepage, with downloads and license info
OpenDX.org
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
To me, it seems to be counter-productive. We hashed over the Raster vs. The Evil Manager thing for a few days...and it seemed like at least half of us though that he was wrong to go on a tirade against his manager in public.
I guess I don't think that open source code has anything to do (nor should it IMHO) with opening the internal problems 2 or 3 people might have with each other. Problems between employees and managers are between them and none of our business, no matter how open their source code is.
Maybe you don't all agree with me...but that's the way I see it.
Werd.
I never thought of Open Source as freeing the R&D department from the marketing department, but that seems to be quite true. It also explains why Microsoft seems so afraid of truly embracing Open Source.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
mozilla does seem to be the best current example... as a counterexample we have the way apple is doing there open source project (darwin). the source has been released, but its not all there, and anything that's put in by outside developers has no guaruntee that it will even be useful in the future, because all of apple's development is still internal. eventually they will sync up the darwin code with their internal stuff, but who knows when that will happen.
unless the primary development is being done out in the open in full view of the opensource developers who want to help, what reason do they have to contribute?
here is where mozilla has it right, and i hope they are successful, if only to show companies like apple how it should be done.
(note: my opinions on apple's opensource projects are a result of lurking on the darwin-development mailing list, i am not actually involved in developing darwin. i don't have the skills necessary, but if i did i'd seriously have to consider if it was worth the trouble at this point)
-garrett
In one sense, Apple has it right: release code for a finished, working product; something that the Mozilla project did wrong initially. Where Apple's move breaks down is Darwin/OS X Server vs OS X, though they're doing what they can to say where the internal dev road map they're following leads. And, since they are planning to release a commercial product to make money, they do have some self-interest in keeping internal development efforts from becoming derailed by external interaction. Consider the state of Mozilla from a commercial point of view: initial estimates for times were way off, and the simultaneous development of Communicator 4.5 and Mozilla 5.0 hampered development of Mozilla. While Mozilla is tracking well now, their initial stumbles were a good example of how NOT to start off.
--
The Future: Some assembly required; batteries not included.
For-profit corporations exist to make money. ("Duh," you say.) No, the point isn't to make you go duh, but to re-iterate that all other considerations are secondary. The difference between an ethical corporation and an unethical one is the difference in how they achieve their profits. No matter how ethical the corporation is, though, the "right thing" is that which leads, directly or indirectly, to higher returns.
People in the "open source community" need to keep this in mind when evaluating what companies are doing with their source code. The fact of the matter is that very few companies will be releasing source with GPL-style licenses for the purpose of examples, unless it's source that's specific to that one example. (If Be wants to get people to write more graphic card drivers for BeOS, they'll release the source code to a graphic card driver, not the source code to the BeOS application server.)
I've argued before that companies that expect to make the bulk of their profit from software can't afford to release that software open-source (it has to be something that people will be willing to shell out continuing money for to get support, like Cygnus's multi-thousand-dollar cross-compilation products). From a profit standpoint, the best reasons to go open source are publicity--likely for products which remain closed--and the possibility that you will get your development work done for free.
Some might say that's a cynical way of saying "improvement of the code," and granted, it is. But sometimes cynicism is an unpleasant way of saying the truth. If Apple folds your hacks to Darwin into a future release of MacOS X, will you get compensated for it? How about Red Hat? I'm not accusing them of evil motivations, mind you; it's simply that the part of the "open source equation" most appealing to investors and accountants is the possibility of selling an $80 operating system with ongoing support contracts that you spent perhaps 2-3% as much developing as an "evil closed source" company like Be.
This is not an argument against open source (or an argument against closed source, for that matter), but a note of harsh realism. As open source becomes a buzzword, to most companies--even "good citizens"--the bottom line will become that it's not free as in speech or beer, but as in labor.
For the sake of discussion, what is wrong with a company that says "you can work with our code and if you make money we can have some"? I would equate that to someone borrowing a taxi and generating all sorts of revenue. The borrower never paid for the taxi yet he reaps benefits. Is it wrong for the taxi company to ask for some money?
Please don't get me wrong. I am all for open source and GPL. The only thing I am wondering is does all software have to be under the same liscence and why is it wrong for the original software author to ask a bit in return?
On one hand, a taxi is a physical commodity while a piece of software is rather more intangible. As many people are likely to point out, it costs nearly nothing to make a copy of software, while making a copy of a taxi requires a more sophisticated process.
On the other hand, we have licenses such as the GPL and the Artistic license which do require some things from those who use the software, whether it is making changes freely available under the same license or distributing the original source, complete, with the differences clearly marked.
Pragmatically speaking, it's pretty hard to enforce free software licenses -- maybe even more difficult than enforcing unfree licenses. How many free software folks have the resources to go after big offenders? How many free software folks can even find big offenders?
I'm toying with a license which makes my software free for non-commercial use, but requires commercial users to make a contribution to free software, whether in code or in cash. Maybe that's a better solution. Maybe not.
It's an interesting question either way.
(Oh, and the Subject is just a joke. I doubt anyone is going to Make Money Fast! by propagating Free-Until-You-Make-Money-From-It software through a downline.)
--
QDMerge -- generate documents automatically.
how to invest, a novice's guide
As long as employers don't discriminate unfairly against those without experience, this could be good. It's the same as getting volunteer experience before you apply for a job somewhere else. Contributing to Open Source projects shows that you know how to program and you're not afraid to have peers review your software.
:) Imagine hiring people whose code you could already see, and see that it's neat on top of that.
How many of you have worked in a business where people's code was so bad that you'd never release it publically.
æeee!
IBM is into the Open Source game now, but their code still has a propriety feel to it. If you grab any of the things of the IBM Alphaworks site, you'll find that a lot of them have available source, but the source you get is pretty cryptic.
As well it seems like a lot of the IBM stuff is only developed in-house--community patches don't get reintegrated back into the main source tree.
It's a great start, but a lot of these companies have a fair ways to go before they understand the power of the true Open Source model. Mozilla is probably the best example of how to do it right, IMHO.
æeee!
Your allegation that Apple is a counterexample to the points raised in the article is simply wrong. They are currently in the process of being "embraced" by the open source development model. This is a Good Thing(tm).
If you're on the Darwin development list you can witness the crumbling and fall of Apple's official communication channels. Did you know that a single support incident costs $195 when going through Apple's official Developer Technical Support system? At the same time people can ask very deep technical questions on darwin-development, and either some Apple employee may answer them directly or your mail is forwarded to the very core developers working on the problem. Free of charge.
This is all part of a community building process that has just begun. I think the ball is now in our own court, we need to support the individuals at Apple who fought for the release of Darwin as a free, open source OS. Of course there's still _lots_ of room for improvement, but this is not the right time to pick nits. First we have to show Apple that the open source approach actually works. Then we can think about fixing the bugs in the development process.
With many large corporations providing an open source path for some of their closely held products, imagine during an interview being asked if you've every contributed to their open source product. If you haven't, how would that look to the interviewer?? If two potential candidates for that same position were of equal skills, with one working on the open source product for 6 months, and the other not touching it at all, who would you choose?? In the future, will open source change the way companies hire??
1nterMod
Here's one problem: how much $$ do they get? Will it depend on how much of their code is copy/pasted into your final product? (how do they know?) What if you went through and changed all the variable names? What if you did minor modifications to the program structure? What about major modifications? What if you just got some good IDEAS from their code? In many of these cases, it's tough to see how they're going to prove that you used their code if you say you didn't.
Now suppose you're going to be generous (and honest) and let everyone know that your product is derived in part from their code. Now they want money from you. I can see how this could work to the benefit of both you and the code-providers, but I can also see how it could provide ammunition to legal departments! Read the licensing agreements *very* *very* *carefully*.
--Mizerai
I liked the article overall. It didn't seem to say anything earth shattering or particularly new. What I liked was that it addressed something that I find rarely, if ever, that companies may not be ready for the open attitudes like JWZ and Rasterman.
This reminds me a bit about the Slashdot response to Sun Microsystems opening of their source on some products. What surprised me is that there was a negative tide in the public response. Many were unhappy becasue of their liscence. From Sun's reasoning, it seemed logical. Open source but if you modify it and make money Sun is entitled to some of it. I am not open source expert but that does not seem unreasonable.
For the sake of discussion, what is wrong with a company that says "you can work with our code and if you make money we can have some"? I would equate that to someone borrowing a taxi and generating all sorts of revenue. The borrower never paid for the taxi yet he reaps benefits. Is it wrong for the taxi company to ask for some money?
Please don't get me wrong. I am all for open source and GPL. The only thing I am wondering is does all software have to be under the same liscence and why is it wrong for the original software author to ask a bit in return?
-Clump