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.
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.