Open source business model looks shakey

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by impossible, Nov 22, 2009.

  1. impossible

    impossible Guest

    IBM, Google, HP, Amazon, Cisco, Oracle, and Microsoft have all embraced
    open-source and have learned to profit from it. You'd think this would be
    good news for companies developing open-source wares. But wait....If a
    simple and supported proprietary service can be built using open-source
    tools, then what reason does anyone have to buy an "enterpise subscription"
    from the developer of those tools?

    "After all, the protections that the GNU General Public License (GPL) and
    other open-source licenses offer in the traditional software world are
    essentially meaningless in the networked world, where software is used to
    create services, but isn't actually distributed. This is as true for Red Hat
    as it is for open-source start-ups like Openbravo and Talend. Imagine if
    Amazon decides to start offering JBoss as a cloud service. Or Red Hat
    Enterprise Linux, for that matter (minus the trademarks). It could happen.
    Actually, I'll go one step further: it will happen. It's just a matter of
    when.

    "This is why companies like IBM, Google, and increasingly Microsoft
    strategically invest in open source, but don't try to directly monetize open
    source. It's also why the "open-source companies" need to figure out a Plan
    B before Plan A gets taken from them."

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10402551-16.html
     
    impossible, Nov 22, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. impossible

    Gordon Guest

    On 2009-11-22, impossible <> wrote:
    > IBM, Google, HP, Amazon, Cisco, Oracle, and Microsoft have all embraced
    > open-source and have learned to profit from it. You'd think this would be
    > good news for companies developing open-source wares. But wait....If a
    > simple and supported proprietary service can be built using open-source
    > tools, then what reason does anyone have to buy an "enterpise subscription"
    > from the developer of those tools?
    >
    > "After all, the protections that the GNU General Public License (GPL) and
    > other open-source licenses offer in the traditional software world are
    > essentially meaningless in the networked world, where software is used to
    > create services, but isn't actually distributed. This is as true for Red Hat
    > as it is for open-source start-ups like Openbravo and Talend. Imagine if
    > Amazon decides to start offering JBoss as a cloud service. Or Red Hat
    > Enterprise Linux, for that matter (minus the trademarks). It could happen.
    > Actually, I'll go one step further: it will happen. It's just a matter of
    > when.
    >
    > "This is why companies like IBM, Google, and increasingly Microsoft
    > strategically invest in open source, but don't try to directly monetize open
    > source. It's also why the "open-source companies" need to figure out a Plan
    > B before Plan A gets taken from them."
    >
    > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10402551-16.html
    >

    Heck, he is so close to hitting on the idea of evolution. Wait for it now...
     
    Gordon, Nov 22, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "Gordon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 2009-11-22, impossible <> wrote:
    >> IBM, Google, HP, Amazon, Cisco, Oracle, and Microsoft have all embraced
    >> open-source and have learned to profit from it. You'd think this would be
    >> good news for companies developing open-source wares. But wait....If a
    >> simple and supported proprietary service can be built using open-source
    >> tools, then what reason does anyone have to buy an "enterpise
    >> subscription"
    >> from the developer of those tools?
    >>
    >> "After all, the protections that the GNU General Public License (GPL) and
    >> other open-source licenses offer in the traditional software world are
    >> essentially meaningless in the networked world, where software is used to
    >> create services, but isn't actually distributed. This is as true for Red
    >> Hat
    >> as it is for open-source start-ups like Openbravo and Talend. Imagine if
    >> Amazon decides to start offering JBoss as a cloud service. Or Red Hat
    >> Enterprise Linux, for that matter (minus the trademarks). It could
    >> happen.
    >> Actually, I'll go one step further: it will happen. It's just a matter of
    >> when.
    >>
    >> "This is why companies like IBM, Google, and increasingly Microsoft
    >> strategically invest in open source, but don't try to directly monetize
    >> open
    >> source. It's also why the "open-source companies" need to figure out a
    >> Plan
    >> B before Plan A gets taken from them."
    >>
    >> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10402551-16.html
    >>

    > Heck, he is so close to hitting on the idea of evolution. Wait for it
    > now...


    Yes, survival of the fittest. If open-source developers don't figure out
    some way to generate income besides peddling devalued service contracts,
    then they will become extinct.
     
    impossible, Nov 22, 2009
    #3
  4. impossible

    Carnations Guest

    On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:40:53 +1300, Allistar wrote:

    > impossible wrote:
    >
    >
    >> "Gordon" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> On 2009-11-22, impossible <> wrote:
    >>>> IBM, Google, HP, Amazon, Cisco, Oracle, and Microsoft have all
    >>>> embraced open-source and have learned to profit from it. You'd think
    >>>> this would be good news for companies developing open-source wares.
    >>>> But wait....If a simple and supported proprietary service can be
    >>>> built using open-source tools, then what reason does anyone have to
    >>>> buy an "enterpise subscription"
    >>>> from the developer of those tools?
    >>>>
    >>>> "After all, the protections that the GNU General Public License (GPL)
    >>>> and other open-source licenses offer in the traditional software
    >>>> world are essentially meaningless in the networked world, where
    >>>> software is used to create services, but isn't actually distributed.
    >>>> This is as true for Red Hat
    >>>> as it is for open-source start-ups like Openbravo and Talend. Imagine
    >>>> if Amazon decides to start offering JBoss as a cloud service. Or Red
    >>>> Hat Enterprise Linux, for that matter (minus the trademarks). It
    >>>> could happen.
    >>>> Actually, I'll go one step further: it will happen. It's just a
    >>>> matter of when.
    >>>>
    >>>> "This is why companies like IBM, Google, and increasingly Microsoft
    >>>> strategically invest in open source, but don't try to directly
    >>>> monetize open
    >>>> source. It's also why the "open-source companies" need to figure out
    >>>> a Plan
    >>>> B before Plan A gets taken from them."
    >>>>
    >>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10402551-16.html
    >>>>
    >>> Heck, he is so close to hitting on the idea of evolution. Wait for it
    >>> now...

    >>
    >> Yes, survival of the fittest. If open-source developers don't figure
    >> out some way to generate income besides peddling devalued service
    >> contracts, then they will become extinct.

    >
    > So long as people are willing to code for a hobby and contribute to
    > community projects, that will never happen. Open source is not a
    > business model.


    Agreed - it is a philosophy of software development. The fact that businesses can sell service contracts
    to support others who wish to use open source software is a marvelous thing.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Carnations, Nov 22, 2009
    #4
  5. impossible

    victor Guest

    Allistar wrote:
    > impossible wrote:
    >
    >> "Gordon" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> On 2009-11-22, impossible <> wrote:
    >>>> IBM, Google, HP, Amazon, Cisco, Oracle, and Microsoft have all embraced
    >>>> open-source and have learned to profit from it. You'd think this would
    >>>> be good news for companies developing open-source wares. But wait....If
    >>>> a simple and supported proprietary service can be built using
    >>>> open-source tools, then what reason does anyone have to buy an
    >>>> "enterpise subscription"
    >>>> from the developer of those tools?
    >>>>
    >>>> "After all, the protections that the GNU General Public License (GPL)
    >>>> and other open-source licenses offer in the traditional software world
    >>>> are essentially meaningless in the networked world, where software is
    >>>> used to create services, but isn't actually distributed. This is as true
    >>>> for Red Hat
    >>>> as it is for open-source start-ups like Openbravo and Talend. Imagine if
    >>>> Amazon decides to start offering JBoss as a cloud service. Or Red Hat
    >>>> Enterprise Linux, for that matter (minus the trademarks). It could
    >>>> happen.
    >>>> Actually, I'll go one step further: it will happen. It's just a matter
    >>>> of when.
    >>>>
    >>>> "This is why companies like IBM, Google, and increasingly Microsoft
    >>>> strategically invest in open source, but don't try to directly monetize
    >>>> open
    >>>> source. It's also why the "open-source companies" need to figure out a
    >>>> Plan
    >>>> B before Plan A gets taken from them."
    >>>>
    >>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10402551-16.html
    >>>>
    >>> Heck, he is so close to hitting on the idea of evolution. Wait for it
    >>> now...

    >> Yes, survival of the fittest. If open-source developers don't figure out
    >> some way to generate income besides peddling devalued service contracts,
    >> then they will become extinct.

    >
    > So long as people are willing to code for a hobby and contribute to
    > community projects, that will never happen. Open source is not a business
    > model.


    I think the OP means that Red Hat's business model is under threat.
    According to this article there are five open source business models.
    http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/01/the_five_open_s.html
    1. Sell support services
    2. Build (or run) hardware
    3. Proprietary components
    4. Dual licensing
    5. Advertising
    The linux kernel isn't a hobby or a community project, its a common
    shared resource, open source companies aren't huge and don't need to be
    huge to survive. Free software is free to evolve as Gordon said, and if
    one participant drops out, others will fill the niche. There is no plan
    A, plan B etc, there are just needs and solutions. For support for JBoss
    the natural holders of the credentials are Redhat/JBoss
    Cloud computing services are built with open source components, thats
    how Google does it, quite pragmatically, and they start at the baseline
    of free with advertising.
    They use this income to provide the infrastructure for subscribed
    services, so anyone else monetizing the same service competes in that
    market, navigation or apps or communications. Now we are seeing them
    putting in the entry points to suit themselves with android and chrome
    and chromeOS. Just like Coca Cola's goal of just reach for a Coke,
    Google aims to be there when you reach for your phone/netbook/pc etc to
    be the universal home page, before you boot into Windows if possible.

    And both Microsoft and Apple were founded by hobbyists for hobbyists.
     
    victor, Nov 22, 2009
    #5
  6. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > impossible wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Gordon" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> On 2009-11-22, impossible <> wrote:
    >>>> IBM, Google, HP, Amazon, Cisco, Oracle, and Microsoft have all embraced
    >>>> open-source and have learned to profit from it. You'd think this would
    >>>> be good news for companies developing open-source wares. But wait....If
    >>>> a simple and supported proprietary service can be built using
    >>>> open-source tools, then what reason does anyone have to buy an
    >>>> "enterpise subscription"
    >>>> from the developer of those tools?
    >>>>
    >>>> "After all, the protections that the GNU General Public License (GPL)
    >>>> and other open-source licenses offer in the traditional software world
    >>>> are essentially meaningless in the networked world, where software is
    >>>> used to create services, but isn't actually distributed. This is as
    >>>> true
    >>>> for Red Hat
    >>>> as it is for open-source start-ups like Openbravo and Talend. Imagine
    >>>> if
    >>>> Amazon decides to start offering JBoss as a cloud service. Or Red Hat
    >>>> Enterprise Linux, for that matter (minus the trademarks). It could
    >>>> happen.
    >>>> Actually, I'll go one step further: it will happen. It's just a matter
    >>>> of when.
    >>>>
    >>>> "This is why companies like IBM, Google, and increasingly Microsoft
    >>>> strategically invest in open source, but don't try to directly monetize
    >>>> open
    >>>> source. It's also why the "open-source companies" need to figure out a
    >>>> Plan
    >>>> B before Plan A gets taken from them."
    >>>>
    >>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10402551-16.html
    >>>>
    >>> Heck, he is so close to hitting on the idea of evolution. Wait for it
    >>> now...

    >>
    >> Yes, survival of the fittest. If open-source developers don't figure out
    >> some way to generate income besides peddling devalued service contracts,
    >> then they will become extinct.

    >
    > So long as people are willing to code for a hobby and contribute to
    > community projects, that will never happen. Open source is not a business
    > model.
    > --



    The question is, how do companies that develop open source software make
    money? If RedHat's work is just going to be bundled into a bunch of
    "community projects", then who will pay RedHat's expenses?
     
    impossible, Nov 22, 2009
    #6
  7. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Carnations wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:40:53 +1300, Allistar wrote:
    >>
    >>> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> "Gordon" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> On 2009-11-22, impossible <> wrote:
    >>>>>> IBM, Google, HP, Amazon, Cisco, Oracle, and Microsoft have all
    >>>>>> embraced open-source and have learned to profit from it. You'd think
    >>>>>> this would be good news for companies developing open-source wares.
    >>>>>> But wait....If a simple and supported proprietary service can be
    >>>>>> built using open-source tools, then what reason does anyone have to
    >>>>>> buy an "enterpise subscription"
    >>>>>> from the developer of those tools?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "After all, the protections that the GNU General Public License (GPL)
    >>>>>> and other open-source licenses offer in the traditional software
    >>>>>> world are essentially meaningless in the networked world, where
    >>>>>> software is used to create services, but isn't actually distributed.
    >>>>>> This is as true for Red Hat
    >>>>>> as it is for open-source start-ups like Openbravo and Talend. Imagine
    >>>>>> if Amazon decides to start offering JBoss as a cloud service. Or Red
    >>>>>> Hat Enterprise Linux, for that matter (minus the trademarks). It
    >>>>>> could happen.
    >>>>>> Actually, I'll go one step further: it will happen. It's just a
    >>>>>> matter of when.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "This is why companies like IBM, Google, and increasingly Microsoft
    >>>>>> strategically invest in open source, but don't try to directly
    >>>>>> monetize open
    >>>>>> source. It's also why the "open-source companies" need to figure out
    >>>>>> a Plan
    >>>>>> B before Plan A gets taken from them."
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10402551-16.html
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Heck, he is so close to hitting on the idea of evolution. Wait for it
    >>>>> now...
    >>>>
    >>>> Yes, survival of the fittest. If open-source developers don't figure
    >>>> out some way to generate income besides peddling devalued service
    >>>> contracts, then they will become extinct.
    >>>
    >>> So long as people are willing to code for a hobby and contribute to
    >>> community projects, that will never happen. Open source is not a
    >>> business model.

    >>
    >> Agreed - it is a philosophy of software development. The fact that
    >> businesses can sell service contracts to support others who wish to use
    >> open source software is a marvelous thing.

    >
    > Indeed. The way I see it, people (or companies) develop software for one
    > of
    > two reasons: to make a profit by selling that software, or to save costs
    > by
    > using that software. The former tend to be software development companies.
    > The latter tend to be in some other business that is heavily reliant on
    > IT.
    >
    > For the former, it makes little sense to open source what they develop.
    > For
    > the latter, it makes a lot of sense to open source what they develop as it
    > allows them to reduce the cost of that development. One reason to not open
    > source what they develop is to retain any competitive edge that software
    > provides.
    >
    > So, do you develop software to make a profit, or do you develop software
    > to
    > save on costs? The answer to that question may determine whether open
    > source is right for you.
    > --


    So you're saying there's no future in developing a for-profit business based
    on open-source software development -- Right? But as a for-profit developer
    yourself, you'd like to continue to be able to copy code from open-source
    developers at will and make money off their labor without having to
    compensate them -- Yes?
     
    impossible, Nov 23, 2009
    #7
  8. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > impossible wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Carnations wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:40:53 +1300, Allistar wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> "Gordon" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>> On 2009-11-22, impossible <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>> IBM, Google, HP, Amazon, Cisco, Oracle, and Microsoft have all
    >>>>>>>> embraced open-source and have learned to profit from it. You'd
    >>>>>>>> think
    >>>>>>>> this would be good news for companies developing open-source wares.
    >>>>>>>> But wait....If a simple and supported proprietary service can be
    >>>>>>>> built using open-source tools, then what reason does anyone have to
    >>>>>>>> buy an "enterpise subscription"
    >>>>>>>> from the developer of those tools?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> "After all, the protections that the GNU General Public License
    >>>>>>>> (GPL) and other open-source licenses offer in the traditional
    >>>>>>>> software world are essentially meaningless in the networked world,
    >>>>>>>> where software is used to create services, but isn't actually
    >>>>>>>> distributed. This is as true for Red Hat
    >>>>>>>> as it is for open-source start-ups like Openbravo and Talend.
    >>>>>>>> Imagine if Amazon decides to start offering JBoss as a cloud
    >>>>>>>> service. Or Red Hat Enterprise Linux, for that matter (minus the
    >>>>>>>> trademarks). It could happen.
    >>>>>>>> Actually, I'll go one step further: it will happen. It's just a
    >>>>>>>> matter of when.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> "This is why companies like IBM, Google, and increasingly Microsoft
    >>>>>>>> strategically invest in open source, but don't try to directly
    >>>>>>>> monetize open
    >>>>>>>> source. It's also why the "open-source companies" need to figure
    >>>>>>>> out
    >>>>>>>> a Plan
    >>>>>>>> B before Plan A gets taken from them."
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10402551-16.html
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Heck, he is so close to hitting on the idea of evolution. Wait for
    >>>>>>> it
    >>>>>>> now...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Yes, survival of the fittest. If open-source developers don't figure
    >>>>>> out some way to generate income besides peddling devalued service
    >>>>>> contracts, then they will become extinct.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> So long as people are willing to code for a hobby and contribute to
    >>>>> community projects, that will never happen. Open source is not a
    >>>>> business model.
    >>>>
    >>>> Agreed - it is a philosophy of software development. The fact that
    >>>> businesses can sell service contracts to support others who wish to use
    >>>> open source software is a marvelous thing.
    >>>
    >>> Indeed. The way I see it, people (or companies) develop software for one
    >>> of
    >>> two reasons: to make a profit by selling that software, or to save costs
    >>> by
    >>> using that software. The former tend to be software development
    >>> companies. The latter tend to be in some other business that is heavily
    >>> reliant on IT.
    >>>
    >>> For the former, it makes little sense to open source what they develop.
    >>> For
    >>> the latter, it makes a lot of sense to open source what they develop as
    >>> it allows them to reduce the cost of that development. One reason to not
    >>> open source what they develop is to retain any competitive edge that
    >>> software provides.
    >>>
    >>> So, do you develop software to make a profit, or do you develop software
    >>> to
    >>> save on costs? The answer to that question may determine whether open
    >>> source is right for you.

    >>
    >> So you're saying there's no future in developing a for-profit business
    >> based on open-source software development -- Right?

    >
    > No, I'm not saying that at all.
    >


    So when you say that "it makes little sense" for developers who want to make
    a profit to to open source their work, what do you mean exactly?

    >> But as a for-profit
    >> developer yourself, you'd like to continue to be able to copy code from
    >> open-source
    >> developers at will and make money off their labor without having to
    >> compensate them -- Yes?

    >
    > I don't copy any code from other open source developers in my commercial
    > developments.
    > --


    Ok. But you do use open-source development tools, isn't that right? Do you
    pay for those tools?
     
    impossible, Nov 23, 2009
    #8
  9. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > impossible wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Gordon" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> On 2009-11-22, impossible <> wrote:
    >>>>>> IBM, Google, HP, Amazon, Cisco, Oracle, and Microsoft have all
    >>>>>> embraced open-source and have learned to profit from it. You'd think
    >>>>>> this would be good news for companies developing open-source wares.
    >>>>>> But wait....If a simple and supported proprietary service can be
    >>>>>> built
    >>>>>> using open-source tools, then what reason does anyone have to buy an
    >>>>>> "enterpise subscription"
    >>>>>> from the developer of those tools?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "After all, the protections that the GNU General Public License (GPL)
    >>>>>> and other open-source licenses offer in the traditional software
    >>>>>> world
    >>>>>> are essentially meaningless in the networked world, where software is
    >>>>>> used to create services, but isn't actually distributed. This is as
    >>>>>> true
    >>>>>> for Red Hat
    >>>>>> as it is for open-source start-ups like Openbravo and Talend. Imagine
    >>>>>> if
    >>>>>> Amazon decides to start offering JBoss as a cloud service. Or Red Hat
    >>>>>> Enterprise Linux, for that matter (minus the trademarks). It could
    >>>>>> happen.
    >>>>>> Actually, I'll go one step further: it will happen. It's just a
    >>>>>> matter
    >>>>>> of when.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "This is why companies like IBM, Google, and increasingly Microsoft
    >>>>>> strategically invest in open source, but don't try to directly
    >>>>>> monetize open
    >>>>>> source. It's also why the "open-source companies" need to figure out
    >>>>>> a
    >>>>>> Plan
    >>>>>> B before Plan A gets taken from them."
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10402551-16.html
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Heck, he is so close to hitting on the idea of evolution. Wait for it
    >>>>> now...
    >>>>
    >>>> Yes, survival of the fittest. If open-source developers don't figure
    >>>> out
    >>>> some way to generate income besides peddling devalued service
    >>>> contracts,
    >>>> then they will become extinct.
    >>>
    >>> So long as people are willing to code for a hobby and contribute to
    >>> community projects, that will never happen. Open source is not a
    >>> business
    >>> model.
    >>> --

    >>
    >>
    >> The question is, how do companies that develop open source software make
    >> money?

    >
    > That depends if they are a company that makes money selling software or
    > services for software. A lot of companies are in completely different
    > markets and they develop open source software to help them run those
    > businesses.


    Read the OP and answer the bloody question, Allistar! You're starting to
    sound like some Larry D'Loserite who always wants to change the subject.

    >
    >> If RedHat's work is just going to be bundled into a bunch of
    >> "community projects", then who will pay RedHat's expenses?

    >
    > What expenses would they be? Redhat are a company that is based on the
    > distribution and support of open source software.
    > --


    I guess you really are a Larry D'Loserite now. Bye-bye.
     
    impossible, Nov 23, 2009
    #9
  10. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > impossible wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> Carnations wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:40:53 +1300, Allistar wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> "Gordon" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>>>> On 2009-11-22, impossible <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>> IBM, Google, HP, Amazon, Cisco, Oracle, and Microsoft have all
    >>>>>>>>>> embraced open-source and have learned to profit from it. You'd
    >>>>>>>>>> think
    >>>>>>>>>> this would be good news for companies developing open-source
    >>>>>>>>>> wares. But wait....If a simple and supported proprietary service
    >>>>>>>>>> can be built using open-source tools, then what reason does
    >>>>>>>>>> anyone
    >>>>>>>>>> have to buy an "enterpise subscription"
    >>>>>>>>>> from the developer of those tools?
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> "After all, the protections that the GNU General Public License
    >>>>>>>>>> (GPL) and other open-source licenses offer in the traditional
    >>>>>>>>>> software world are essentially meaningless in the networked
    >>>>>>>>>> world,
    >>>>>>>>>> where software is used to create services, but isn't actually
    >>>>>>>>>> distributed. This is as true for Red Hat
    >>>>>>>>>> as it is for open-source start-ups like Openbravo and Talend.
    >>>>>>>>>> Imagine if Amazon decides to start offering JBoss as a cloud
    >>>>>>>>>> service. Or Red Hat Enterprise Linux, for that matter (minus the
    >>>>>>>>>> trademarks). It could happen.
    >>>>>>>>>> Actually, I'll go one step further: it will happen. It's just a
    >>>>>>>>>> matter of when.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> "This is why companies like IBM, Google, and increasingly
    >>>>>>>>>> Microsoft strategically invest in open source, but don't try to
    >>>>>>>>>> directly monetize open
    >>>>>>>>>> source. It's also why the "open-source companies" need to figure
    >>>>>>>>>> out
    >>>>>>>>>> a Plan
    >>>>>>>>>> B before Plan A gets taken from them."
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10402551-16.html
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Heck, he is so close to hitting on the idea of evolution. Wait for
    >>>>>>>>> it
    >>>>>>>>> now...
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Yes, survival of the fittest. If open-source developers don't
    >>>>>>>> figure
    >>>>>>>> out some way to generate income besides peddling devalued service
    >>>>>>>> contracts, then they will become extinct.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> So long as people are willing to code for a hobby and contribute to
    >>>>>>> community projects, that will never happen. Open source is not a
    >>>>>>> business model.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Agreed - it is a philosophy of software development. The fact that
    >>>>>> businesses can sell service contracts to support others who wish to
    >>>>>> use open source software is a marvelous thing.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Indeed. The way I see it, people (or companies) develop software for
    >>>>> one of
    >>>>> two reasons: to make a profit by selling that software, or to save
    >>>>> costs by
    >>>>> using that software. The former tend to be software development
    >>>>> companies. The latter tend to be in some other business that is
    >>>>> heavily
    >>>>> reliant on IT.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> For the former, it makes little sense to open source what they
    >>>>> develop.
    >>>>> For
    >>>>> the latter, it makes a lot of sense to open source what they develop
    >>>>> as
    >>>>> it allows them to reduce the cost of that development. One reason to
    >>>>> not open source what they develop is to retain any competitive edge
    >>>>> that software provides.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> So, do you develop software to make a profit, or do you develop
    >>>>> software to
    >>>>> save on costs? The answer to that question may determine whether open
    >>>>> source is right for you.
    >>>>
    >>>> So you're saying there's no future in developing a for-profit business
    >>>> based on open-source software development -- Right?
    >>>
    >>> No, I'm not saying that at all.

    >>
    >> So when you say that "it makes little sense" for developers who want to
    >> make a profit to to open source their work, what do you mean exactly?

    >
    > I mean that if a company gets their primary revenue stream from selling
    > software, it makes little sense to give that software aware for nothing.
    >
    >>>> But as a for-profit
    >>>> developer yourself, you'd like to continue to be able to copy code from
    >>>> open-source
    >>>> developers at will and make money off their labor without having to
    >>>> compensate them -- Yes?
    >>>
    >>> I don't copy any code from other open source developers in my commercial
    >>> developments.

    >>
    >> Ok. But you do use open-source development tools, isn't that right? Do
    >> you
    >> pay for those tools?

    >
    > I primarily use proprietary development tools, but I do use an open source
    > operating system. (And be aware that you have accused me of claiming to
    > use
    > only open source development tools before, but you couldn't prove me ever
    > saying that. As I said, the development tools I use most of the time are
    > proprietary).
    > --
    >


    I'm aware that you claim to use open source tools when its suits your
    purposes. Be aware that I'm beginning to distrrust anything you say.
     
    impossible, Nov 23, 2009
    #10
  11. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > impossible wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "Gordon" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>> On 2009-11-22, impossible <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>> IBM, Google, HP, Amazon, Cisco, Oracle, and Microsoft have all
    >>>>>>>> embraced open-source and have learned to profit from it. You'd
    >>>>>>>> think
    >>>>>>>> this would be good news for companies developing open-source wares.
    >>>>>>>> But wait....If a simple and supported proprietary service can be
    >>>>>>>> built
    >>>>>>>> using open-source tools, then what reason does anyone have to buy
    >>>>>>>> an
    >>>>>>>> "enterpise subscription"
    >>>>>>>> from the developer of those tools?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> "After all, the protections that the GNU General Public License
    >>>>>>>> (GPL) and other open-source licenses offer in the traditional
    >>>>>>>> software world
    >>>>>>>> are essentially meaningless in the networked world, where software
    >>>>>>>> is used to create services, but isn't actually distributed. This is
    >>>>>>>> as true
    >>>>>>>> for Red Hat
    >>>>>>>> as it is for open-source start-ups like Openbravo and Talend.
    >>>>>>>> Imagine if
    >>>>>>>> Amazon decides to start offering JBoss as a cloud service. Or Red
    >>>>>>>> Hat Enterprise Linux, for that matter (minus the trademarks). It
    >>>>>>>> could happen.
    >>>>>>>> Actually, I'll go one step further: it will happen. It's just a
    >>>>>>>> matter
    >>>>>>>> of when.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> "This is why companies like IBM, Google, and increasingly Microsoft
    >>>>>>>> strategically invest in open source, but don't try to directly
    >>>>>>>> monetize open
    >>>>>>>> source. It's also why the "open-source companies" need to figure
    >>>>>>>> out
    >>>>>>>> a
    >>>>>>>> Plan
    >>>>>>>> B before Plan A gets taken from them."
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10402551-16.html
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Heck, he is so close to hitting on the idea of evolution. Wait for
    >>>>>>> it
    >>>>>>> now...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Yes, survival of the fittest. If open-source developers don't figure
    >>>>>> out
    >>>>>> some way to generate income besides peddling devalued service
    >>>>>> contracts,
    >>>>>> then they will become extinct.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> So long as people are willing to code for a hobby and contribute to
    >>>>> community projects, that will never happen. Open source is not a
    >>>>> business
    >>>>> model.
    >>>>> --
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> The question is, how do companies that develop open source software
    >>>> make
    >>>> money?
    >>>
    >>> That depends if they are a company that makes money selling software or
    >>> services for software. A lot of companies are in completely different
    >>> markets and they develop open source software to help them run those
    >>> businesses.

    >>
    >> Read the OP and answer the bloody question, Allistar!

    >
    > There are many sorts of companies that develop open source software. For
    > example: postal centres. They make money by charging for mail delivery.
    > Dairy companies may contribute to open source projects, and their primary
    > income is from selling milk based products.
    >
    > If you want me to comment on a particular company, then name them,
    > otherwise
    > there is no generic answer to your questions because companies develop
    > open
    > source software for a huge variety of reasons.
    > --


    Read the OP, which hasnothing to do with any "generic" company. RedHat comes
    instantly to mind. Among the newcomers --- try OpenBravo. What''s their
    Plan A? And , given competive pressures, what do you think their Plan B
    ought to be? If you have nothing to say, then please leave it at that.
     
    impossible, Nov 23, 2009
    #11
  12. impossible

    Carnations Guest

    On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:12:42 +0000, impossible wrote:

    > So you're saying there's no future in developing a for-profit business
    > based on open-source software development -- Right?


    Wrong.

    RedHat is a good example of a software developer releasing their software under the GPL and making
    increasing profits and gross revenue gains year on year.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Carnations, Nov 23, 2009
    #12
  13. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > impossible wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>> Carnations wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:40:53 +1300, Allistar wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> "Gordon" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>>>>>> On 2009-11-22, impossible <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>> IBM, Google, HP, Amazon, Cisco, Oracle, and Microsoft have all
    >>>>>>>>>>>> embraced open-source and have learned to profit from it. You'd
    >>>>>>>>>>>> think
    >>>>>>>>>>>> this would be good news for companies developing open-source
    >>>>>>>>>>>> wares. But wait....If a simple and supported proprietary
    >>>>>>>>>>>> service
    >>>>>>>>>>>> can be built using open-source tools, then what reason does
    >>>>>>>>>>>> anyone
    >>>>>>>>>>>> have to buy an "enterpise subscription"
    >>>>>>>>>>>> from the developer of those tools?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> "After all, the protections that the GNU General Public License
    >>>>>>>>>>>> (GPL) and other open-source licenses offer in the traditional
    >>>>>>>>>>>> software world are essentially meaningless in the networked
    >>>>>>>>>>>> world,
    >>>>>>>>>>>> where software is used to create services, but isn't actually
    >>>>>>>>>>>> distributed. This is as true for Red Hat
    >>>>>>>>>>>> as it is for open-source start-ups like Openbravo and Talend.
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Imagine if Amazon decides to start offering JBoss as a cloud
    >>>>>>>>>>>> service. Or Red Hat Enterprise Linux, for that matter (minus
    >>>>>>>>>>>> the
    >>>>>>>>>>>> trademarks). It could happen.
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, I'll go one step further: it will happen. It's just a
    >>>>>>>>>>>> matter of when.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> "This is why companies like IBM, Google, and increasingly
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Microsoft strategically invest in open source, but don't try to
    >>>>>>>>>>>> directly monetize open
    >>>>>>>>>>>> source. It's also why the "open-source companies" need to
    >>>>>>>>>>>> figure
    >>>>>>>>>>>> out
    >>>>>>>>>>>> a Plan
    >>>>>>>>>>>> B before Plan A gets taken from them."
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10402551-16.html
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Heck, he is so close to hitting on the idea of evolution. Wait
    >>>>>>>>>>> for it
    >>>>>>>>>>> now...
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Yes, survival of the fittest. If open-source developers don't
    >>>>>>>>>> figure
    >>>>>>>>>> out some way to generate income besides peddling devalued service
    >>>>>>>>>> contracts, then they will become extinct.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> So long as people are willing to code for a hobby and contribute
    >>>>>>>>> to
    >>>>>>>>> community projects, that will never happen. Open source is not a
    >>>>>>>>> business model.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Agreed - it is a philosophy of software development. The fact that
    >>>>>>>> businesses can sell service contracts to support others who wish to
    >>>>>>>> use open source software is a marvelous thing.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Indeed. The way I see it, people (or companies) develop software for
    >>>>>>> one of
    >>>>>>> two reasons: to make a profit by selling that software, or to save
    >>>>>>> costs by
    >>>>>>> using that software. The former tend to be software development
    >>>>>>> companies. The latter tend to be in some other business that is
    >>>>>>> heavily
    >>>>>>> reliant on IT.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> For the former, it makes little sense to open source what they
    >>>>>>> develop.
    >>>>>>> For
    >>>>>>> the latter, it makes a lot of sense to open source what they develop
    >>>>>>> as
    >>>>>>> it allows them to reduce the cost of that development. One reason to
    >>>>>>> not open source what they develop is to retain any competitive edge
    >>>>>>> that software provides.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> So, do you develop software to make a profit, or do you develop
    >>>>>>> software to
    >>>>>>> save on costs? The answer to that question may determine whether
    >>>>>>> open
    >>>>>>> source is right for you.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> So you're saying there's no future in developing a for-profit
    >>>>>> business
    >>>>>> based on open-source software development -- Right?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No, I'm not saying that at all.
    >>>>
    >>>> So when you say that "it makes little sense" for developers who want to
    >>>> make a profit to to open source their work, what do you mean exactly?
    >>>
    >>> I mean that if a company gets their primary revenue stream from selling
    >>> software, it makes little sense to give that software aware for nothing.
    >>>
    >>>>>> But as a for-profit
    >>>>>> developer yourself, you'd like to continue to be able to copy code
    >>>>>> from open-source
    >>>>>> developers at will and make money off their labor without having to
    >>>>>> compensate them -- Yes?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I don't copy any code from other open source developers in my
    >>>>> commercial developments.
    >>>>
    >>>> Ok. But you do use open-source development tools, isn't that right? Do
    >>>> you
    >>>> pay for those tools?
    >>>
    >>> I primarily use proprietary development tools, but I do use an open
    >>> source operating system. (And be aware that you have accused me of
    >>> claiming to use
    >>> only open source development tools before, but you couldn't prove me
    >>> ever
    >>> saying that. As I said, the development tools I use most of the time are
    >>> proprietary).

    >>
    >> I'm aware that you claim to use open source tools when its suits your
    >> purposes. Be aware that I'm beginning to distrrust anything you say.

    >
    > I do use open source tools, but primarily for software development I use
    > proprietary tools. When doing web based development I use primarily Quanta
    > and Gimp, both open source. When doing C++ and other development I use
    > proprietary tools. I have always been upfront about that, for some reason
    > people have made assumptions about what kind of software I use.
    >


    Maybe because you've so frequently portaryed yourself as a champion of
    open-source development. Seems that was all just a pretense on your part.

    > You when you say "But as a for-profit developer yourself, you'd like to
    > continue to be able to copy code from open-source developers at will and
    > make money off their labor without having to compensate them -- Yes?"
    >
    > The answer is: I don't copy code from open source developers.
    > --


    You seem to be choosing your words very carefully. I smell a rat.

    Are you claiming now that you've never found any open-source code useful
    enough to build into your commercial applications? That would be quite a
    condemnation of the "open source community" you claim to support. Are you
    sure you don't want to reconsider?
     
    impossible, Nov 24, 2009
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bev Bouffont

    Shakey Screen in Mozilla

    Bev Bouffont, Apr 11, 2004, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,107
    .BRIAN.
    Apr 14, 2004
  2. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    999
    gunner
    Feb 11, 2007
  3. JakeD
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    935
    News Reader
    Sep 19, 2007
  4. Waylon Kenning
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    538
    Dave - Dave.net.nz
    Nov 24, 2004
  5. Dave Doe

    Best, free'ist - open source licence model?

    Dave Doe, Nov 17, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    664
    Dave Doe
    Nov 21, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page