Open Source: The Once And Future Dream

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Feb 21, 2010.

  1. Thoughtful op-ed piece
    <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/20/open_source_decade/>. I may not
    agree with it all, but it’s still worth a read. Some points:

    Rivermuse co founder and open-source veteran Dave Rosenberg believes
    that while open-source companies can grow, it's more realistic to see
    them make no more than $100m in annual revenue and feels that the
    magical $1bn mark is a stretch goal. The reason? The nature of open
    source - the fact that code is already out there and you must persuade
    customers to pay you to support something that their own techies are
    comfortable with and capable of doing.

    "This is the blessing and curse of open source - it downsizes the market
    in many ways," Rosenberg said. "As you make this software available for
    free, they are sucking the life out of the market. A market that might
    have been worth $200m will becomes $100m, because customers and are
    getting more value from it."

    The companies may not be worth billions, but that doesn’t mean the market
    won’t be. Even if you’ve hired in-house staff to look after your open-source
    software usage, instead of contracting outside outfits like Red Hat, the
    salaries you’re paying those staff are still part of the open-source market.

    Every time, it seems, you talk about business in the US, there seems to be
    this obsession with large corporations. It appears the Fortune 500 accounts
    for something like 60% of US GDP, which is pretty massive. Yet when you look
    at the whole world, there are very few companies of that size based
    elsewhere, whereas the US accounts for less than 25% of world GDP. So that
    60% of US GDP shrinks to something like 15% of world GDP. That means that
    the lion’s share of world GDP comes from small companies, not big ones. So
    who cares if no open-source company makes it into the Fortune 500? It’s the
    size of the total market that counts.

    Of the licenses, GPLv2 is the most popular for open source, but
    arguably, it's not the most "business friendly" - meaning companies
    can't alter code or keep their changes or make money off of them.

    Which is a fallacy that comes up time and time again. Just look at the
    number of profit-making businesses contributing to, and benefiting from,
    GPL’d products like the Linux kernel, the SAMBA networking stack, and so on.
    Businesses will fail; the GPL prevents any one of them sucking the lifeblood
    out of the development ecosystem when they do, by ensuring that the work
    that they invested is not wasted.

    That’s why more than half of all open-source software uses the GPL; because
    of the strong network effects it continues to create.

    But end-user corporations outside the tech sector developed a reputation
    during the last decade for using open-source and not returning their
    changes to the community. In some cases, the terms and conditions of
    employee's contracts mean what ever work they do during their nine to
    five on the company clock belongs to the company and cannot - from a
    legal perspective - be simply donated to a community or given away. In
    other cases, employers would not release changes for fear of betraying
    competitive advantage.

    Hmmm. But then again, that’s what “freedom†means. You’re free to keep your
    work to youself, and not contribute it to others. Having espoused this as a
    core part of the open-source philosophy, should we complain? I don’t think
    so.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Feb 21, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In message <hlqnae$2qg$>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/20/open_source_decade/>
    >
    > Of the licenses, GPLv2 is the most popular for open source, but
    > arguably, it's not the most "business friendly" - meaning companies
    > can't alter code or keep their changes or make money off of them.
    >
    > Which is a fallacy that comes up time and time again. Just look at the
    > number of profit-making businesses contributing to, and benefiting from,
    > GPL’d products like the Linux kernel, the SAMBA networking stack, and so
    > on. Businesses will fail; the GPL prevents any one of them sucking the
    > lifeblood out of the development ecosystem when they do, by ensuring that
    > the work that they invested is not wasted.


    A point reinforced here
    <http://www.itpro.co.uk/620659/freebsd-and-the-gpl/2>:

    Adoption of FreeBSD was equally plausible on a technical level but,
    assuming that the BSDs were ever considered for a similar role the BSD
    licence made it easier to fork the code, which retracted the advantages
    of being "open source" - which were commonality, interoperability, and
    the shared benefits of collaboration with your competitors.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Feb 22, 2010
    #2
    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. Simon
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    386
    The Stern One
    Jan 22, 2006
  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Open-Source Good, Closed-Source Bad

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 16, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    485
    Gordon
    Oct 16, 2005
  3. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Why Your Future Depends on Open Source

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, May 14, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    543
    Waylon Kenning
    May 15, 2006
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Closed-Source vs Open-Source Drivers

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 4, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    525
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    May 5, 2009
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Open Source vs Closed Source Security

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Mar 3, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    997
    Gordon
    Mar 4, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page