Re: [tlug] Confessions of a closet OpenBSD user

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

>>>>> "James" == James Cluff <jc@example.com> writes:

    James> I think we should not only help finance developers, but
    James> have an organization to actively promote the use of open
    James> source tools to organizations who could provide funding.

We do.  Two, in fact.  The earlier is called the Free Software
Foundation (www.fsf.org, which is just a CNAME to www.gnu.org).  The
later is the Open Source Initiative (www.opensource.org).

We used to have organizations that tried to channel funds to open
source, called sourceXchange and cosource.com.  Bankrupt.

    James> our company for example has an installation base of about
    James> 40 to 1 Access to Mysql ratio simply because of good
    James> marketing by Microsoft.

It's _not_ "just" good marketing.  There are support and (real)
compatibility issues, as well as anti-competitive practices and (FUD)
compatibility issues.

    James> I believe most of the people who really know and understand
    James> open source tools are not sales and marketing type people.
    James> In fact they don't really care about marketing at all, just
    James> doing what they like doing unbothered by for example a
    James> customer.

Exactly.  The problem with the free[sic] software movement is that
there is _nothing in it for business_.  It's simply a matter of tying
one revenue stream behind your back, for notional good will in the
community as the only return.  Free software, and OSS as strictly
defined, is purely for the benefit of programmers.[1]

What we are seeing, in fact, is companies like IBM, Sun, and Apple
recognizing the benefits to "source available"[2] distribution.  IBM
supports Linux and Apache (true open source/free software) heavily,
because that's the most efficient way to create a platform for their
closed-as-Fort-Knox proprietary offerings.  Sun has its "Community"
license, Apple its APSL (both faux free software licenses---APSL snuck
through the OSI, but I think they broke their own rules).  See the
GNU and OSI sites for discussion and text of some prominent licenses.

"The Free Software Community's" (including half the participants in
the Free Software Business list -- http://www.crynwr.com) response is
to deplore the fact that this is non-free software, or that some
companies are concentrating on proprietary software rather than making
everything free.  (Has Slashdot shown any signs of evolving
intelligence yet?  I haven't visited in a couple of years.... :^)

The Open Source Initiative is a far more likely candidate for sensible
action.  Eric Raymond (representative of a significant faction of OSI
thought) has focused on two important aspects of software development.

The first is that most software development is (a) for internal use
and (b) easily replicated and not a competitive advantage.  This means
that there is every reason to release it as APSL, say, which requires
that any firm that deploys a modified version publish their
modifications.  You lose little (you remove a small obstacle for
rivals), you can gain much (if there are significant improvements.

The second is that open source potentially is much better software
than internally developed software, for three reasons.  First, the "many
eyes" can help improve the software.  Second, OSS design tends to be
more modular.  Third, the _users_ can bear the cost of delivery.  If
you want you software to be closed, you have to deliver the software
and ancillary services.  But with open source, you merely publish a
patch and let the users rebuild for their own platform.

I think that these are the aspects that bring IBM and Apple to the
Linux and Apache communities (IBM) and FreeBSD community (Apple)
respectively.  Apple, as usual, is doing its best to blow a hole in
its foot by keeping some of the more important parts proprietary and
closed ... we'll see how that goes.  Sun is simply trying to make its
Java language the industry standard.

    James> I think that is why Redhat has become a household name in
    James> just the last few years.

I think that's just stockmarket hysteria.  ;-)


Footnotes: 
[1]  N.B.  A lot of people think they disagree with me.  But my point
is not that "source availability is not good for business."  I firmly
believe that it is.

My point is that business is about making a profit, not about adhering
to any extreme principle.  I believe that almost all businesses would
be better off with more source availability, not less.  But all the
evidence shows that you can't get rich by developing and selling new
apps as free software.  You either are doing the software as a loss
leader for some other business plan, or you hold back a little on the
freedom in the right places.  (N.B.  There are exceptions, but they
are few and instructive.)

[2]  Damn those OSI bastards for trademarking the obvious phrase.

-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
 My nostalgia for Icon makes me forget about any of the bad things.  I don't
have much nostalgia for Perl, so its faults I remember.  Scott Gilbert c.l.py