Business and open source: Oil and water?

I found this Bruce Byfield article deeply intriguing...and sad at the same time. Intriguing because I think Byfield uncovers a nerve in the open-source business community, and sad for the very same reason.

While I believe Byfield is wrong to suppose that money trumps ideals in all cases--many of us actually set up our licensing to curb our worst intentions while still allowing us to serve financial interests--he is absolutely right that the tension between code freedom and cash freedom will sometimes, and perhaps often, favor the latter. Here is an excerpt that makes reference to FOSS, or free and open-source software:

...(T)he fact that business is friendly to FOSS does not mean that it has adopted its values. The free software camp's concern with philosophical and political freedom has almost certainly not been adopted by most FOSS-friendly companies, while the open source camp's emphasis on increased software quality is probably shared by middle-management at best. Business--gasp!--is interested in FOSS to improve the bottom line, and often no other reason.

...(S)ooner or later, an open-source business is going to act more like a business and less like a citizen of the FOSS community (although the wise ones will try to stay on good terms with the community in a sort of specialized marketing effort). Often, the laws that restrict the behavior of companies, especially ones that are publicly traded, leave no choice.

Perhaps. But I think Byfield's larger point--that open source is a business decision, but one among many--is more telling and need not lead to the self-contradiction that he points to in the quote above. Used wisely, open source is a way to free up customers from proprietary lock-in, which is a key selling point.

This doesn't mean, however, that every line of code and every service need be freed up: consider Red Hat's (formerly) proprietary Red Hat Network code, which for years provided the compelling value for many companies to move to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Or MySQL's more recent attempts to segment free versus paid value in its offerings, which attempt to walk the line between community and commercial (and do so quite well, in my opinion).

Commercial open source is starting to find its feet. There isn't a grand contradiction between giving code away (seeding the market) and suggesting a purchase (reaping the market). In fact, the two go together perfectly. As we realize this, open source will become even more dominant. Open source and business can be bosom buddies, not enemies.

[bruce.byfield]

Hi, Matt:

One thing I should perhaps clarify. When I suggest that open source clashes with finances, I'm not talking about individuals. In fact, in the article I say that when you do find a company putting open source first, it's usually because of individuals. But companies are by definition designed to generate profits, so no one should be surprised when that basic purpose clashes with any sort of ideals.

[odubtaig]

I think, though, that Matt's point is that it doesn't always clash. It's painfully true that there are areas where it just can't work, if anyone ever makes money from open source computer games (other than MMORPGs) I'll be more than a little impressed, but there are many areas where open sourcing your product is not contrary to your business interest but very much in line with them.

[alegr]

"The free software camp's concern with philosophical and political freedom has almost certainly not been adopted by most FOSS-friendly companies".

Would be nice if FOSS-friendly countries, such as China, Venezuela, Russia also adopted that "concern with philosophical and political freedom". Now they're just hitching a free ride.

[PACSferret]

@alegr Youve just illustrated a large part of Byfield's point - this isn't about politics, human rights or anything else other than as it applies to software. Its the "we'll get in the back door and change the system from within" position that many free software people apparently take that makes many others wary of the whole open source environment.

But: "(S)ooner or later, an open-source business is going to act more like a business and less like a citizen of the FOSS community". I believe the whole point is that the business value is enhanced by being a citizen the te FOSS community. off course there is often a difficult balance, and some businesses with fail to control that balance but the value proposition of OSS remains, and as long as most (or even some) businesses keep their balance, everybody benefits. That's the beauty of the OSS licensing schemes.

BTW Bruce talks in terms of GNU/Linux. If V2 is deprecated should it not be just Linux now?

BTW talking of licensing, Bruce discusses in term

[ShaunRConnolly]

I recently posted "Genie In The Bottle":
http://connollyshaun.blogspot.com/2008/08/genie-in-bottle.html

In it I state that "While open source technology and support can provide the basis for a core platform and business, it is the commercial, differentiated offerings built on top of and around that core that drives the enduring market opportunity for customers, vendors, partners, etc." . This, of course, is the crux of commercial open source.

It's important to realize that "seeding the market" and "reaping the market" requires a delicate balance and strong understanding of what you're trying to accomplish, lest you release the magical genie altogether.