We are all open source/proprietary now

Reading through a Jane's Strategic Advisory Services report entitled "Open Source Software in Defense Markets" (PDF), I was struck by this passage:

A key trend in the current software and IT environment is the convergence of open source and commercial software approaches. While significant differences do and will continue to exist, both open source and commercial providers are increasingly taking hybrid approaches to providing software and software support.

Some open source providers, such as Red Hat for example, have sought to monetize open source in ways that are not always compatible with long-held open source movement principles and have also created support teams that are in many ways not dissimilar to the commercial software model.

Commercial providers have taken various approaches to "opening up" their software and are either adopting open source solutions or increasingly allowing users to examine and monitor code and provide feedback about this code to support teams directly through established forums.

In other words, we are all hybrid vendors now.

Granted, Microsoft sponsored the research, and may have had an ax to grind in informing some of the research, though Jane's is a reputable defense-focused consulting firm and wouldn't stray far from its findings to appease Microsoft. Regardless, what Jane's writes is true, or largely true: open source and proprietary software are converging.

Open source needs some hook - however mild - to encourage prospects to pay, thereby earning a reasonable return and justifying further open-source development. Proprietary companies, for their parts, are looking to open source as a new distribution channel for their products, plus want to tap into the development benefits open source can afford.

Back in 2003 I thought I was clever when interviewing at Red Hat because my resume declared that I had helped to devise a "mixed-source model" for a former employer. The person interviewing me looked at me blankly and said, "Mixed source? Why?" It was a classic moment, but I failed with what should have been a classic response: "Because, like Red Hat, I think the right business model balances customer freedom with the ability to generate solid returns for shareholders."

Red Hat rightly gets credit for its open-source ethos, but as former Red Hat executive Marc Fleury has long suggested, Red Hat essentially offers a proprietary binary distribution of Linux in Red Hat Enterprise Linux. This doesn't make it evil. It makes it smart. Customers can get around paying for RHEL, if they wish, but when presented with the value and comparative freedom of RHEL, most choose to pay.

We are leaving the land of open source versus proprietary religious dogma. Open source is a better distribution and development model than traditional proprietary software, or can be. But there are benefits to proprietary software, too. Used in conjunction with the customer's best interests in mind but not forgetting the vendor's interest, a hybrid model makes a lot of sense.

[Sortova]

I don't have any real problems with the hybrid, or open core, model. In the end customers need to choose the solution that's best for them, open or not. I just disagree with calling it "open source" as in "free and open source software".

If course Microsoft would like to blur that line. By constantly repeating that the hybrid model *is* open source people will start to believe it. They will sigh and come to accept that to get useful software they have to pay for proprietary extensions.

This is not true.

People don't pay for RHEL *software*. They can get it for free from CentOS. They pay for the services that Red Hat provides, and in a large part for accountability. This is radically different from a model where software functionality is segmented into open and closed parts. If you have a software company that is looking after shareholders interests, you can be sure that their most profitable features will never be available under an open source license. It doesn't make any sense for a software company.

However a services company can align the interests of its shareholders with the interests of the community much more closely, and thus they can benefit each other. It's okay to monetize open source ... as long as the source remains open.

[jrepenning]

"Open core model." I like that! Heard a lot of fumbling for a name for that, but this is the first time I've seen this one. Thanks!

[fedoraguy]

There is one distinction that needs to be made here. Executable binaries and sources are not the same thing. Red Hat makes all of their source for RHEL publically available to modify and redistribute which is how distributions such as CentOS and Scientific Linux exist.

It is not just Red hat, but many other open source commercial products (like cedega) do the same. If the end user wants to, they can compile the source and get an executable binary and even redistribute it.

The heart of open source is the sharing of the actual knowledge and collaboration. To that end, Red Hat gives much to the open source community through Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

[hlainchb]

You are applying the label "open source" to things that are not software. I agree, that Microsoft and other old school firms would love to blur that line so they can do the "me too" thing but thankfully, that's not fooling anyone so far.

There's no blurring of the line between commercial support of open source software and commercial support of proprietary software... there is just commercial support being applied in both places. I can get commercial support for my furnace too, but that doesnt' mean it's starting to blur with proprietary software.

And some proprietary software has had free support forever, but that doesn't make it "open source".

While their statement "the convergence of open source and commercial software approaches" may be true, the statement "open source and proprietary software are converging" is not.

Open source software and proprietary software are two different things (that may share approaches).