Comments on: We are all open source/proprietary now

Open source is a better software model in many ways, but it can also learn from proprietary software.

[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).