The Open Road

Ars Technica's Ryan Paul wants to know, "Can a [truly open smartphone] be done?" But the real question is, "Should we care?"

I ask because some within the open-source ranks can't see the forest (choice) for the trees (freedom). For them, Freedom (with a capital "F") has but one meaning (free and open-source licensing), and is the end itself, not the means to an end (user choice).

Hence, Bradley Kuhn of the Software Freedom Law Center expresses anxiety about the future of freedom in mobile...

We are in a very precarious time with regard to the freedom of mobile devices. We currently have no truly Free Software operating system that does the job.

...when he really should be concerned with choice in mobile. Right now, we're spoiled for choice in mobile, what with Apple's iPhone, Google Android, Symbian, LiMo, Moblin, etc., which suggests that users are free to move between devices.

In this case, it's not the license that makes users free. It's the market.

Open-source software plays an important role in ensuring user choice, but it's not the sum total of the freedom/choice equation. It's just one factor. As Tim O'Reilly reminds us, it's not even necessarily the most important factor, either.

Kuhn and other free-software advocates worry that the nuts and bolts making up the software on mobile phones be free, but this is surprising given the increasing irrelevance of single-node freedom when it's tied into a network. This is what I've described as "the Hotel California of tech," and it suggests we should be far more concerned with freedom between nodes than freedom of the nodes themselves.

In other words, the real concern should be over open data, not open phones. No matter how open my phone's software may be, it's meaningless if I can't move my data between devices or wireless providers.

Even here, there's cause for hope. For example, Funambol's open-source mobile cloud synchronization and push e-mail software is in use by 10 of the leading mobile service providers, as identified in a new report, which arguably should be more relevant to the Freedom fighters than whether Bluetooth is open source.

Glyn Moody, a journalist with strong free-software leanings, understands this. That's why he makes the case for an open cloud, and not simply "open node in the cloud":

Ideally, what we need is a completely open source cloud computing infrastructure on which applications providing people with things like (doubly) free email and word processing services could be offered....The trick here is not to fight the battle on the opponents' terms, but to come up with something completely different.

For example, how about creating an open source, *distributed* cloud? By downloading and running some free code on your computer, you could contribute processing power and disc space that collectively creates a global, distributed cloud computing system. You would benefit by being able to use services that run on it, and at the same time you would help to sustain the entire open source cloud ecosystem in a scalable fashion.

One can quibble with the feasibility of this approach, but at least Moody is thinking at the right scale. Those who are still stuck in the Open Source 1.0 of isolated, client-side software are not.

I suppose someone has to fixate on upper-case Freedom above all other priorities. Like usability. Or ubiquity. Or...well, anything.

But most of us don't think this way, because the world is a lot more complicated than Freedom on one hand, and Slavery on the other. Also, the focus of freedom has evolved in our networked world, though some free-software advocates seem mired in Freedom 1.0.

It's time to upgrade. Freedom is more than a license. It derives from a competitive market, one that is assisted by open source but not exclusively or even primarily defined by it.

In the cloud, no one cares about your software license. That is one of the most liberating--and frustrating--things about cloud computing.

Depending on your perspective, it either opens up computing or closes it off. Customers don't seem to care one way or another, happily shoveling data into cloud services like Google, Facebook, and others without (yet) wondering what will happen when they want to leave.

Cloud computing may just be the Hotel California of technology.

I say this because even for companies, like Google, that articulate open-data policies, the cloud is still largely a one-way road into Web services, with closed data networks making it difficult to impossible to move data into competing services. Ever tried getting your Facebook data into, say, MySpace? Good luck with that. Social networks aren't very social with one other, as recently noted on the Autonomo.us mailing list.

For the freedom-inclined among us, this is cause for concern. For the capitalists, it's just like Software 1.0 all over again, with fat profits waiting to be had.

The great irony, of course, is that it's all built with open source.

In this cloud computing/Web 2.0 world, infrastructure needs to be cheap, flexible, and plentiful. Open source delivers all three.

Hence, we've seen companies like MySpace tripping all over themselves to open up parts of their platforms in order to make themselves more appealing to developers. As ReadWriteWeb wrote of Facebook back in 2007, however, such developer outreach has not opened up these Web platforms in the sense of providing useful off-ramps to services like Twitter, Digg, Facebook, etc. It has simply created more on-ramps.

Cue the nefarious Microsoft theme song.

Rather than wringing our hands over this, I think there's an opportunity to create amazing amounts of good (and wealth) in this open/closed Web. Frankly, the longer we're in this, the less it's going to matter whether the code is open or closed because, as Tim O'Reilly has been saying for years, data is the heart of the Web, and even open data isn't going to hurt a successful vendor's network effects.

Take Google Trader, an interesting new SMS application that helps people buy and sell goods through text messaging. As The Economist notes, however, one of Google Trader's most interesting applications is in helping to foster free markets in emerging economies:

Lastly there is Google Trader, a text-based system that matches buyers and sellers of agricultural produce and commodities. Sellers send a message to say where they are and what they have to offer, which will be available to potential buyers within 30km for seven days. Mr Makawa says his father used the service to look for a buyer for some pigs, which he sold to pay school fees. These services cost 110 shillings ($0.05) a time, the same as a standard text message, except for Google Trader, which costs double that. In their first five weeks the services received a total of more than 1m queries.

I'm not familiar with the economics of SMS, but I'm guessing that Google gets a cut of the messages its application generates. The more useful Google Trader becomes, the more SMS it generates, the more commissions Google collects.

For the entrepreneurs using Google's service, they could possibly care less whether Google Trader is open source, but Google might. Open the source (and the API to the service), and let a thousand add-on development projects bloom. The more useful and feature-rich the Trader application, the more SMS, the more...you get the picture.

The key is to create an open Web platform, one into which a diverse array of mobile software services can tie. This is one reason Google is such an advocate for open source. Android and other projects bring more people to the Web, a Web that Google monetizes through proprietary services like AdWords.

The community is critical to building upon the platform, but the money is in control of the platform and provisioning of services therefrom.

Just ask Amazon.com. According to ZDNet, Amazon's Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) service makes roughly $220 million per year. That's a lot of cash, and is a function of EC2 sitting at the heart of a growing developer community, one that builds upon Amazon's open APIs to the service.

Some companies like Cloudera and Red Hat will make piles of cash providing the infrastructure for this cloud-computing gold rush. But the biggest money of all will be those that can build platforms in the cloud, platforms that depend upon open source but which aren't open in the traditional open-source license sense of the word.

That traditional licensing world is dead. Open-source licensing has become an on-ramp to closed data services, hardly what its creators envisaged. In fact, proprietary cloud vendors are almost certainly going to become the biggest cheerleaders for open source, because it means more developers creating more on-ramps to the cloud.

Even if such providers create effective exits, it's unlikely that consumers and businesses will actively use them...

...just like in the Software 1.0 world.

Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.

I read with interest that open-source messaging vendor Open-Xchange is building a "meta-address book" service that brings together your contacts from various social networking sites into "one continuous stream of updating contacts." While promising, I don't think it goes far enough.

It's nice to have a centralized address book. It's even better to analyze the connections between contacts and deliver services based on that data, as I recently argued.

One area in which this information would be hugely valuable is in connecting enterprises through their respective employees. Think about it: most companies spend far more money on sales and marketing than they do on product development. Why? Because customers pay the bills, obviously, and customers are hard to come by.

7-Degrees has an interesting solution called PeopleMaps that that crawls the Web for employment data on the contacts you have in Salesforce.com, and then presents an optimal (visual) contact chain to help enterprises figure out how they're connected to prospective partners or customers.

This is a useful way to map and monetize the "social graphs" of one's employees, but this, too, falls short of the full potential of a true "Web 2.0 address book," to use Tim O'Reilly's idea.

Open-Xchange is usefully connecting contacts into a meta address book, but I long for the day that someone connects those contacts through a meta address book, one that not only knows how well I know a contact, but also what sorts of things we like to do together and makes suggestions based on past history ("You and XXXX are in Boston at the same time - would you like me to arrange a lunch at Henrietta's Table again through OpenTable?).

This is when the address book becomes interesting, and when it becomes hugely monetizable by the enterprise.

For now, however, the enterprise largely treats its employees as drones with no lives (and, hence, no contacts) outside its payroll system. But if enterprises will look for ways to employees to improve their job performance by opening up their address books...we'll have discovered the next big thing in sales and marketing.

And someone will have created a billion-dollar business for themselves. Why not you?

Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.

Over the weekend news broke that IBM Research has been working with personal mobile phone records to map social networks. Some may complain that Big Brother is watching, but the real question is why some company hasn't formed already to blend mobile data with IM and e-mail traffic to map and profit from the social graph.

Think about it. My in-box already knows where I'm traveling, what I buy, etc. because my receipts go there. If someone were to merge this data with my phone records (easily had for the price of my AT&T login credentials), my e-mail log, and my Twitter, IM, and social network data, they'd know exactly who I know and where I'm likely to bump into them.

I'd gladly give up this data to facilitate those interactions.

Privacy wonks will bewail this apparent lack of concern for the sanctity of my data. But they'd be wrong.

It's not that I deprecate the value of my security. It's just that I value more the possibilities that arise when I share this data with a network of friends--sharing really only makes sense through a company or community that networks my address book with those of others I like and trust.

I can't fathom why someone hasn't done this yet. Tim O'Reilly has been talking about this Address Book 2.0 concept for years, and I've written on it several times, too. (See here and here.)

All the necessary data is sitting in my in-box or through easily accessed online or desktop applications. Someone simply needs to combine and process it.

Maybe that "someone," as Tim O'Reilly has suggested, could be the open-source community. We wouldn't want a community to shepherd the data, but to build the data connectors to a centralized service? Sure.

It needs to happen. I'd love to automatically be told that my good friend Mike is in London at the same time as I am, and have a service suggest a reservation at a favorite restaurant (which it would know through my past OpenTable reservations). I'd "pay" for that by giving up a lot of data.

I'm guessing you would, too. So who's going to build it?

Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.

The business intelligence community has made much of its ability to transform the way enterprises operate, and even the way the world works. Open source takes this to the next level, as OStatic recently described. And yet, as exciting as open-source business intelligence is, it's not what gets me out of bed every morning before sunrise. What drove me out of bed to climb 2,474 feet on my mountain bike this morning is the personal intelligence movement or, more accurately, the personal data movement.

Tim O'Reilly talks eloquently about "data as the Intel Inside" of companies like Google, and he's right. But the data-driven businesses that are changing my life are applications on my iPhone that remind me to exercise, to avoid that second helping of chocolate mousse, and that help me manage my personal finances.

It used to be that the more ambitious among us managed our time and goals with a Franklin day planner. "Goal: Lose 20 pounds. Run five miles each day. Etc."

Today, with our iPhone strapped to our arm or thrown into our Camelback, we're still managing our goals but the data feedback is unforgiving, instantaneous, and deeply motivating. Lose It!, for example, is a phenomenal weight-loss tool. I've mostly been using it to maintain my preferred weight, but I've watched my good friend Bryce Roberts melt away 30-plus pounds while getting into the best biking shape he's ever been in.

Not that Runkeeper hasn't helped. Both Bryce and I use it to track our mountain bike rides. Using the iPhone's built-in GPS capabilities, Runkeeper tracks my rides, calling out to me each mile what my pace has been, motivating me to ride harder. As if that weren't motivation enough, I have Runkeeper set to automatically post my times and workouts to Twitter: I often refuse to rest simply because I know my Twitter friends are going to pillory me if they see a weak pace.

This ability to minutely track my exercise and diet regime so easily has literally changed my life, so much so that I've been exploring other areas that could be improved through data feedback and analysis.

One that I discovered over the weekend is Ego, which tracks Google Analytics statistics, Twitter follower counts, and more. I had already been tracking my statistics for this CNET blog on an hourly basis, for example, to see which posts were resonating and where, but Ego now gives me the ability to take that obsession on the road with me.

Given the recession, never before has it been more important that my wife and I manage to a budget. I've been a Wesabe user for a year or two now, and am just now starting to experiment with Wesabe on the iPhone. My wife, however, uses Mint, a similar service, which also is available on the iPhone.

I'm sure that such tools can be used to excess, but my experience thus far has been that they greatly improve the control I have over my life. These iPhone applications have helped me to track my progress against personal goals and, in so doing, have facilitated that progress.

Even as the Googles of the world get rich on the aggregation of our personal data, other companies like the makers of Runkeeper enriching our lives by making data personally useful and actionable. To make this happen, we simply needed mobile devices to be as powerful as they were ever-present with us.

Now that this has happened, there is no end to the possibilities our personal data affords us, especially as application providers find ways to allow us to mingle our data with others to drive enhanced value for both parties.

Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.

Of the formative figures in open source, Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, and Eric Raymond loom large. Arguably, however, few have had as much of a disruptive force as Tim O'Reilly, who has helped to create the open-source market and has spent the last six years reshaping it with his seminal "Open Source Paradigm Shift" and other articles.

In an engaging and informative recent TWiT podcast, O'Reilly revisits the theme. It doesn't break new ground (for O'Reilly), but does highlight, and render somewhat meaningless, the fissures currently running through the open-source community.

Host Randal Schwartz kicks off the podcast with a question about Twitter: Is Tim concerned that "Twitter is anything but open?"

I like to think I have a more nuanced view of open than a lot of people. Some purists will say that [I'm] a traitor....From the very beginning of my advocacy about open source, I've really just been interested in having interesting things happen in the world.

The reason I like open source and worked on this idea of renaming it from "free software" to "open source" was because I don't think it's a religious issue. It's really about how do we actually encourage and spark innovation. Because for me a more interesting world is one where there's more innovation and more freedom to innovate....

The idea is that people can build on it. You give it away because you want other people to do things with it that you can't do or don't want to do.

Open source, in other words, is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end, and that end is collaborative innovation.

While reputation is the first goal of many open-source developers, it's really a means, with the end for many being money ("There's huge currency in reputation. And that's how most open-source developers have 'monetized' giving away things for free.") But it's not really the ultimate end for, as O'Reilly rightly points out, "Money is a signifier of a more fundamental exchange."

Today, O'Reilly suggests, the real value in open source has little to do with source code; instead, it's the result of that code. Value has moved to data, with "network-effect driven databases - user-generated databases - [serving as] the heart of Web 2.0."

And yet, as O'Reilly points out, the open-source world continues to fixate on the wrong battles:

The whole context of free and open-source software is not about Linux taking over the world and replacing Windows. That might even happen, just as the PC replaced the mainframe. And it probably will happen. But it doesn't change the dynamic....

The heart of how we need to understand free and open-source software is in the context of Web 2.0. We can have as much open-source software as we want but we've now created this new layer where these databases that grow through user contributions are the real source of lock-in.

Eventually, these guys probably will make their software open source because it won't matter. The value lies in having the data. The real question is, will there be a future open-source movement that's really an open-data movement.

The market, in short, is no longer for software, open source or proprietary. Tomorrow's market is all about data. It's therefore not surprising that O'Reilly isn't too bothered by people who consume open source without contributing back. That's a short-term phenomenon:

Free riding doesn't bother me because we do get value from it.

That's not to say that there aren't real issues with the power that is accruing to Google, Facebook, et al., but open source is science, not religion. It's pragmatic. If you close things off, eventually you lose. This is why one of my slogans is 'Create more value than you capture.' As long as people are doing that, I don't care whether they're trying to capture some value.

It's a good point, and a great reminder that many persist in fixating on all the wrong issues in open source. The licensing wars should be a thing of the past. The question is how to drive participation while building businesses that improve as participation increases. Sometimes this will result from open-source licensing, but sometimes it won't.

So long as we focus on the correct end, rather than treating open source as an end in itself, we should be OK.

Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.

When Louis XV sneered disdain for the fate of France after his reign ("Apres moi, le deluge"), he uttered a sentiment that finds absolutely no purchase within the open-source community. Whatever its problems, the open-source world cares passionately about its principles, processes, and prospects. Insouciance is in short supply within the open-source community.

For this reason, we're at a critical moment in the history of open source, the moment when we can firmly declare, "Open source has won."

No, it has not "won" in the sense that all software is released under an open-source license, and it has not "won" in the sense that its most vocal critics (e.g., Microsoft) have fallen in line and declared its supremacy.

But open source has won in the sense that it has gone from being the pariah of software to the foundation or a critical element of virtually all software deployed today.

Along the way, open source has picked up some habits (bad or good, depending on your perspective) from its proprietary peers, as Savio Rodrigues notes, and it has in turn influenced the way most software is developed.

In fact, open source has become so successful that it is rapidly assimilating into the wider software world, becoming both more important and less distinct, as The Economist recently noted:

Indeed, open source is so widely accepted that traditional software firms are beginning to dabble in it, while some open-source firms are starting to sell proprietary add-ons to open-source programs instead of charging to provide support to firms using open-source software. If current trends hold, traditional software firms and their open-source rivals will soon be hard to tell apart.

This prompts The 451 Group's Matt Aslett to ask, "Now that open source is an industry-wide accepted development and licensing strategy, where does open source go from here?"

It's a non-trivial question, especially for a community so intent on succeeding in the right way. But not to fear: Tim O'Reilly, as is so often the case, provided the answer years ago when he declared open-source licensing issues to be somewhat tired and largely beside the point.

Open source qua open source is a secondary issue. The larger issue is how to apply the principles of open source to other areas of technology and, indeed, beyond technology.

O'Reilly has laid the foundation for the next generation of open-source adoption and advocacy by articulating principles like his "architecture of participation," but it's now time for the open-source community to start looking beyond simple licensing matters to make the benefits of open source available to the widest swath of humanity.

In sum, we need to extrapolate from open-source software the principles that can drive a "deluge" of human benefit. This will only happen, however, if we stop fixating on the trees (licensing issues) to the exclusion of the forest. Licensing is a critical component of open source, but it's not The Principle that makes open source work.

Principles of community-building, transparency, sharing, etc. make open source work. Explaining and building upon these should be our focus.

Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.

Open source has proved to be phenomenally successful, and continues to grow. As open source grows beyond its roots in software infrastructure like operating systems and Web servers, however, it is finding that the types of community it attracts is increasingly corporate.

Even in the geeky application server layer, Marc Fleury notes that JBoss' "community meant users, partners, consultants," not the freedom-loving developers we often associate with open source. This is because our simplistic conception of community has likely always been wrong, as Michael Dehaan suggests.

Open source has long been more about users than developers for the simple fact that a far greater number of people know how to use software than develop it. Hence, though Richard Stallman and early proponents of open source have issued a clarion call for the developer's right to view and modify source code, the silent majority of the open-source community really only cares about the right to use and extend binary code.

So, you see Openbravo's Paolo Juvara suggesting to its open-source enterprise resource planning community that it might be advisable to extend the Openbravo system, rather than customize it. (Read: modify core source code.) Or you read Jake Goldman rightly arguing that open-source software can lead to closed platforms (e.g., if APIs are not well-documented), while proprietary platforms like Mac OS X or Salesforce.com can actually be much more open platforms, despite keeping source code closed.

In an ideal world, you'd have open source and open platforms, but not every open-source project lives up to that ideal. It's therefore not surprising that open source is growing in two different but aligned directions.

The first direction is commercial open source, which generally trades off the promise of 100 percent source-code access for a hybrid open/proprietary approach, as The 451 Group captures in a recent blog post. This is spawned by a need to frontload development with a paid community at a level of the software stack that doesn't attract a broad development community. (How many people do you know have the aptitude and interest to develop an open-source customer relationship management system? Exactly.)

The second direction is proprietary software that emulates the best of open source by keeping APIs, data, etc. open. This comprises Web 2.0 and other technologies that are open, but not necessarily in a way that would pass muster with the Open Source Initiative.

Both approaches involve openness. Both make trade-offs, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Jake Goldman, echoing Tim O'Reilly's suggestion that open-source licensing matters very little in the grand scheme of things, declares "it's all about platform openness and adoption, not base code openness." He's absolutely correct.

Open-source projects need to focus on more than their license. We need to improve documentation and access to APIs that make source code more usable or, even better, somewhat meaningless. Cloud computing already obviates much of the value of source-code access, a trend that I believe we'll continue to see as users demand the transparency of open source without having to muck in the code.

Such a trend is a useful "next-generation open source" because it focuses on users, not developers, with data, not code, the primary currency. So, while I'm glad to see the GIMP project discussing usability enhancements, I'd much rather see such projects finding ways to include average users in the process of development.

This has long been a weakness of OpenOffice.org, for example. I doubt most of OpenOffice.org developers do a lot of presentations, spreadsheets, and such. But the target user--someone like me--is mostly locked out of the development process by unfamiliarity with the project and no clear idea as to how to help.

Meanwhile, proprietary software like Lose It! and other social software does a far better job of including users in the "development" process by making development all about data, not source code.

In sum, proprietary software has much to learn from open source, and is increasingly applying open-source lessons of transparency and modifiability. But open source also has a lot to learn from the proprietary software world, which increasingly involves lay users in a way that open source has not.

Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.

I was listening to MGMT's "Kids" today on iTunes, and by the end of the song I found that I had shelled out roughly $6 for a few more songs by Arcade Fire, Sonic Youth, Band of Horses, and MGMT.

All of those songs are available for $0.00 on LimeWire, which I have installed on my computer, but which I haven't used in at least a year. I haven't needed to. Everything I want to buy is a click away and, better yet, as happened Monday, Apple keeps helping me find more things to buy with its brilliant Genius service.

It used to be that I'd download music without paying. I didn't want to steal the songs--I simply didn't want to have to go to a CD store to buy the songs that I knew I could be listening to right now. Making customers wait unnecessarily doesn't pay, as The Guardian recently pointed out.

Dave Kusek points to a number of reasons consumers happily pay for otherwise free products: authenticity and immediacy are two.

Software, music, movies, and other digital goods each require new business models, models that assume free transfer of bits and charge for other services that are not easily replicated.

For instance, in open-source software, Red Hat's business model depends upon certification of a closed, Red Hat Enterprise Linux binary, but doubly so on its Red Hat Network that delivers patches and other updates to the software.

Somewhat similarly, Google's depends upon value-added services (search, news, etc.) that aren't related to the underlying open-source software at all.

Free (as in liberty) software has become secondary, in other words, to the generally non-free (as in liberty) services that run on top of it. Tim O'Reilly was right: we truly are in the land of Open Sources 2.0 or, if you will, the post-open source world.

Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.