OStatic

In the world of open source, there's a narrative that has predominated since the time that the term open source was coined - that being the need for the underlying platform to be open source. We can tolerate proprietary software on an open platform, such as Linux, much more than we tolerate free software on a closed platform, like Windows.

For all of open source's self-professed pragmatism, there is a noticeable gap between how Linux users are supported and how Windows users are supported. If we are truly as pragmatic as we like to think, perhaps the time has come to close that gap.

It seems that we can never quite get away from our industry's version of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Namely, how open source are you? Or, as it is usually expressed: I'm more open source than you. I'm 'the real' open source, whereas you're just badgeware/runtware/freeware/fauxpen source. Sun's Simon Phipps has re-opened this debate by proposing a software freedom scorecard that the OSI can use to gauge the openness of open source participants.

If you read my previous blog entry about open core, you may notice a slight contradiction there. That's because I'm conflicted on this issue. On one hand,I was the guy who pointed out that the major impetus towards open source was economic, and that the trends which made an open source ecosystem possible would only intensify - the pragmatic case, you might say. On the other hand, I also recognize that taking these trends and turning it into a regulated market - which is essentially what the OSI has done - does not happen by accident. It happens because a few stakeholders with a vision of how they wanted the industry to behave formulated a plan and executed it. Their primary question was how can we make free software palatable to mainstream IT? That question is not merely an expression of pragmatic concern. There's an idealist quality to it, too, because many of us wanted a more transparent IT ecosystem that didn't actively screw over customers, with far-reaching ramifications that transcended the immediate benefits.?

For the most part, I agree with Simon's proposal, with some reservations, and I'll explain why.

Many of the responses to my previous blog post Open Core or Open Snore? were in agreement, and some were not. As is often the case, the more interesting ones expressed disagreement. Some took issue with my post by pointing out open core companies that might be termed success stories: SugarCRM, Alfresco, Mindtouch. But then, I never wrote that open core cannot be successful, but rather that any success will be limited by nature of the model. Open core effectively places a cap on community development turning open source efforts into a viral marketing play, when it can be so much more.

One critique that did resonate was how much open source dev models actually impacted the bottom line. A company's success is impacted by a myriad of factors, including open source strategy and tactics.Seeing as how some companies will succeed with practically no open source development at all, it's only natural to concede that an open core approach will succed in some markets. However, if I were creating an open source community strategy in a crowded, competitive market, I sure wouldn't want to place an artificial handicap on my community development practices. I'll use 2 case studies to illustrate my point: Red Hat / Fedora and CollabNet / Subversion

Greetings, OStatic community! I'm pleased as punch to have the privilege of blogging here. So, by way of introducing myself, here's a bit about me and the sorts of things you'll read in my blog posts.?