I'm the father of ItsNat AJAX Java web framework, JNIEasy, LAMEOnJ, JEPLayer and JEPLDroid libraries (and very old stuff like XPDOM), supporter of the Single Page Interface (SPI) paradigm, writer of the SPI manifesto and currently Android native guy. Jose Maria has posted 28 posts at DZone. You can read more from them at their website. View Full User Profile

The Future Of Open Source

04.22.2009
| 14741 views |
  • submit to reddit

Sun purchasing by Oracle has worried many people about the future of Sun’s open source products, one of the most important stack of open source software in the world. This purchasing has promoted speculations about the future of open source software as a whole because Oracle, in spite of is an open source supporter too, for instance with ADF Faces, the core software owned by Oracle like Oracle DB and Bea products remain closed, including entry level products like Oracle Express.

Another source of concern about the future of open source is the failure of Sun in making money with an aggressive open source strategy. To add even more concerns, cloud computing trend is tightly aligned with the Software As Service business model, and this model usually is not open source friendly.

In a previous article, Rod Johnson, CEO of SpringSource, the company which holds the Spring based portfolio, claims that Oracle, in spite of Sun purchasing, is not going to rule the innovation of enterprise Java because most of this innovation have taken place outside Sun and driven by the open source community.

I don't know whether Oracle is going to keep on the recent good work of Sun in the open source space, may be the path will be a mixed strategy of "free" software as an entry to the non-free, non-open stuff of Oracle, because now Oracle has many options to do this: MySQL-OracleDB, GlassFish-WebLogic, Sun JVM-JRockit, NetBeans-JDeveloper etc.

In a comment to this article Jacob Jenkov makes public his concerns about the future of open source as a business, he claims two downsides of open source:

1) Doing business with open source is difficult and it shouldn’t because usually open source adds value and this added value is worth to pay something.

2) As most of the open source projects are not driven by profit, the barriers to publish anything are very low and compromise with the future cannot be enforced. This generates tons of options to do the same, hard to pick the tool which fits in your need and very much uncertainty in the (short) future.

First of all, nobody can say Jacob’s reflections are anti-open source, because as the author of Butterfly DI Container, he has supported the open source movement more than the average software developer. The same cannot be said to this article, because myself I am the author of an open source product with many hours and lines of code behind (ItsNat).

Is open source a viable business model?

SpringSource is in this path, Sun tried this path too, we cannot say Sun failed in making revenue from open source because there was not very much time to explore and exploit a new world of services based on MySQL, GlassFish and so on. May be without this terrible crisis Sun would be profitable soon again (StorageTek and MySQL recent acquisitions implied "obvious" losses)...

I think the future of open source as a business is dual licensing, a mix of a non-liberal license and a commercial license, dual licensing does not exclude other "peripheral" revenue models like consulting, training, support and book selling, but dual licensing is a return to the product as the focus, a return to a revenue model based on *affordable* licenses with all of the goodness of open source.

The objective of dual licensing is to align user revenues with commercial licensing. As an analogy dual licensing is similar to the model used by PayPal, PayPal is FREE for vendors, there is no maintenance fee, but when you make money PayPal receives a small fee, this model works, scales and benefits both sides.

The open source product should not be a simple excuse to other kind of business. There is no "ethic" problem (for me) for these "excuses", if they work... fine! The problem is they have problems to scale because "almost anyone" can acquire "for free" the expertise of an open source product including in-depth knowledge.

The solution should not be a return to closed source software, giving for free a cut down open source community version is actually a return to this model. Even worst, a Software As Service in the cloud is even more closed. 

IMHO the problem is not the number of options of one concrete technology, because many options (for instance in web development) are redundant, very similar approach. The problem is the number of “supported” options, or options with a compromise with the future... The open source world would benefit of dual licensing improving quality, support and ensuring a long term future if the product is successful.

An example, JACE, JACE was a very popular product to code “in Java” but in C++ to avoid JNI, JACE has been useful to many developers when Java was too poor and native code was necessary. These days almost no one needs this kind product, in fact the last version of JACE is dated in 2003 and based on JVM 1.3 and the web site is down… But what if I need this kind of software? There are two options, try to use JACE if you can in a modern JVM (generics may be a problem) or buy JunC++ion the alternative closed source product.

Why am I using this example? Because I have an alternative to JACE and JunC++ion, is used internally in JNIEasy (yes a closed source product) to check the license in C++ code using Java APIs. It is very similar to JACE and JunC++ion but it uses the C++ “new” keyword to create “Java” objects in C++ (the new keyword makes more comfortable writing “Java” in C++ for a Java programmer) and Java arrays in C++ are more powerful sacrificing C++ templates.

I could publish this internal tool as open source, but when I think about the time needed to bring some decent to the public (polish some things, add more features, javadocs, web, tutorials, new releases, maintenance and so on) for free… then I change my mind. Paradoxically sometimes the fully free open source way may hurt the innovation. This is one reason why dual licensing can benefit open source.

What do you think?

What is the future of Open Source?

Is open source a viable business model?

Is dual licensing a viable business model?

How is going to affect the cloud computing to the software products and business? 

 

Published at DZone with permission of its author, Jose Maria Arranz.

(Note: Opinions expressed in this article and its replies are the opinions of their respective authors and not those of DZone, Inc.)

Comments

Schalk Neethling replied on Wed, 2009/04/22 - 10:50am

What is the future of Open Source? - Open Source has grown up in many ways over the last year and as an evangelist and follower of the open source ecosystem I have never seen such excitement and interest in open source. The future of open source is definitely bright. Sun has tried but never really got the open source thing just right so the purchase from Oracle is not going to have that much of an effect on open source as it will on the enterprise sector in general. Is open source a viable business model? Yeah! Think MySQL, JBoss, SpringSource etc. Is dual licensing a viable business model? Definitely, more and more companies like Magento and MindTouch is rocking the dual licensing model and doing really well. In general, as long as Google does not sell out, something I do not see happening, and as long as their is a passionate community rallying around open source, it will keep growing. What do you other folks think? I am blabbing on here? Schalk - opensourcereleasefeed.com

Otengi Miloskov replied on Wed, 2009/04/22 - 11:29am

Open Source it is a flawed model. Nobody is really making money with it, It is just a beatiful and dream idea. The only company I know that still making so so money with it is RedHat but who knows when IBM or Cisco will aproach to buy them. SpringSource will need cash soon so expect another buyout, really.

Real life is crude and that is propetary and capitalist make money as the corporations like Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, Cisco, Google, Apple so on, That is Power!.

George Shen replied on Wed, 2009/04/22 - 1:50pm

I second OtengiM's opinion, Open Source is not making *enough* money to cover the business expenses, employee compensations, etc. Google, Sun, IBM or any other big name companies can contribute a lot to open source because they can generate enough profit from other departments, be it online ads, hardware sales or consulting.

Open souce is a beautiful dream and utopia that everybody should have all the good stuff for free, but it will never flourish in the long run. If Google doesn't generate enough hard cold CASH from their online ad department, I will imagine it being bought by some other companies or start charging on viewing viedos on youtube,  or getting diretions from google maps. Check this artile "Google Losing up to $1.65M a Day on YouTube"(http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=715&doc_id=175123&).

At the end of day, programmers are not saints or supermen, they still need paycheck for food, shelter, clothes, child education, vacations, the list goes on. And the primary purpose and the only way to survive of a company is to make money. We will see more open-source companies going belly-up in the near future when venture capital is no longer abound.

Guido Amabili replied on Wed, 2009/04/22 - 2:21pm

I have heard Sun was making money from it's software...

Anyway, do not forget, making money from closed source software is not easyer.

I work as a developer doing custom developments,  would I have a job without open source ?

Guido

Arek Stryjski replied on Wed, 2009/04/22 - 2:30pm

Who makes more money: open-source developers or the one in big corporations?
Probably they are just the same people, right?

Open-source still looks like god alternative. If you have time to invest and some good ideas it is still a god career strategy. Maybe you will end up as the head of some foundation, maybe as high paid consultant, maybe book author, or maybe just a senior developer in some big company. In any way you have big chances to win.
Even if your idea or implementation was not good and your project died, I still believe you have better chances to find good job in the market.

As long companies like Microsoft will produce single richest person on planet, not thousand of millionaires, as long open-source will make sense. Probably comparison with artist and phonographic industry is correct here.

Open-source software make a lot of sense. Free software not at all.

George Shen replied on Wed, 2009/04/22 - 2:38pm in response to: Guido Amabili

Oracle is buying Sun, not the other way around, that should say enough.

George Shen replied on Wed, 2009/04/22 - 2:59pm in response to: Arek Stryjski

What's the percentage of programmers who can make a living by being the head of some foundation, or best-selling book authors? I would say less than 1%. And consulting revenues along cannot simply cover the business expenses, otherwise, Sun will flourish instead of being bought by Oracle. Everybody says that you can make enough money by selling service, well, how many of you actually pay money to get Java service from Sun?

After Redhat is bought by someone else, we can officially declare the open software movement dead. Any business that doesn't generate enough revenue will die, econmy 101.

Hontvári Levente replied on Wed, 2009/04/22 - 3:28pm in response to: George Shen

Sun does make real money from software, you can look at their business statements. I haven't payed Sun because we weren't enough profitable. Otherwise I believe it would have been a good idea to buy support from Sun. On the other hand we helped making Java more popular to users. I think this is a normal situation, they couldn't get money from us anyway (at least not a significant amount of money), but a larger user base helped them to get more paying customers too.

George Shen replied on Wed, 2009/04/22 - 4:29pm in response to: Hontvári Levente

Yes, that's what everybody tells me why open source is the future since you can expose your product to more paying customers. But what if most of the users won't pay just like in Java's case? Is Java essential enough? Is Java good enough? Is Java powerful enough? Is Java popular enough? The answers are all yes.

I am not saying that open source sofware cannot generate real revenue, but it definitely cannot generate enough revenue.

Sun's failure to monetize on a hugely successfully product, i.e. Java, the king of enterprise programming languages, just proves the business model of open source is not working. Can anybody guarantee to develope a more popular, powerful, essential and business-related product like Java? Even if Java cannot sustain itself, which product can?

It's a business dilemma, you want to use volume to compensate discount in price, but if you are losing money on each customer, you are not mitigating the problem, you are exacerbating it by increasing the volume. The basic rule of human nature is that most people won't pay for something unless they have to.

Many people compare open source software as water and gas company giving away free infrastructure, and charge on the usage. Then that's pay-per-use, or SaaS, not free OS software, if utility companies charge hefty fees on support and let people use utilities free, guess what customers will do? They either DIY or hire cheaper 3rd party contractors to fix their pipes. And the utilities companies will go under in no time.

That's what happens for Java, when most programmers encounter problems with Java, they don't take out their plastic and call Sun, they either DIY by checking online or paper reference, or ask collegues for help. 

Jakob Jenkov replied on Wed, 2009/04/22 - 5:08pm

>I am not saying that open source sofware cannot generate real revenue, but it definitely cannot generate
>enough
revenue.

 I totally agree. I guess I have made about $3.000 over the years (on the side) on my open source projects. But even if I made $3.000 a month, I couldn't pay my bills (here in expensive Denmark). But I've changed into doing open source with an artistic mind set now. I do it, because I like it. And thus only *when* I like it. And guess what, if the sun is shining when I'm off (it doesn't shine much in Denmark), do you think I'll be out enjoying it, or go indoors and hack away at my open source projects? Or will the open source projects have to wait for yet another rainy day here in cloudy Denmark?

 

>The basic rule of human nature is that most people won't pay for something unless they have to. 

 Again, I totally agree. Furthermore, a few of the most experienced marketers I have been studying lately, all say this:

 Set the price at $10, and some will complain it's not $5. Set the price at $20, and some will complain it's not $10. There will always be someone complaining that your product or service is too expensive to them. And if it's free, they won't really appreciate it as much. In fact, they claim that the higher the price is, the less clients they have complaining about the price. Weird, eh?

 

Another thing I've learned is, that once people have gotten used to a certain price point, even if it is zero, they become spoiled. They refuse to pay even $5 for something that is worth much more to them. In that light, free software is really hurting the software industry. Even open innovation requires money to run, unless it has to run in our spare time. And for how long are you willing to give up your spare time to work for free, so that others can make money with your free product?

 

Try thinking about this:

How many times have you in the past year gone to a pub, and paid $5-10 for a beer? In that same time, how many times did you pay the equivalent for a piece of software, or donated the same amount to an open source project that you are using? And, which of the two things (beer or software) did actually provide the greatest value to you? We are used to paying for beer, but software !!! Oh no, there's gotta be a free thingy somewhere... 

 

One last thing. Guido (earlier in this thread), you ask:

 >I work as a developer doing custom developments,  would I have a job without open source ? 

The big corps still need software, no matter if you develop it using open source components or not. A bank still needs netbanking. An insurance company still needs risk calculation software etc. So yes, you still have a job without free software.

 

And here is one more thing I have been wondering about:

 

If we agree that once the initial this-is-fun motivation for some open source project is gone, then the primary motivational driver to continue that project is money, why is it that we are so afraid to pay even the slightest for that software? If the developers after 1-2 years are only motivated by money, and you refuse to pay, what will happen? Will the project slow down? You bet it will! Who will lose on that? YOU WILL! You have invested a lot of money into learning and integrating that project into your infrastructure. Now the project dies, and you need the latest industry features, which are only found in the competing software.  Why are we so stupid that we are not willing to *protect our investment (in learning and development time)* in a certain open source project, by paying a little to it here and there? We invest all this time learning it, and won't pay a dime to protect that investment. That is bad business in my book. But hey, that's just me babbling.

 

 

 

Travis Warren replied on Wed, 2009/04/22 - 7:06pm in response to: George Shen

Fail to see that the failure of Sun to capitalise on Java is a failure of business model of open source.  How long has Java itself been Open Source?

 

James Selvakumar replied on Wed, 2009/04/22 - 8:47pm

Most of the comments above are of the opinion that open source is not a viable business model. And most of them cite Sun as an example. Yes I agree that Sun didn't make much money out of open source software. But did they make enough money with closed source software?

Java was open sourced only on 2007. Solaris was proprietary, Sun Application server was proprietary, most of the netbeans stuff we enjoy now for free were proprietary, Star Office was proprietary. And we all know that Sun was doing badly even before that. Did Sun made enough money out of these products when they were proprietary?

 Are you coming to say only in the last couple of years Sun had huge loss of revenue?

Nope. The problem is either they didn't have a compelling product at that point of time or they didn't monetize it properly. Mind it, they couldn't monetize it even when they were proprietary.

They didn't have an excellent application server like Glassfish then, to compete with proprietary application servers like Websphere or Weblogic. They didn't have the NetBeans they have now. NetBeans was a below par IDE then. They didn't have MySQL then. Sun should have bought MySQL long back. 

To be precise, most of the Sun products flourished only after they were open sourced. Glassfish, NetBeans, OpenSolaris, OpenOffice are loved by millions of people now.

And we all must understand Sun didn't do greatly in the hardware sector as well. In fact, it is where they actually failed.

It would have been much better if Sun just sold the hardware section. Sun can really make huge money with the kind of software it has now. If Rehat can make money with JBoss, Sun can definitely make much more with Glassfish. If MyEclipse and many below par plugins can make money with Eclipse, Sun can make much more with NetBeans.

Mark Haniford replied on Wed, 2009/04/22 - 9:40pm

Another stupid sensationalistic headline from Javalobby...what else is new.

 Seriously, you either believe in the mantra of open source which is "the source is always out there, and therefore it doesn't matter what corporate involvement is out there and a thousand billy's after band practice can pick up the slack, or you actually understand realities about software development - in that there's nothing really "free as in beer" when it comes to development costs.

Mark Haniford replied on Wed, 2009/04/22 - 9:43pm in response to: Otengi Miloskov

Sun is absolute proof that the stupid pipe-dream of all software can be open sourced and given away is retarted.

 Pony-tail boy ruined what was once an innovative company.

Mark Haniford replied on Wed, 2009/04/22 - 9:47pm in response to: Travis Warren

Then why was pony-tail boy running around saying that Java and Sun's open source was some kind of monetizing catalyst?

 

Sun is an open source failure.  Enough said.   RedHat is doing OK...Novell is hanging on by a thread, but this should be a warning sign to many companies about how now to go about an open source strategy.

 

There is nothing wrong with some proprietary bits in your stack!

John J. Franey replied on Wed, 2009/04/22 - 10:19pm

Making money from open source code is easier for developers who use it then for developers that write it.  Money isn't going to pour into the bank simply because one has posted some source code to source forge. On the other hand, people are paid by their employers to download code from source forge and combine the code into valuable internal or external services or product.  Among those who are paid for this can be the source code's author.

Software is valuable because it resolves a problem that is costing money. Software has no intrinsic value of its own.  Software that doesn't have a problem to solve, or developers interested in using it, has zero value.

The expectation that all code with open source license will turn to gold for the author is baseless.  Companies who support open source code know it.  No body will make a buck off open source that has no value in resolving a real problem that would save money for its users.

If the open source model is a failure, then it would have no customers.  However, there are many developers using open source code and resolving real problems with it, turning it into gold for themselves or their employers.  And that's the point.

"Open Source" is a corruption of "Free Software (as in freedom)".  Always has been. 

Regards.


 

George Shen replied on Wed, 2009/04/22 - 10:43pm in response to: John J. Franey

Then who will pay the bills for the programmers/companies who developed the open source projects? If Sun charged license fees on Java, GlassFish and OpenOffice, it may never run into the deep holes it is in now. Anyway, I think big companies will now reevaluate their open source strategy after Sun's flop...

George Shen replied on Wed, 2009/04/22 - 10:54pm in response to: Jakob Jenkov

Jakob, I totally agree with you:

While everybody seems to agree to pay $100 for a hot football/basketball game or a stupid Hanna Montana concert, most people will complain that Office or Microsoft OS are expensive, imagine the public rage if Sun decided to charge $100 per core for Java. Although any of those softwares are much more important and useful to people than a hot concert or a ballgame, people are complaining out paying meager $100 for a software they use everyday to make their life better.

If you are good at something, don't do it for free. I believe rock stars are having great fun in the concerts that charge $50+ admission fees.

Somebody will try to tell me the cost of burning a CD is close to zero, then what's the cost of letting you in the stadium? Customers are easily spoiled, people will riot if the gas price hikes from $1 to $4 in one day, but people will go on the street dancing and celebrating if it goes down from $16 to $4 in one day.

>Try thinking about this:

>How many times have you in the past year gone to a pub, and paid $5-10 for a beer? In that same time, how >many times did you pay the equivalent for a piece of software, or donated the same amount to an open source >project that you are using? And, which of the two things (beer or software) did actually provide the greatest value >to you? We are used to paying for beer, but software !!! Oh no, there's gotta be a free thingy somewhere... 

Otengi Miloskov replied on Wed, 2009/04/22 - 10:57pm in response to: Mark Haniford

Novell is going out with Microsoft. As I said Redhat is the only one that use OpenSource and make some money but is not a complete success. Ubuntu since the start does not make any pennie, Everything is from the founder pocket it is very sad.

I'll pack my bag of tricks and go with the .Net offer, This open source, Sun and Java show is over folks!.

Dmitry Leskov replied on Thu, 2009/04/23 - 1:46am in response to: Jakob Jenkov

Participation in core open source projects in the beginning of your career can make you millions in the long term. It's about your human capital investment. A fresh graduate with no mortgage, no kids, etc., can exploit open source to grow the professional network and add to the CV. It would then be easier for him/her to find a more interesting and/or better-paid job.

If you already have a family that you must support, you are more likely to do consulting or start a microISV in your spare time (provided you have any.)

Jose Maria Arranz replied on Thu, 2009/04/23 - 3:51am

It seems this thread is becoming anti-open source, this never was my intention.

Sun has become PROFITABLE when they got the open source route. MySQL and StorageTek acquisitions made empty the pocket just before one of the worst economic crisis in the History.

MySQL was a PROFITABLE company and it was sold by 1 billion of US dollars.

JBoss was PROFITABLE and it was sold by 400 million of dollars (aprox.)

RedHat is PROFITABLE.

TrollTech was profitable, in the last recent years it was not profitable but they invested very much to increase the portfolio value, in fact revenue increased these years and finally was sold to Nokia by €105 million (around 136 million of US dollars).

If SpringSource was sold it would cost many million of dollars.

About Java:

Java was gratis in the beginning because it has been an INDUSTRY SAVER, yes really, without Java the industry would be almost absolutely controlled by Microsoft and Intel. When Java was born around 1995 the industry was very different with Microsoft and Intel increasingly controlling the server market with Windows Server and SQLServer offerings running on Intel machines.

Sun has made some money licensing Java source code and TCK to big companies like IBM or BEA to make alternative JVMs, you can imagine this never was a big market.

Is a rough simplification but there are software and hardware business outside the Microsoft and Intel ecosystems because Java existed and it was gratis.

------

Many people identify "open source = free" and this isn't true, it depends on LICENSING, the open source nature is an aspect of the software and may be not related with cost.

A license is a contract, you can download the OpenJDK but you don't own the OpenJDK, you can download an open source product but the things you can do depends on the license applied.

The closed source and pay before using model is no longer a compelling alternative. Usually closed source implies an evaluation time, expiration checking etc to protect the investment. This model can be compelling for a new company thinking about on how deliver its software and protect their investment, but in the Internet era is like to divide the sea with a wall. Open your eMule and search "WebSphere" and you will find hundred of sources... yes you can use WebSphere for free. If you want to be "a bad guy" open source or closed source and license types are not important.

To speak about closed source is to speak about barriers, registrations with false data, evaluation licenses,  expiration dates, not fully functional programs and this kind of burden. In this scenario the end user is considered as a potential felonious.

Sometimes people prefer to obtain a copy from piracy sources with evaluation or education purposes to avoid the burden of registration and dirty changes in the operating system.

My proposal of dual licensing is to create a mutual benefit relationship between software providers and users:

* If you use for non profit don't worry the software is free.

* If you use for profit, a commercial licensing helps to keep on the work in the software you have invested many hours and bound to your revenue source. 

Dual licensing can reduce the cost of support contracts, the scenario of current model of liberal licenses is only a very small group of users pay very expensive bills for support.

@Dmitry Leskov: "Participation in core open source projects in the beginning of your career can make you millions in the long term. It's about your human capital investment. A fresh graduate with no mortgage, no kids, etc., can exploit open source to grow the professional network and add to the CV. It would then be easier for him/her to find a more interesting and/or better-paid job. "

Yes is good but it doesn't sound serious.

 

Jakob Jenkov replied on Thu, 2009/04/23 - 4:03am

I agree with your last post, Jose. Dual licensing is the way forward. If you make money with somebody elses software, it is only fair that they get paid too. What is hard is to determine *how much* they should get paid.

 

@Dmitry Leskov:

Don't you think you could earn the same level of respect (or even greater) by developing some software that was so good, that people were actually willing to *pay* for it?

Dimitris Menounos replied on Thu, 2009/04/23 - 4:34am

Another thing I've learned is, that once people have gotten used to a certain price point, even if it is zero, they become spoiled. They refuse to pay even $5 for something that is worth much more to them.
The basic rule of human nature is that most people won't pay for something unless they have to.

Good points. Judging by myself, I see that I resist paying for software that I can get for free. And free-as-in-speach means that I can usually get it for free-as-in-beer. Unless something makes me want to pay for it. Dual licencing in that regard is something and is proven to work but I am not entirely convinced that it is the only way for open source projects to be viable. It only works in those cases where a project serves as a platform for others to build on. It does not work for projects that are aimed to be used as is.

I have been thinking about a different model that could apply to any open source project. I start with the following:

  1. Open source software provides great value and freedom
  2. We are addicted to that value and are unwilling to give that freedom
  3. We are accustomed to get that value for free

IMO (1) and (2) are unnegotiable but (3) is something that can be tackled.

  • Most people think in "products" and are willing to pay for them
  • For most people product is the binary
  • Find a way to keep source free-as-in-speach but retain tight control of the binary ???

I don't know how (and if) that last point could happen. The idea though is to keep value and freedom intact but make it so that effort is required to get to them. At that point money comes in as a paid shortcut. What do you think?

Arek Stryjski replied on Thu, 2009/04/23 - 5:03am

"How many times have you in the past year gone to a pub, and paid $5-10 for a beer?"

You are not paying for beer when you go to pub. Some people go to pub and pay for water, even it is "free" at home.

"In that same time, how many times did you pay the equivalent for a piece of software, or donated the same amount to an open source project that you are using? And, which of the two things (beer or software) did actually provide the greatest value to you?"

Probably most people on planet (except software developers) value more meeting with friends not owning piece of software. The economy just reflect it.

I'm investing my time in technologies which I believe my employers will choose. They are choosing the cheapest alternatives (both in licence fees, and development time).
Some software developers think it make more sense for them to join development of one of open-source project. Other believe it is better to learn how to use 10 or 100 of them (they are testing it in the process and doing marketing). Developers are not giving any money to open source project because it does not make any sense at all. I will not get better job if I give $10 to Apache Foundation.

Commercial companies are buying open-source companies, they are employing open-source developers, they give money to open-source foundations, etc.
Sun is buying MySQL, Oracle is buying Sun... Companies are securing they investments in open-source because it make economic sense to them.

Oracle, IBM, Google etc. are not jumping into .NET platform. I don't understand why some people like OtengiM think they should give up all they investment in Java and open-source and go now to close platforms?

I don't understand why you think this system does not work...

B. Ertung replied on Thu, 2009/04/23 - 6:16am in response to: Jose Maria Arranz

No one is against the open source software or anti-open source. We all use them all the time where necessary. However, the drawback is that the innovation does not go forward. I do not like to align myself with the open source libraries out there. It is just anti innovative. You just stop to innovate because you start to design your software over the list of open source libraries available out there.

That is certainly not healthy at all. Plus handful of them can actually do the job as intended otherwise you have to live with half cooked functionality using dozens of nasty hacks. How many of you actually get into the source code and fix the parts needed to you? Do you have that much time and patience? we generally just perk at the developers of that open source software to fix the thing. Almost no one will go forward and pay them to fix that either. Dont you thing there is something wrong here?

Dual licensing has been used by many companies so there is nothing new there. QT is one example. I really dont know how profitable it has been for them though. The complain is not the open source, the dual licensing or so; the problem is that nobody wants to pay for software anymore. The clear reason is "there got to be something freely available to use" mentality created by open source. This is not about being anti open source, this is about a complaint against psychology open source created over once software consumers. This very  psychology is also the reason for exploding software piracy around the world. On the other hand, I must agree that the software must be affordable.

Jose Maria Arranz replied on Thu, 2009/04/23 - 6:47am in response to: B. Ertung

we generally just perk at the developers of that open source software to fix the thing. Almost no one will go forward and pay them to fix that either. Dont you thing there is something wrong here?

Of course it depends on the concrete product, but probably you can get:

* No answer 

* "I don't have any time, I'm very bussy with my day job with no relationship with this project"

* "Fixing bugs is boring I prefer new features"

* "Read the license it says "IS AS IS...WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY""

* "Fix it yourself you have the code"

* "I do this in my spare time you cannot demand anything"

* "Yes I know, will be fixed in the next release, may be next year... or two...or..."

* "I'm not interested and working anymore in this project, are you interested in?"

* "Don't worry I'm going to fix in a hurry, helping the people for free is my absolute priority in spite of my wife wants to divorce"

* "Yes I know there is a workaround in my book "How to fix...""

* "The closed source priced enterprise version does not have that problem"

 

Mladen Girazovski replied on Thu, 2009/04/23 - 7:37am

* "Yes I know, will be fixed in the next release, may be next year... or two...or..."

I had the similar experiences, not only with OSS, but also with WebSphere from IBM, "maybe it will be fixed in the next release" was their original statement.

Of course it can happen to you when using OSS, but hey, it only feels half as bad if they don't charge yoiu huge amount of license fees and offer you to fix the bug yourself since the Source is available.

 

Alessandro Santini replied on Thu, 2009/04/23 - 7:43am in response to: Mladen Girazovski

Can you give me the PMR you are referring to?

Mladen Girazovski replied on Fri, 2009/04/24 - 2:34am in response to: Alessandro Santini

Unfortunately not, this was in 2002, i think it was Websphere 4.

The company i was working for was relativly small (australian military aerospace company).

Jose Maria Arranz replied on Thu, 2009/04/23 - 8:37am in response to: Mladen Girazovski

I had the similar experiences, not only with OSS, but also with WebSphere from IBM, "maybe it will be fixed in the next release" was their original statement.

Of course it can happen to you when using OSS, but hey, it only feels half as bad if they don't charge yoiu huge amount of license fees and offer you to fix the bug yourself since the Source is available.

 Yes course, so dual licensing provides the best of both worlds, closed and open.

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.