Modern Thoughts on Open Source
Few people understand open source. Even fewer use this knowledge to their advantage. On one hand, there are free software fundamentalists with their utopian views, and on the other hand we have closed corporates who don’t possibly see how open source could work. Both miss the point. I’ve attempted to explain it using four questions to guide the article. Admittedly, a lot of what I’ve said here was explained to me by Kiran Jonnalagadda (aka jace, jackerhack).
- Why do RedHat, IBM, and Novell contribute so much to the Linux kernel? Is it because they care about the free software philosophy and are being charitable? To quote the Linux Foundation August 2009 issue, “Over 70% of all kernel development is demonstrably done by developers who are being paid for their work” and “None of these companies are supporting Linux development as an act of charity; in each case, these companies find that improving the kernel helps them to be more competitive in their markets”
- Why does Google pump money into a competing against Firefox with an open source alternative, Chrome? To quote an excerpt from their December 2009 blog post, “Today’s open source goes far beyond the “patent pooling” of the early auto manufacturers, and has led to the development of the sophisticated software components — Linux, Apache, SSH, and others — upon which Google is built”
- Why are several of Microsoft’s products losing market share? Why does Microsoft feel threatened by Linux? To quote Ballmer, “Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches”. Is it because the general public is convinced by the GNU philosophy to “share with thy neighbor”, or is it simply because of competition?
- And finally, a slightly off-topic question to reinforce my point. Why did Apple finally make the move to x86 even after their innumerable claims that PPC is better? Is it because PPC is inherently inferior to Intel’s x86, and nothing could have been done to save it?
All this points to one thing: Open source is an infrastructure. Just like the roads in the city that automobile manufacturers are interested in, software companies want access to existing infrastructure to build their own products upon and make money, instead of having to re-invent the wheel everytime. It’s a win-win situation for all companies. Paying Microsoft to get Windows to support their products can be an expensive affair. So making an operating system a commodity is in everyone’s interests (well, except Microsoft’s). The web browser is another example of a commodity today. Everyone’s interested in a good, conformant, open platform on which to develop their web applications on.
There are commodities in other sectors too. Apple moved to x86 because it was the standard commodity to use. Too many companies pumped money into it resulting in its development, and mass manufacturing brought down costs. Apple understood this- one company pumping money into PPC cannot match the rest of the world pumping money into x86.
The day a product comes out, every other company tries to clone it and make the product a commodity. In the small time window between the product being niche and the product becoming a commodity, there is money to be made. Take Netscape’s example: Once they felt the pressure of the competing web browsers, they realized that keeping their browser closed and exclusively pumping money into it was pointless. So they opened it out, and started the Mozilla project. In other words, open sourcing a piece of software typically means that that piece of software can no longer make money as a traditional product anymore. Same reason Facebook open-sourced many of its components: It has everything to gain, nothing to lose. It’s already too big on the social networking front to worry about competition there.
Largely, there are two ways to make money off this infrastructure: sell the cars that use these roads most sensibly, or follow a “pure service” model. The problem with the pure service model is that only RedHat and a few other companies have been successful at it. The argument “I created it, so I can service it best” doesn’t hold anymore- too many people have technical expertise in open source software. So unless your service is the cheapest and the best, it’ll be killed off by other service providers.
Products don’t have to start off being closed and then open up when they stop making money. Companies are also interested in starting off free software projects. Google Chrome for example. They wanted to make this web browser a commodity, a commodity created by them. They’ll have a foot at the door when Chrome gains larger market share.
Tags: foss, linux, opensource
January 1st, 2010 at 12:45 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by hrjn_rss, hkrnws. hkrnws said: Modern Thoughts on Open Source http://bit.ly/7BhwI7 [...]
January 1st, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by hkrnws: Modern Thoughts on Open Source http://bit.ly/7BhwI7...
January 1st, 2010 at 1:36 pm
[...] This post was Twitted by _kartik [...]
January 1st, 2010 at 4:58 pm
A very nice post. Thanks. :)
January 1st, 2010 at 5:55 pm
I think WebKit is open source primarily because Apple forked it from KHTML, which is licensed as LGPL.
And I also think I agree with you on the rest. Nice post.
January 1st, 2010 at 6:13 pm
“”Once they felt the pressure of the competing web browsers, they realized that keeping WebKit closed and exclusively pumping money into it was pointless. So they opened it out for everyone else to pump money into and improve”"
I always thought the major reason of open sourcing webkit was the bad PR Apple was getting due to handling the KHTML-Webkit relations poorly. The patches sent to KHTML were gigantic and not well documented/explained.
Anyway opening Webkit had lots of good effect. Google, Nokia pumped money and effort to improve it. :)
January 1st, 2010 at 6:44 pm
@Shirish: Thank you! I initially thought of deleting the post because I thought it lacked polish. It was originally an email :p
@Alin and @Manish: Thanks to your comments and another one on HN, I’ve edited the article to include more appropriate examples :)
January 1st, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Relevant read for me, thx! I’m new in the Open World :-)
Could you pls point me to a place where I can read more on this one: “to make money off this infrastructure: sell the cars that use these roads most sensibly”.
January 1st, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Nice post. Found this via HN.
January 1st, 2010 at 11:05 pm
As a software developer who works for open source software (i.e. gets paid) I am confused about what open source means to me. So, this post was rather helpful because frankly, I was disappointed by Richard Stalman’s and others’ “beating around the bush” even when I (re)read the FSF manifesto. So, thank you for putting things in perspective.
But I still feel that the analogy of “make software (cars) that use open source as infrastructure (roads)” is far-fetched. This is because currently, there are so many open-source products (which are technically infrastructure per your analogy) that compete and arguably do better than their closed-source equivalents. Thus, if you have an idea of a “product”, will you rather do it as a closed-source product or an open-source one is not immediately clear. So, it’s an eternal question “how do these souls who write code in the open-source earn their living”?
Also, why are we so vehemently anti-Microsoft and not anti-Apple? I find it ironic that many of my open-source-fan friends and colleagues talk highly of Apple and at the same time they look down upon Microsoft. Why is that the case? Personally, I have found that Apple use extraordinarily good hardware, but their software is as good (or bad) as someone else. Innovation is a different thing and maybe Apple score there, but basically, they are a money-making company and their money-making face has to be looked upon in the similar vein as Microsoft’s. (Anyway, I have nothing personal against Apple, I have just found this treatment rather lop-sided).
I really urge you to take time to communicate with me so that I understand this puzzle a little better. You already have my email and I will be happy to understand your views (and ask my questions, that are irking me a lot by now). Thanks again!
January 2nd, 2010 at 8:36 am
[...] This post was Twitted by omargomez [...]
January 2nd, 2010 at 10:24 am
@Ton Thank you for your comment! As far as I know, even the revenue models are poorly understood/ explained. You have to resort to case studies of individual companies. I will write an article on this in a few days and point you to it.
@Pathik Thank you :)
@Kedhar Thank you for you comment! I will try to answer your questions.
[...] was disappointed by Richard Stalman’s [...]
This article started out as an email to Stallman :) From the long conversation I had with him, I’ve gathered that he’s not interested in understanding open source software. He’s very philosophical and interested only in users’ freedoms. Open source is but a side-effect :p
[...] many [...] open-source products [...] do better than their closed-source equivalents
I’ll clarify the context of my analogy. I was referring to the per-copy license model when I said “traditional” products: products that are sold like vegetables at the market. Arguably, very few sell opensource software using this sales model. That doesn’t mean that it’s impossible to generate revenue from an opensource product: it just means that you can’t follow this “vegetable vendor” model. Yes, many opensource equivalents are superior to their closed-source equivalents, but that doesn’t mean that they can follow the same revenue model.
[...] how do these souls who write code in the open-source earn their living [...]
Excellent question. This is poorly understood as well. Largely, there are some widely used revenue models. Since it’s too long to explain here, I’ll write another article on this and point you to it.
[...] anti-Microsoft and not anti-Apple?
Leaving my personal biases aside for a moment, Microsoft is widely criticized for not understanding and coping with the opensource movement. Instead of embracing it and harnessing its power, they foolishly oppose it. In the article, I was referring only to that aspect. Again, it has nothing to do with the quality of software per-se.
You already have my email [...]
There is much I don’t understand either, and I would be happy to have a discussion with you. However, in the interest of everyone else, I think we should have it right here, and not over email.
January 2nd, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Thanks for an interesting post. There is surely need for making better descriptions of development models and reasons/motivators of doing thing in open way. Often, it’s not (just) about money or lack of it: many do development of Open Source software because it solves their problems (“Scratching your own itch” http://gettingreal.37signals.com/ch02_Whats_Your_Problem.php ) or might just want to learn to do new things and use open source as way to improve their skills.
http://openlife.cc is book about Philosophy of Open Source and while it’s certainly not be the definitive definition of the subject, there are some quite interesting notes in the text. And yeah, the book itself is freely distributable.
About Microsoft/Apple, they both are actually using Open Source software, it’s just that Microsoft haven’t been chanting much about it. Large part of .Net community uses open source components from different sources besides the official parts. Apple has based large part of their Operating System’s tools to open source, but since they have mostly been building on top of BSD licensed software, there might not be so many public releases from all of the things.
January 2nd, 2010 at 6:32 pm
[...] Economics of open source software ? X [...]
January 7th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
[...] Artagnon's Presence Ramkumar Ramachandra | Personal blog on computer science, technology, economics, and other random stuff « Modern Thoughts on Open Source [...]
January 21st, 2010 at 1:19 pm
[...] late into the night. Ram’s consolidated his thoughts from that evening into a pair of posts on open source as infrastructure and community and business interaction. Both were posted earlier this month, but I somehow missed [...]