When Open Source Doesn't Do It Anymore

[neu5eeCh]

Just read this interesting article: When Open Source Doesn't Do It Anymore (http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/79502)

This reminds of RedHat's decision to move to "hidden" Linux patches (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/04/red_hat_twarts_oracle_and_novell_with_change_to_so urce_code_packaging/). In order to really create "start of the art" competitive products, a company needs revenue. If other companies are taking ones products and repackaging them, then that's going to seriously crimp ones revenue stream.

As I see it, the open source business model (or license) is akin to walking into an Alaskan summer without Deet. You're going to walk out of that wilderness 50 pounds lighter, and it won't be for loss of fat. The only reason Ubuntu and Canonical are what they are is because of the Shuttleworth's incredible revenue infusion. I wonder though ,at some point, whether Ubuntu/Canonical's success, if and when it comes, will force it to rethink it's open source philosophy - and perhaps modify it.

[Bachstelze]

If you just want to make money, that's fine. Just say so. And, yes, Open Source is definitely not the best way to do that.

[szymon_g]

yes, Open Source is definitely not the best way to do that.

you rather think "free software". BSD-like licensed work can be (and it is) used in market.

[Bachstelze]

Open Source and Free Software are the same thing under a different name. No one makes a lot of money just selling Free Software, which is apparently what the article is about: some dude wants to make money selling software, and notices he can't do that with Free Software.

[grahammechanical]

How is one's revenue stream going to be crimped when there is no revenue from open source? And if there is a revenue stream from open source there to be crimped, why are some not content with a steam? Why do they want a river of revenue?

Free and Open-source Software (FOSS) started out as an ethical position and was never intended to be a business model. There is always going to be conflict between those who are taking an ethical stand and those looking for a business opportunity and nothing else.

This is why open source developers have for years accepted the need for licensing and copyright to prevent their work being repackaged as someone's else's property and sold for profit.

FOSS is "software that is liberally licensed to grant users the right to use, copy, study, change, and improve its design through the availability of its source code."

There is not any right to re-package the source code and sell it as if it is your property.

Regards.

[Bachstelze]

There is not any right to re-package the source code and sell it as if it is your property.

That's only true for so-called "copyleft" licenses ike the GPL. Other FOSS licenses, like the BSD license, grant that right (or something very close).

[Paqman]

I wonder though ,at some point, whether Ubuntu/Canonical's success, if and when it comes, will force it to rethink it's open source philosophy - and perhaps modify it.

Unlikely, because there's no money to be made selling copies of open source software. If Ubuntu becomes successful, it'll probably be because people are willing to pay money to use the range of services that come with it, or because OEMs are willing to pay Canonical for their expertise. Neither of those would involve moving away from an open source licence.

[neu5eeCh]

How is one's revenue stream going to be crimped when there is no revenue from open source? And if there is a revenue stream from open source there to be crimped, why are some not content with a steam? Why do they want a river of revenue.

RedHat evidently felt their revenue stream was being crimped by Oracle Linux.

[Paqman]

RedHat evidently felt their revenue stream was being crimped by Oracle Linux.

Red Hat's patches are still open source.

[Primefalcon]

what ed hat offers is support, what Oracle was doing as just selling a copy of red hat's work... and Red Hat got annoyed... as far as taking their work they never minded CentOS

[Bachstelze]

what ed hat offers is support, what Oracle was doing as just selling a copy of red hat's work... and Red Hat got annoyed... as far as taking their work they never minded CentOS

Read the article in OP. It's not Oracle selling copies of RHEL that RH was annoyed with.

[neu5eeCh]

Red Hat's patches are still open source.

Good point. And Ellison is probably paying a little team of developers to parse the patches and apply them to their own copy of Red Hat Linux. In this light, Red Hat almost becomes an unpaid subsidiary contributing to Oracle. This must definitely be a source of frustration to Red Hat, but then again, I suppose one could unsympathetically argue that Red Hat could have developed their own closed source OS. I understand the argument that open source is a philosophy, not a business model. Even so, I'd like to think that open source could succeed as a business model without being sucked dry by a thousand and one leeches. I don't see Canonical being immune from this. Their 5 year LTS seems aimed at the server market and as a competitor to Red Hat and Oracle. If Canonical succeeds, what's to stop Ellison from creating Oracle's Unbreakable Enterprise Ubuntu? Does it matter? Apache is evidently fed up with being unpaid contributors to the bottom line of other businesses.

Would something like a copy left license allow Red Hat and Apache to retain the sole right of profit while allowing others to modify and reuse on a non-profit basis?

[Bachstelze]

Would something like a copy left license allow Red Hat and Apache to retain the sole right of profit while allowing others to modify and reuse on a non-profit basis?

It's certainly possible to create such a license (see CC-NC), but it would be considered non-free by everyone in the free software world.

[neu5eeCh]

It's certainly possible to create such a license (see CC-NC), but it would be considered non-free by everyone in the free software world.

That strikes me as an untenable position - self-contradictory. As an ideological matter, it would seem, adherents of "free software" ought to believe that software should be open and free. Such a license would not be "non-free". In fact, it would be just the opposite. It would ensure that the software be open source and freely available. What it would prevent is "non-free" or proprietary competition. I would think that this would be in the interests of the "free software word". What do they care if the originating developers retain the right to profit?

Edit: For clarification, free software adherents who insist that anyone be able to profit from free software, regardless of who created it, are actually creating the environment they dislike.

[Bachstelze]

It is not self-contradictory because Free Software is a matter of freedom, not price. Price is completely irrelevant to whether a piece of software is Free or not. You can sell Free Software for one million dollars, and you can have gratis non-free software.

[neu5eeCh]

//It is not self-contradictory because Free Software is a matter of freedom, not price.//

Devil's Advocate replies: Free software is not free if it doesn't give Apache or Red Hat the freedom to retain, for themselves, compensation for their work. In other words, they are not free to create a functional business model. I agree that the issue isn't price, so why should free software adherents object or even have a dog in the hunt if Red Hat or Apache wants to retain the right to profit from their work?

[Bachstelze]

Devil's Advocate replies: Free software is not free if it doesn't give Apache or Red Hat the freedom to retain, for themselves, compensation for their work.

I could say Free software is not free if I don't have the freedom to sell my copies of it. The word "free" has a lot of competing definitions, so you have to draw the line somewhere. For the Free Software movement, "Free" is defined by the "four freedoms", which say nothing about price, meaning that anyone can do anything they want in that matter, the software will still be free if those four freedoms are preserved.



In other words, they are not free to create a functional business model. I agree that the issue isn't price, so why should free software adherents object or even have a dog in the hunt if Red Hat or Apache wants to retain the right to profit from their work?

That's exactly why Free Sofware is not, and was never meant to be, a business model, and why if you want to make money, you don't just sell free software.

EDIT: And, to reiterate, it is not Oracle selling RHEL that RH had a problem with. So the issue of price is completely irrelevant to the matter.

[neu5eeCh]

The Devil's Advocate replies:

Here are the four freedoms:


The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.


A copy left license which prevented someone like Oracle from using RHEL's work for their own profit would not violate any of those "four freedoms".


EDIT: And, to reiterate, it is not Oracle selling RHEL that RH had a problem with. So the issue of price is completely irrelevant to the matter.

I disagree; or rather, I disagree with your literalist interpretation. Yes, Oracle is not "selling RHEL", but that's splitting hairs and the distinction itself is completely irrelevant to the matter.


"We made the change, quite honestly, because we are absolutely making a set of steps that make it more difficult for competitors that wish to provide support services on top of Red Hat Enterprise Linux," Red Hat chief technology officer Brian Stevens tells The Register, before naming those competitors. "Today, there are two competitors that I'm aware of that go to our customers directly, offering to support RHEL directly for them...Oracle and Novell."

[Bachstelze]

The Devil's Advocate replies:

Here are the four freedoms:


The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.


A copy left license which prevented someone like Oracle from using RHEL's work for their own profit would not violate any of those "four freedoms".

Maybe not the letter, but the spirit. Besides, how would you define "profit"? Redistributing software costs both in money and time. Would covering my costs be considered "profit"? And if not, how would you calculate what my time is worth, to determine the amount I would be allowed to charge?


I disagree; or rather, I disagree with your literalist interpretation. Yes, Oracle is not "selling RHEL", but that's splitting hairs and the distinction itself is completely irrelevant to the matter.

The distinction is completely relevant to the matter, because support is not covered by a license. So talking about licensing is what's irrelevant.

[neu5eeCh]

Maybe not the letter, but the spirit. Besides, how would you define "profit"?

The Devil's Advocate says: This and your other questions are good, but I would think those questions should be left to the developer or company to decide. I don't see how, even in spirit, reserving the right for remuneration, whether it be profit or otherwise, violates any of the four freedoms.


The distinction is completely relevant to the matter, because support is not covered by a license. So talking about licensing is what's irrelevant.

RHEL is part of the package. Nobody would care about Oracle's packaging if it weren't for RHEL. If Red Hat were to use a license that forbid any other distributor from using their patches (their software) in a profit oriented business model that depends on those patches as part of its offerings, then Oracle could not use RHEL.

Edit: So that this doesn't sound like argument for the sake of argument: What I'm getting at is this, since when does Open Source or Free preclude someone from reserving a right to remuneration?

[Bachstelze]

RHEL is part of the package. Nobody would care about Oracle's packaging if it weren't for RHEL. If Red Hat were to use a license that forbid any other distributor from using their patches (their software) in a profit oriented business model that depends on those patches as part of its offerings, then Oracle could not use RHEL.

You don't get it. RH stopped distributing the patches separately because it gave competitors knowledge of the system that allowed them to provide support, which is where RH makes its money. No license in the world can prevent other companies from offering support for RHEL (because the license only covers the software), which is why RH had to take this "indirect" measure.

Once again, the fact that Oracle was also selling RHEL is not what bothered RH, it's that they were offering support for it as well. Oracle can very well continue selling RHEL now, but RH's move makes it more difficult for them to offer the same kind of support RH offers.


Edit: So that this doesn't sound like argument for the sake of argument: What I'm getting at is this, since when does Open Source or Free preclude someone from reserving a right to remuneration?

It's not in the spirit of Free Software as we know it. Of course, anyone can consider whatever they want to be free software, depending on their own criteria, but none of the big free software movements would consider such a license to be free software. Debian, for example, considers that this would violate their requirement that licenses do not "discrimate based on field of endeavor" (this is why they do not consider any CC licence with the NC clause "free").

[szymon_g]

Open Source and Free Software are the same thing under a different name.

no, they aren't. every piece of "free" code is open source. it doesn't work vice versa. with some others forms of OS you can close code and sell it (instead of sponsoring competitors, like with "free software").


No one makes a lot of money just selling Free Software, which is apparently what the article is about: some dude wants to make money selling software, and notices he can't do that with Free Software.

that's true.

[neu5eeCh]

No license in the world can prevent other companies from offering support for RHEL (because the license only covers the software), which is why RH had to take this "indirect" measure.

You're right. It's likely that I don't understand software licenses thoroughly enough. I know that non-commercial licenses exist, but perhaps they can't be applied to software. Also, it's possible that such licenses would make an unholy mess. Since Red Hat itself uses software developed by others, such licenses could create a real mess. Does the Linux GPL license, in any case, preclude an NC clause?

[Bachstelze]

Does the Linux GPL license, in any case, preclude an NC clause?

Yes, the GPL explicitly allows redistributing the software for a fee. Note that when you do so, you are not charging for the software itself, but for providing the service of distributing it. Effectively it's the same thing: someone has to pay to get the software from you, but that's why you can't make a lot of money with Free Software: it's very easy for anyone to redistribute te same software for free.

[alexfish]

WHEN:

Given a (ring-fence a grant or fund) to put restrictions on it , so that it can only be used for a particular purpose

suppose beggars can't be choosers

RABBIT OF THE DAY:

yes, everyone has a choice , we can all hone skills , that is a choice.

To give your software a licence is also a choice.

To put bread on the table , one has to decide how it will be paid for , to some this is not a choice.

Do you want to be a beggar all your life?

[neu5eeCh]

WHEN:

Given a (ring-fence a grant or fund) to put restrictions on it , so that it can only be used for a particular purpose

suppose beggars can't be choosers

RABBIT OF THE DAY:

yes, everyone has a choice , we can all hone skills , that is a choice.

To give your software a licence is also a choice.

To put bread on the table , one has to decide how it will be paid for , to some this is not a choice.

Do you want to be a beggar all your life?

Huh? I think you forget the part about one hand clapping?

[BrokenKingpin]

The only reason Ubuntu and Canonical are what they are is because of the Shuttleworth's incredible revenue infusion. I wonder though ,at some point, whether Ubuntu/Canonical's success, if and when it comes, will force it to rethink it's open source philosophy - and perhaps modify it.
That is fine, Open Source may not be the best thing for all companies. If Ubuntu ever did change the philosophy there are many other distros out there for people to use.

[BBQdave]

How is one's revenue stream going to be crimped when there is no revenue from open source? And if there is a revenue stream from open source there to be crimped, why are some not content with a steam? Why do they want a river of revenue?

Free and Open-source Software (FOSS) started out as an ethical position and was never intended to be a business model. There is always going to be conflict between those who are taking an ethical stand and those looking for a business opportunity and nothing else.

This is why open source developers have for years accepted the need for licensing and copyright to prevent their work being repackaged as someone's else's property and sold for profit.

FOSS is "software that is liberally licensed to grant users the right to use, copy, study, change, and improve its design through the availability of its source code."

There is not any right to re-package the source code and sell it as if it is your property.

Regards.

Well said.

In my simple words: FOSS is sharing for the growth and strength of the community, not a shiny chewable product for profit. That said, some have managed to gather FOSS sharing, package nicely and offer as a service for fee. If you like that service convenience, fine.

There is a difference between the convenience service of FOSS and product for profit.

Red Hat and Debian are two strong members of the FOSS community. Redhat, service for fee. Debian, sharing in the community. Neither treat GNU/Linux as a shiny chewable product.

[jwbrase]

Once again, the fact that Oracle was also selling RHEL is not what bothered RH, it's that they were offering support for it as well. Oracle can very well continue selling RHEL now, but RH's move makes it more difficult for them to offer the same kind of support RH offers.

And, significantly, RH is not doing anything to *forbid* Oracle from offering support for RHEL, just making it more difficult.

[neu5eeCh]

How is one's revenue stream going to be crimped when there is no revenue from open source? And if there is a revenue stream from open source there to be crimped, why are some not content with a steam? Why do they want a river of revenue? ...

I appreciated your post as well. In answer to your question: I would say they want a river of revenue so they can maintain professional development. I notice that many, if not most, of the software available via open source is developed by those with the spare time to do it, almost as a hobby. I suppose that if you put a premium on the philosophy behind open source, and I appreciate and am in favor of that freedom, then a certain amount of amateurishness and haphazard development comes with the territory.

[KiwiNZ]

How is one's revenue stream going to be crimped when there is no revenue from open source? And if there is a revenue stream from open source there to be crimped, why are some not content with a steam? Why do they want a river of revenue?



Revenue rivers flow into many Bank accounts and are the source of much goodness on many plates.

[Dr. C]

There is no requirment in the GPL for RedHat or for any company to make thier software patches public. RedHat is well within thier rights to provide their software including third party GPL software only to thier paid customers for a fee and it is only those customers who paid RedHat for the Free Software that are entitled to the four freedoms on RedHat Free Software. It is all in the GPL.

The fact that RedHat or any other company chooses to make thier Free Software only avalible to paid customers says nothing about the business viablity of Free Libre Open Source Software.