Predictions by some economists in the early days of open source software (OSS) that it was not a sustainable business model are proving to be wrong. The problem with software is that it is less like gold and more like lettuce (quote from Brian Behlendorf, CollabNet founder and Apache Foundation co-founder) – i.e. software grows out of use in time, whether because the product itself requires updates due to problems, requires changes to meet end-user needs, or whether the IT infrastructure has changed and the product needs to keep up with these changes from an integration viewpoint. The net result of this change vector is that end-users need continual support, and a business model based on servicing these needs is sustainable.
The question is what effect does this have on the proprietary software vendors. IBM’s approach is one answer: base your premium tools on an OSS platform – of course, the fact that Eclipse originated from IBM helps. However, as OSS projects begin to climb the food chain, this takes away business from premium tools. This may appear as a negative effect for businesses but the reality is that businesses will seek ways in which to monetize a need, and the result of OSS will be to stimulate innovation in IT.
For example, businesses will charge premiums for ways in which complex tools can be made easier to use. For historical reasons as much as anything else, IT tools are more computer friendly than human friendly. To date, customers have put up with that because there have been few alternatives, but this could change, with better tools designed to adapt to the ways in which people work.
Another effect of OSS is to persuade formerly proprietary software businesses to open source some of their products. This has the benefit of fostering interest in the vendor and helps move customers up to the premium products. For any business contemplating such a move the key question is which OSS license to adopt. There are two main variants: the GNU General Public License (GPL) and something like the BSD license.
The most distinctive feature of the GPL is that it requires all modifications to be released back to the OSS project. This prevents a business from building a proprietary product on top of a GPL product. On the other hand, the BSD provides complete freedom of use in whatever form, as long as the copyright details are retained. So, Linux uses GPL, ensuring it will always remain OSS. In contrast, Zend recently launched the Zend Framework under the BSD license. Therefore, the vendor positively encourages any use of the framework, including embedding in a proprietary product – as its aim is to spread use of the PHP language.
Although it is still early days, in relative terms, the signs are that OSS is steadily growing its influence, and while making it tough for affected businesses by commoditizing a market that had commanded a premium entry cost, it will also stimulate them to find new revenue streams.
Source: OpinionWire by Butler Group (www.butlergroup.com)
