Open Source Movement dot Org

It looks as if the Apache Software Foundation will be working with Sun on Project Harmony which is an implementation of J2SE 5.

More surprisingly, it looks like Sun Microsystems is happy about it. They have been taking a huge hit from Linux servers replacing Solaris servers. With that in mind, I think Sun is welcoming assistance in making of the test suites, compilers and other parts of the J2SE 5 system while they concentrate on the most important aspects, the core architectural changes.

This is a big boon for the Apache Jakarta set of software, which all rely on Java. When stable version of Harmony comes out, these projects will be able to run inside of an open source runtime environment and they will be able to distribute, for instance, Tomcat, completely with an Apache license.

The new kid on the block of Open Source business models - the stack model - is gaining VC acceptance. The money that’s been on the sidelines is moving into the game. Both SpikeSource and SourceLabs are a less risky, easier to sell, open source solution.

There have been other stacks of software sold such as Red Hat’s server software, and smaller, loosely federated stacks that target developers for the most-part. However, the current stacks lean on proprietary software extensions built into the stacks (as a module on top of mostly open source cores) for revenue. The stack model companies mentioned in this article seem to be going after the enterprise systems by leaning more on packaging, service, support, and certification.

The merit based OS community fosters an environment in which software is only released when it is ready. The problem is that only that one small piece is ready, not the entire framework. Developers who review a lot of Open Source projects envision many the fragmented OS projects converging into a framework, however, they realize that a good bit of the cost is putting all these pieces together for a customer.

This is where the stack business model steps in. Configured, enterprise-ready, supportable stacks of open source with minimal proprietary tie-in, unlike the Linux distribution model that was popular from 2000-2004.

Stacks are also important for developers because it gives them a large base of OS projects on which they can now build on top of as a whole. This allows for further freedoms both in the OS realm and commercial realm of stacks without the hassle of putting all the pieces together.

These stacks are built on top of a loose framework referred to widely as LAMP, which stands for Linux Apache MySQL [PHP, Python]. Ironically these stacks are also available on Windows also. SpikeSource calls that stack the WAMP Stack.

Mr. Lessig has recently posted on his blog about a new report from the OECD, which consists of 30 member countries. The US joined a few months after the organization was established in December 1960.

The panel that produced the new report:

The panel was designed to analyze and discuss changing digital broadband content value chains and business models and help identify new challenges and issues facing the development and delivery of digital content.

The first part of the summary states some very basic assumptions about the fluctuations in the marketplace surrounding media distribution, whether that’s CDs and DVDs or the Sopranos on HBO through access subscriptions:

Disruptive technologies, and broadband in particular, are challenging established business models while creating important development opportunities…

The relationships between content originators and final users are changing, intermediaries are being created or replaced, and attitudes to content ownership and acquisition are changing.

The “Early Impacts” section of the document on page 4 is the most interesting for me because it hilights BitTorrent and P2P:

Users are challenging established ownership and distribution arrangements, whether through P2P networks or open access/open archive publishing conventions, or through new mass distribution and inter-community trading.

Although it doesn’t go into the details, the reason BitTorrent got such a high billing so soon after it’s technology debut is because suddenly new models based on RSS and BitTorrent can effectively produce a “Tivo Season Pass” like feature with little to no cost of distribution.

The point of the entire paper to me is that there is obviously a demand for “easy / deep access” to video content and a need to modify current business models to deal with it.

Constant whining about the GPL from large companies eventually gets reverberated throughout the mediocre media without any thought as to the context of the use.

Most organizations simply use software on the application-level. They run copy of Linux as an operating system, or launch Gaim as an IM client. Still other common uses are to use the software to build larger systems such as networks. In general, most companies do not build software. These complaints that I see aired against the GPL are largely only valid when you are a software company that is building products out of software that is already GPL’ed. Outside of that context it is simply a red herring. In so doing, they obfuscate the very real benefits of GPL’ed codebases such as the Linux kernel. They will work fine side-by-side with proprietary software.

Most organizations do not differentiate themselves by software, they manufacture planes, trains, and automobiles. They either deal in hard-goods or soft-goods that are not software. I say to the majority of companies out there that are not large software companies that own their own Operating System - you have plenty to gain from GPL’ed code and it will not invade your business practices or make you pledge your firstborn.

For a lot of projects the GPL is crucial because the developer (software artist) that released the code did so for the sake of his community, not for it to disappear into the codebase of Microsoft or Sun as soon as it is made available. This will continue to be a truth, Sun should learn to deal with it appropriately and with one clear voice. This is the modern-day equivalent to a painter only wanting their work on public display. They have no interest in a museum procuring it or entering the work into the marketplace. It is their right to do so, and a company that knows software and Open Source should know that.

Bruce Perens analyzes the economic impact of the emergence, acceptance and spread of OSS. This is a must-read for IT professionals. In a very pragmatic (yet still passionate) way Mr. Perens dissects the software production process, the software industry, then after he has broken down the pieces of the puzzle, he puts them together and addresses global economic impact.

(Spoiler alert! Read the full article (new window) before preceding.)

In a nutshell the article takes the following statement which almost everyone would agree to…

Microsoft is a tool-maker, and the effect of the tool-maker on the economy is tiny next to the economic effect of all of the people who are enabled by the maker’s tools. The secondary economic effect caused by all of the people and businesses who use an enabling technology is greater than the primary economic effect of the dollars paid for that technology.

… and if the reader can believe that, they must recognize that the same can be said of Open Source software. It is tough to refute the impact Linux, Apache, and other notable F/OSS “tools”.

The section titled Enabling Technology vs. Business Differentiation illustrates that decision makers should treat software assets differently within their organization based on how much that software contributes directly to market differentiation of one’s organization. Dealing with every piece of software as a trade secret and worthy of copyrighting does not benefit the company when dealing with undifferentiating software. The key is to survey one’s technology stack and figure out which is differentiating and which is non-differentiating.

Perhaps 90% of the software in any business is non-differentiating. Much of it is referred to as infrastructure, the base upon which differentiating technology is built.

These are the commoditized products: the web server, the operating system, the database, the word processor. The parts of your software stack that bring value to the customer that should always be targeted for new licensing, upgrades, modifications, enhancements. The rest, you want to reduce risk and maintenance cycles on (remember they are commodities) so you can spend more resources on that 10% that your customer cares about. You really oughtn’t have to pay for the same word processor year after year. It’s just silly in the Emerging Economic Paradigm of Open Source (full title of Bruce’s article, although his title tag differs) to spend those resources on such a simple commodity. This does not mean do not pay attention to that 90%, it means you need to give it special attention up-front, and doing so will reduce your expenditures over time in those areas and help shift it towards the right areas of your software stack.

An important indicator of whether software is differentiating is whether or not your competitor can get the same software. Neither Microsoft software nor Linux and Open Source can help you differentiate your business for long, because they are available to everyone. They differentiate against each other, they just don’t differentiate your business.

This goes to the point of cost savings I have made before to colleagues. The money in Open Source is how much you can shift your technology costs and efforts toward other aspects of one’s business.

Thus, to make your business more desirable to customers, you should spend more on differentiating software that makes your business more desirable, and less on software that doesn’t differentiate your business. Open Source is the key to spending less on non-differentiators, by distributing cost and risk that was formerly your company’s alone across multiple collaborating companies.

Open Source is changing the industry and the world, some just haven’t realized it yet. The rest of us are enjoying witnessing the disruptive forces of the digital renaissance.