One of the things we do here in OCLC Research is develop software. Much of this is 'throw-away,' in that it is so specialized we would never consider sharing it, but some packages are of interest to others and we need to decide whether and how to share them.
Over the last few years, the first question has become 'will we make it open source?' There are at least two levels that need to be considered in answering that, either one of which may trump the other.
The first level is at the developer/code level. Who is interested in using the software? Are we interested in getting the software ready to share (it will take at least minimal documentation and packaging)? Are the developers interested in supporting an open source project? They need to be both able and interested in outside users' needs, suggestions, and submittals. From a long-term maintenance point-of-view, does it look like it will be easier or more work to have outside users and contributors?
The next level is a more corporate view. What does the cooperative gain by making the software available? Will it be picked up by for-profit corporations in competition? Will it open up new opportunities? New partners? Will it make it easier for us to work with others, or more difficult? Will we be forgoing possible revenue? Will others be profiting from our software in ways we wouldn't have, and will that bother us? What will the benefit be for our members? Can we put a dollar amount on the potential costs and benefits?
I've written before about some of our thoughts on software licenses. In the interests of making our software as useful as possible, we've decided to start using the Apache License, Version 2.0. The Apache license offers very few restrictions on what can be done with the code and is well known, so users of our software won't have to read a license specific to only our code. We'll be re-releasing some of our older code under this new license.
A good book on the subject of software licenses is Andrew M. St. Laurent's Understanding open source and free software licensing. Also, a link noticed in Ongoing about limiting the proliferation of open source licenses.
Thanks to Eric Childress for contributions and thoughts about this.
--Th
Whether or not to open-source (used as a verb, of course... I love English) is an important question for software and many other types of content.
In "The World is Flat," Thomas Friedman uses a really good simile to describe the differentiation that high-value products/services provide as they move "up" the value chain; sauces and toppings on ice-cream. His point being that we are at the point where the provision of basic "vanilla ice-cream" is untenable as a business proposition. People can either: A) do vanilla for themselves; B) outsource it; C) get quotes from 99+ competitors.
He connects this to the Open Source movement by pointing out that when everyone works together, openly, at making the vanilla ice-cream (server software, for example) better, it makes it much easier/cheaper/faster for the system as a whole to get to work on lots more toppings. If we're all still competing on 206 varieties of vanilla ice-cream, and our customers are confused about that, and have to use different spoons with different types of vanilla, etc.... you get the picture.
So... one consideration to possibly look at when considering whether or not to open-source a piece of software might be to ask the question: how much is it vanilla ice-cream vs. how much is it butter-pecan-sauce? And, if it's vanilla... is it a type that will taste really good with *your* brand of butter-pecan-sauce? IE, will it help sell the thing(s) that your company is uniquely positioned to sell?
IBM is a good example of a software company that is really boldly pushing into the Open Source space, of course. They've looked at the landscape and made the determination that many of their competitors are half-vanilla, half-toppings. OK. So if they (IBM) can flood the market with nearly-free, Open Source, really good vanilla, and be the premiere provider of toppings that work very well with that free Open Source stuff... what happens to their competitors?
In the old days, you'd get in trouble for unfair price cutting if you continuously offered products/services at a price that a smaller competitor couldn't meet. But giving them away for free? I'm not sure if the FTC and various attorneys general have taken a look at the Open Source movement as a method of potential price fixing. But it's an interesting thought.
Posted by: Andy Havens | December 25, 2005 at 09:56