John Roberts OSBC keynote: Commercial open source
John Roberts is in the middle of his OSBC keynote, and has said a few things that i find pretty intriguing:
- SugarCRM never pretends to be anything other than "commercial open source." It has been careful not to deceive would-be users or developers that it is a pureplay open source company that is interested in free love. (Each of the founders has kids. They'll soon be learning about "tough love." :-) I think this kind of transparency is actually quite innovative.
- John put up some compelling charts showing engineering vs. sales/engineering spend at its competitors. I wasn't surprised to see that Siebel spends significantly more on sales/marketing rather than actually writing a quality product, but I was very surprised to see that Salesforce.com comes in last on the list: they spend $10 on sales and marketing for every $1 they spend on engineering their product. That's an amazingly paltry amount for Salesforce.com to spend on writing its product.
- SugarCRM isn't proprietary - it's commercial. There is a difference, and the amount of free/open software they write and release grows over time, and is always in the majority.
4 comments:
Actually, SugarCRM writes a lot of "public source" software. Their software is free "as in beer" but not "as in freedom." I'm curious Matt... You are one of the thought leaders on Open Source and it doesn't bother you that what they call "open source" doesn't meet the basic definition (OSI) of open source? OSI will never certify their license because it does not meet the base definition of open source.
ie, doesn't bother me dual licensing, pro editions, etc etc. Commercialization == GOOD. Let me rephrase; Commercialization == VERY GOOD. However, when someone SAYS they are open source but are clearly not (check out Exhibit B) it bothers me... Not you?
There are plenty of companies making plenty of money on the accepted "meaning" of open source using a PLETHORA of licenses to suit specific needs. Sugar is masquerading as an open source company when they are really a "public source" company with a non OSI license.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter and thanks for all the great content.
Kind Regards,
Nick
huh... no response... anyone else have thoughts on non-OSI approved licenses being called "open source?"
Sorry about the lack of response. I actually didn't get your initial comment emailed to me, for whatever reason....
I consider SugarCRM a definite open source company. So far as I know, the only reason their MPL'd software isn't OSI approved is because they, like Alfresco, tack on an addendum (which the MPL allows) that requires attribution. I don't consider the requirement onerous or out of keeping with open source (several of the most prominent licenses have required attribution), and so I'm happy to consider SugarCRM an open source company, whatever the OSI might think.
As for the "plenty of companies making plenty of money," I think you may be overstating your case. I'm unaware of more than 4-5 that are making serious bank right now. That's changing, but it's changing because of innovative business models like Sugar's, and not because these companies are using vanilla open source licenses. I think it's possible to do so - absolutely. But i don't fault Sugar for looking elsewhere to make money, given all the great code it releases into the open source wild.
Matt
Hey... Thanks for your response!
I suppose I disagree that one (or several) companies can change the definition of open source to make a buck (or many bucks). The models these companies are "pioneering" under their licenses are not new at all. Give software for FREE (as in beer) but not FREE (as in freedom) so SOME people must pay for it. That's called shareware and been around for ages. No beefs with that... that's a perfectly valid way to make software and money, but it's not FREE and OPEN now is it? In other words, if their business model isn't actually "open source" why not just call it what it is? Shareware? Or public source? Or Joes Source Model... whatever :)
How many hundreds of millions of lines of code (and [m|b]illions of dollars of man hours) have been built, tested, used, contributed, etc by both individuals and companies that have been able to find various "flavors" to suit (Apache, Mozilla, GPL, LGPL, etc) but all agreeing to some basic tenets (OSI definition of open source)? These companies believe they require special protections that IBM, Sun, Netscape, did not?
If you believe Open Source is about free software (as in price) and don't think open source requires any of that "freedom" stuff then I can see how SugarCRM license qualifies. However, if you believe it requires some of that "community freedom" stuff then I suppose one has to question the validity of the "Exhibit Bs" of the world.
btw, I'm def in the minority on this opinion. Most people think SugarCRM is a darling of an open source company. I have no vested interest in Sugar (or competitors) I just like the healthy debate and to raise the issue. If most CXOs don't care enough to advocate then the market will SPEAK. So far, the market is very much in the "we don't actually know enough about open source to care/complain" camp. I'm not sure SugarCRM has lost one sale because of their license.
re: PLENTY of money. You're right. I was probably overstating that one. :) Thanks again for your response!
Post a Comment