MUST READ: Congress demands answers from Google over Glass privacy concerns

Topic: Linux

Are Linux vendors predatory?

Summary: But is Covalent predatory? Gosh, no. Because Covalent does not take control over any code it supports. You or I are free to go into direct competition with Covalent, supporting the exact same products.

Dana Blankenhorn

By Dana Blankenhorn for Linux and Open Source |

Killer Penguin Ale labelI want to continue our discussion about penguins as predators by talking about Covalent.

(This limited edition ale was described as ""a bomber you can't refuse" by its producer, Boulder Brewing.)

Covalent's business is supporting open source projects, then selling direct support of the same software to corporate clients. Covalent doesn't launch projects. If projects fade in popularity, Covalent can go support other projects -- the loss is minimal.

Today Covalent added support for nine new Apache technologies to its roster and it's expanding, on a per-incident basis, into support for non-Apache offerings, including Interface21's Spring Framework.

Is it being predatory? I put this to Covalent CEO Mark Brewer. "You're right. We choose projects as they mature and need support. If they die we can make the decision to no longer support them."

But is Covalent predatory? Gosh, no. Because Covalent does not take control over any code it supports. You or I are free to go into direct competition with Covalent, supporting the exact same products.

Which for Brewer brought up an interesting point. "I count 10 different start up CEOs who graduated from Covalent." Not counting Jim Zemlin, now executive director of the Linux Foundation.

There are many ways to play the open source game. You can release code you wrote and seek to control it, through some version of a BSD license. You can release code and seek support for it. You can support others' code-writing efforts.

And Brewer notes, Covalent does take development risks. "We provide committers and work on projects that aren't out yet. We work on new versions of software where there is no money yet."

Once again, the use of a penguin as the Linux mascot is apropos. Cute on the land, highly competitive in its own environment. Don't let that tuxedo fool you.

Topics: Linux, Open Source

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

18 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion

  • Oops...

    "You can release code you wrote and seek to control it, through some version of a BSD license"

    One does not use a BSD style license to control code. A good license to control code is the MPL - witness all of the companies that use the MPL with a logo requirement.
    Swashbuckler2
    Reply Vote

    • MPL vs. BSD

      I personally consider the MPL to be a version of the BSD license. It's at the top of the open source incline.
      DanaBlankenhorn
      Reply Vote

      • WTF?!

        <i>I personally consider the MPL to be a version of the BSD license.</i>

        Have you actually read the terms of those licenses (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php and http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mozilla1.1.php)? They are WORLDS apart. The MPL is a much more onerous license.
        Swashbuckler2
        Reply Vote

  • Please define predatory.

    This is a company that contributes to a project and sells the product at maturity. Equivalent, seemingly, to a venture capitalist or a large software company which buys a startup.

    To me, predatory involves taking something of value. For example, when an open source project is able to reduce sales of the proprietary software it is intended to imitate and harm, that's predatory behavior.

    But predatory behavior isn't ordinary market competition. If two products are equivalent and one gains higher sales than the other, that's capitalism. Red Hat competes with Novell in the Linux server market, for example, and was fairly winning the competition by selling more software. That's not predatory behavior.
    (Now with Microsoft on the side of Novell and SuSE, the result of Red Hat's attempt to gain a monopoly in the Linux server market is again in doubt.)

    Thus, OpenOffice is a predator and Star Office is a competitor in the market. Which is probably suffering more harm from OpenOffice than any other office suite.

    Seems an easy enough distinction.
    Anton Philidor
    Reply Vote

    • Predatory is a tough word

      I had to think long and hard before using the word "predatory" in my piece. My first draft compared Covalent to a vulture, but Mark Brewer convinced me that's too strong.

      The point is that Covalent is not the lead developer on much of the software it supports. It doesn't "own" any code, and thus can flit in-and-out of markets, really at the whim of its customers.

      Projects which were getting support from Covalent may not later if Covalent customers don't want it. This may damage the fired project in the marketplace, with developers and customers.

      But Covalent takes no real responsibility for the code base, other than having on staff people who act as "committers" to various projects.

      Does that mean they're swooping down on projects, taking the cash flow while giving as little as possible back?

      I really doubt that's true in Covalent's case. They're good people. But could it be true in the case of other companies? You betcha.

      Even that's not predatory, though. All are free and have equal rights.

      This is not the case in the proprietary world. Now that's predatory.
      DanaBlankenhorn
      Reply Vote

      • Worthwhile point.

        So the example you have selected concerns a company which is not a Linux vendor (at least not exclusively) and which is not predatory. Rather than dealing with the issue in your title, you're considering how an open source software or service or both supplier might behave in a predatory manner.

        If you consider some aspect of the proprietary software economy predatory, that would be a good example for contrast.

        Suppose you were considering a vendor which helps install predatory software and does some coding which adapts the software to a customer's use. This vedor may cease to install a software package if there is not enough demand.

        How is that different in a way that makes one a predator and one not?

        Interesting inquiry because iot deals with the hostility to proprietary software inherent in the thinking of some/many/most open source advocates.
        Anton Philidor
        Reply Vote

        • Sigh.

          "Suppose you were considering a vendor which helps install proprietary software and does some coding which adapts the software to a customer's use."

          Look at clock. Start post. The reverse sometimes does not work well.
          Anton Philidor
          Reply Vote

      • Predatory - sure; Proprietary Predatory? Not at all

        Proprietary software vendors created something, publish it, fix it, and get paid for it. I see that as perfectly just. They did the work, they should profit from it if it's useful to me.

        I don't see closed source as being predatory, unless they incorporate open source code into their products and hide that fact. I'm assuming everyone stays legal here; if you mix illegal behavior in, that's a different subject.

        I do see someone as predatory when:
        1) They didn't create something
        2) They make money off of people paying them for a service available elsewhere
        3) The people that did create something don't get direct compensation.

        To me, that's predatory, and it sounds like some or all of these companies are.

        Now, if the person that created an open source project already has a job, I could see some justification, but wouldn?t you want the original author(s) to be the ones to maintain your code? I certainly would.

        I do see some justification to these companies for 'clueless users' who, of course, are probably the majority of all trouble calls, not a defect in the product itself (along with 'how do I ...' consulting).

        But I pay the mechanic at Tires R Us to put new tires on my car; that's fine. I wouldn't expect to tow a Ferrari off the lot, then give the Tires R Us guys 10 bucks to get a new key made for that Ferrari. That's just wrong.

        == John ==
        jgwinner
        Reply Vote

    • Predatory behavior? Nope

      Your description of OpenOffice and StarOffice is backwards: StarOffice is more enterpise-oriented than OpenOffice(different targets), and StarOffice is based upon OpenOffice, not the other way around, as you imply in this paragraph:

      [i]To me, predatory involves taking something of value. For example, when an open source project is able to reduce sales of the [b]proprietary software it is intended to imitate[/b] and harm, that's predatory behavior.[/i]

      So which program is taking something of value again? You may as well try to state that Vista Home Premium is predatory against Home Basic, or that Fedora is predatory against RHEL.

      This isn't predatory behavior. Predatory behavior is behavior that attempts to cut off or cripple competition through means considered unfair(i.e. "Strong-arm tactics"). One only needs to look at Microsoft's antitrust trials to see predatory behavior in action.
      Tony Agudo
      Reply Vote

      • Prey

        OpenOffice is intended to be a predator on Microsoft Office. Instead, it does more damage to StarOffice.

        Similarly, FireFox and Mozilla were intended to be predators against Internet Explorer (and Office). FireFox has been used by a noticeable number of people and IE's share has declined slightly. But Netscape, the browser using code from the Mozilla Foundation, has been devastated, being listed among Other browsers only by courtesy.
        Seems ungrateful, given that Netscape started the Mozilla project in an attempt to survive by lowering staff costs for development. As you know, that effort failed because after a long time trying to improve the Netscape code, the leaders of the project decided to start from the beginning. Which required a great deal more time.

        So, there's predatory behavior and there are unintended consequences.

        Microsoft has provided some good examples of predatory behavior with the company's tactics, no question. But the issue here is defining predatory. You wouldn't consider the sole answer to be Some of Microsoft's attacks on the competition.

        So, more generally, how would you define predatory?
        Anton Philidor
        Reply Vote

        • Defining a predator

          [i]OpenOffice is intended to be a predator on Microsoft Office. Instead, it does more damage to StarOffice.[/i]

          Can OpenOffice really be called a predator when it's main competitor practically comes pre-installed on the majority of retail PCs sold, and OpenOffice has to be downloaded? If price is a criteria for defining a predator, then yes OpenOffice is a predator. Then again, so are WordPerfect, ThinkFree, and several others in this sense. But offering a product at a lower cost than a competitor isn't being predatory, it's being competitive with the side effect of commoditizing said product. Yet why hasn't MS Office's price gone down in the face of such competition? The answer is in the question posed at the beginning of this paragraph. Leveraging the Windows desktop dominance to boost Office installations may not be predatorial in itself, it does give MS Office a position that it's competitors don't have(pre-installation which gives the illusion of free), which may be why MS can charge so exorbitantly for Office retail. That may be considered predatory.
          Tony Agudo
          Reply Vote

          • And the definition?

            I was considering a definition of a predator that involved damaging actions unrelated to the features and capabilities of the predator's product.

            Pricing can be a predatory action. For example, OpenOffice could be sold, but is instead given away. That approach might be considered a form of dumping, damaging competitors by pricing below cost for a longer period than required for a promotion.

            In contrast, WordPerfect underbid Works in order to gain exposure on low-priced computers. (The company producing WordPerfect provided a limited version of its suite to OEMs at a price with little profit, but lower than that at which Microsoft offered Works.)

            The idea was to increase exposure and so gain upgrades to the full version of the WordPerfect Suite. It didn't work; people still wanted or already had Microsoft Office for their new computers.
            That's a competitive action.

            For contrast again, the pre-installed Office may be less expensive, but the price is still higher than that for most competitors. But people still buy it. That's sales on some basis other than cost. Probably branding.

            It's not a linkage to Windows. Mac owners buy many copies of Office because they won't do without the product. People want Microsoft Office.

            Microsoft has produced the Home and Stuent version at about $150 list. That's apparently low enough to satisfy remaining price-conscious buyers. An "acceptable price" doesn't have to be $0.

            So I don't think Office is now a good example of a product advanced by predatory means.

            Any further thoughts on what makes a predator?
            Anton Philidor
            Reply Vote

          • Seemingly...

            ...only Microsoft can be a predator. Only actions by Microsoft can be predatory. Therefore, the definition of 'predator' is Microsoft and the definition of 'predatory' is 'any action taken by Microsoft'. The same actions taken by anyone else are merely 'competitive'. Whether Windows or Office are priced too high or too low, it is called 'predatory'. Software patents were not a problem until Microsoft started amassing them, because it's apparent no one else would ever use them in a predatory manner. Well, except maybe for Eolas and Alcatel, but since they used them against Microsoft it was OK.

            Just check out Ole Man's post below. There is no predator but Microsoft.

            Carl Rapson
            rapson
            Reply Vote

          • Not really...

            I referenced Microsoft's antitrust problems because they were a good example of predatory behavior. Nowadays they are more careful about what actions could be perceived as predatory(with the possible exception of their as yet unsubstantiated Linux patent claims). But you're right about Alcatel, their actions certainly were predatory, if not deceitful. They took advantage of a good faith belief that Fraunhofer was the only MP3 licensor and hit Microsoft's pockets hard.

            Perhaps <a href="http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/118">Mark Shuttleworth</a> is right, software and patents just don't mix well. Either we could get rid of them completely, or at least have a patent protection term that's more fit to software(3-5 years maybe), because software ideas move a heck of a lot faster than 17 years(at least that's the term I heard about).
            Tony Agudo
            Reply Vote

        • You are the prey

          Microsoft is the predator.

          Until you can understand that, you are
          only confusing yourself with your
          incessant babbling.
          Ole Man
          Reply Vote

    • Predatory - an operational definition

      Predatory - Behavior which is perceived to be harmful to the interests of the defining entity. In short "If it is my ox that is gored by you then your behavior is predatory" and the definition of non predatory is ?If my actions gores your ox that I am not predatory, I am simply competitive? This is the most workable definition that I could devise. Please consider the following?

      The trick of sending out goon squads to breakup the cash registers of merchants who bought your competitors units is an example of a predatory marketing technique and also highly illegal. It seems that excluding extreme acts such as this or kickbacks or torching your competitor?s facilities is in the gray area. Back in 1981 MSDOS 1.0 nee` DOS86 were virtually identical to CP/M 80 (not CP/M 86) in both user interface and internal structure but it was MSDOS 2.0, similar to Unix user interface, that killed CP/M and incidentally Digital Research Inc. Bill Gates and Vern Raburn simply stepped into a vacuum and the rest is history. Was this predatory? I don't think so! If they had not then the PC would have likely been stillborn. What would you play Solitaire on? And good luck trying to convince an Apple fan that since the Lisa interfaces bore such similarity to the Alto developed at Xerox PARC; Apples development of the Lisa and Mac were predatory moves. Likewise this was a ?significant advancement of the art? just ask any Apple fan.

      What are your ideas on the subject?
      robertrosenthal
      Reply Vote

      • Okay, let's try...

        ... then start of a definition with two (actually three) characteristics.

        Predatory behavior is an action which is:

        1. Damaging to sales by one or all competitors in a specific market, and
        2. Using resources unrelated to sales of the predator's product in the specified market.

        So, when Microsoft issued IE free, as an example, that was predatory behavior. Netscape sales were reduced, and Microsoft could not have provided the browser free without sales of Windows providing resources.

        A hypothetical open source project obtaining its labor free can also be a predatory action. The effect can be reduced sales for proprietary software in the same market, and the external resources can be money earned from employment by the participants.

        That's not a perfect definition, of course, because an action like providing home AV free in order to make the product known to people who make corporate purchases isn't predatory, it's marketing. But the two characteristics named are, I think, a start.
        Anton Philidor
        Reply Vote

  • Geek Squad

    If a company providing support for a product they did not develop is predatory, then I would say there is a huge market for predators- witness the "Geek Squad", et. al.
    After all- they did not write any of the code, they give nothing back to the companies that did write it, they are simply making a living supporting the software and hardware.

    While "predatory" might be semantically correct, I do not feel that providing support meets the "gut reaction" to the term, though I would hope that they work with bugzilla to ferret out the defects and contribute fixes back to the community.
    bryantrv
    Reply Vote
CNET Join | Log In | Privacy | Cookies Close