Open source needs two strong arms

Summary: A business arm also brings enormous benefits to customers, making selection of an open source project by even the largest enterprise into a rational business decision.

It takes two strong arms to make an open source project a success.

It takes a community arm and a business arm.

(The picture is from Lemonade, an Australian creative agency specializing in branding, design, and online work.)

To call the latter a "boil-in-the-bag" business model, as Ashlee Vance of The New York Times did this morning, is lazy ignorance

Lucene will benefit enormously from the creation of Lucid Imagination, its new business arm. Paying customers bring jobs to the community, and important questions on usability and installation that programmers don't put top-of-mind.

A business arm also brings enormous benefits to customers, making selection of an open source project by even the largest enterprise into a rational business decision.

The creation of a business model can also be a game changer. Vance casually glances past one such example, Acquia.

Before the business arm of Drupal was formed, the community management package was falling behind rival Wordpress in popularity and buzz. Matt Mullenweg was the industry cover boy, Dries Buytaert was just another Belgian 20-something.

Now Drupal is running the White House Web site and, while Automattic is a viable business drawn off Wordpress, most now consider the software a blogging tool. One look at Automattic's home page tells you why -- its efforts are scattershot, while Acquia is focused. (Full disclosure. ZDNet runs Wordpress.)

So the creation of an open source commercial arm is not like tossing a bag of peas and carrots into boiling water for dinner (has The Times heard of these things called microwaves yet), but a significant event that helps developers, helps customers and can point the software in a new direction.

I suspect the phrase "boil-in-a-bag business model" is meant to imply that there is something lazy or cookie-cutter about getting a commercial arm launched for an open source project. What's lazy is the media assumption that there is a contradiction between open source and making money.

Put that in your microwave and nuke it. (Getting my mad on over The New York Times is a good way to start a new year. Thanks to Ashlee Vance for the annoyance.)

Topic: 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

10 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Open_Source is doing GREAT!

    Look at the ads on here... Microsoft go figure.
    linux_kernel
  • OSS also needs another arm

    or member, or whatever you want to call it...a political arm that should lobby the congress for tax incentives and grants for FOSS projects to create new jobs and protect against monopolistic practices from M$ and Apple.
    Linux Geek
    • That's twice you are wrong on the same page

      We need to cut out the bribery (known as ?lobbying?) in government. So the populace would be informed and have a choice. A voice and a choice, in other words.

      http://news.cnet.com/2010-1071_3-1021938.html
      Perspective: Microsoft's new push in Washington

      http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-120716.html
      Microsoft's lobbying efforts eclipse Enron

      We should also bring to a screeching halt the rape of public school budgets by self serving software suppliers and the pollution of our children?s minds.

      Do not join the club. Disband it.
      Ole Man
      • So you agree that the OSS lobbyists should also be eliminated, yes?

        What's good for the goose must also be good for the gander.

        If you're advocating that commercial software companies, who employ and pay the salaries of the majority of OSS contributors should be unable to lobby government, then you agree that OSS advocates should also be unable to lobby government.

        Right?

        Right.
        de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023
        • No

          The OSS does not have greedy lobysts.
          They need grants from the government so they can improve our life and eliminate the M$ polution.
          Linux Geek
          • So much economic illiteracy...

            First off, any business model should stand or fall based on its own merits, and NOT due to government grants.

            Second, it's not the job of the government to improve your life. It's the government's job to safeguard your FREEDOM to improve your life through your own efforts and talents. What you do with that freedom is up to you. I'm sure you won't pay me dividends if you succeed ... therefore, don't hold me or any other taxpayer accountable for your failures.

            Third, government meddling in business got us to where we are today. Although it's fashionable (and therefore naive) to blame our current woes on "capitalist greed," government pressure to extend unsafe loans was responsible for much of 2008-2009's collapse.

            We need a government that protects our freedoms, and does ONLY that. What we have instead is one that is usurping those freedoms daily.

            To forestall some inevitable responses: I'm not making a partisan rant ... corporate welfare practiced by Republicans OR Democrats is equally odious to me. I don't believe that any company is "too big to fail." For individuals, I support a publicly funded safety net to provide for people who fall on hard times, but I do NOT support the current system which forces productive people to subsidize others who are CAPABLE but UNWILLING to work.
            Churlish
          • Absolutely!

            To which I would like to add, the government has not protected the populace by regulating the greedy corporations who use every avaricious trick available to extort money from them.

            Which much of the cause, I submit, is legalized bribery (lobbying).
            Ole Man
        • All bribery is wrong

          Whether it originates at the bottom, or the top.

          Got gave each human a little light, to know of a certainty right from wrong. Most of them want to pretend they just don't know, if it amounts to a little profit.
          Ole Man
  • RE: Open source needs two strong arms

    Dana ? I agree with you. Open Source continues to evolve, and the commercialization of open source - learning how to make money at it - has been happening for some time. Add to the examples you mention other game changers like SugarCRM that launched with the community and business arms fully loaded, and the power of doing business with open source is apparent. It?s part of a pragmatic approach to OSS that continues to gain ground, not only for pure open source companies, but also commercial open source and enterprise organizations that have discovered the benefits of mixed or multi-source development. In 2009, Black Duck was talking about what we saw growing within many Fortune 1000 development organizations as ?the new pragmatism? around leveraging open source with other code (helped along by the recession of course). Now it is becoming more common and it?s no longer ?new,? but a full blown trend with more to come in 2010.

    Peter
    pvescuso
  • I think it need more zealots to spread the religion...

    The current crop of blind zealots seems to be inadequate...
    transposeIT