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.)
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Open_Source is doing GREAT!
OSS also needs another arm
That's twice you are wrong on the same page
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.
So you agree that the OSS lobbyists should also be eliminated, yes?
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.
No
They need grants from the government so they can improve our life and eliminate the M$ polution.
So much economic illiteracy...
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.
Absolutely!
Which much of the cause, I submit, is legalized bribery (lobbying).
All bribery is wrong
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.
RE: Open source needs two strong arms
Peter
I think it need more zealots to spread the religion...