Is EnterpriseDB an Open Source Company

Sparked by a post mentioned here, there is now a healthy debate going on about whether companies like EnterpriseDB are Open Source or not. Allison is one who says yes, while Matt Asay says no. As usual, CBR has some very good coverage.

I’ve thought about the topic a bit and have come up somewhat in the middle of the two opinions and think a new segment of company may need to be defined. I’d agree with Matt that companies like this are not true 100% Open Source companies. Allision makes a good point when she says the following though:

It seems a bit hypocritical to extoll the greater freedom offered by the BSD license (as its supporters do), and then look askance at companies who use the rights granted to them.

To me it’s clear that companies like EnterpriseDB are also not what I would call true proprietary companies either. Not even close. It’s not just that they base their product on Open Source that makes me feel this way. It’s that they donate to the greater Open Source project they are part of in significant ways. They employee some people full time to work solely on the Open Source code, they donate money and resources and they are a part of that community. While not all of their code is Open Source, they absolutely live and die by their ties and reliance on an Open Source project. Some companies simply extort Open Source for their gain. Those companies to me are in no way Open Source, whether or not they use or support Open Source code. It all comes back to intent here for me.

So, what do we call companies like this? I’m still thinking about that, but I do think that companies that truly benefit the ecosystem they are a part of and really do foster the Open Source project(s) that they work with do deserve a large amount of credit. The distinction between “true” Open Source company and Open Source company is not clear enough. We need a name IMHO. Any ideas?

Whatever you call companies like this, I do think they deserve a shot at being at OSCON.

–jeremy

Is "Open Source" Now Completely Meaningless?

Nat is building the OSCON schedule, and asks: Is “Open Source” Now Completely Meaningless? From the post:

I’ve found some very strange companies claiming to be open source.

Can you really call yourself open source if you haven’t opened the source? I don’t think so. There’s a flood of “open source” companies selling things that work on open source but which aren’t open source themselves. I think these are proprietary products, not open source. That’s been the attitude that helped me select talks for OSCON–I only want open source products talked about. My rule of thumb is that the audience should be able to download, compile, and use the software that is talked about.

He then goes into what are definitely some edge boundary cases, of which EnterpriseDB is a good example. I agree with his conclusion that in the end EnterpriseDB and companies like that are good for Open Source and should be included in an event like OSCON. A lot of it comes down to intent. You see, being “Open Source” is the in thing right now. That means some companies are using Open Source as a dumping ground. Donating old code is fine, if there is some real value and a chance that a legitimate project might thrive around the code. Donating old code because it is completely useless and you just want to get into this Open Source thing, that’s not. It’s easy to tell the difference. At this point, we even have some companies simply lying or using the words Open Source arbitrarily. Open Source means slightly different things to different people to be sure, but twisting the definition way out of whack to suit you is not something you should do. You end up with situations like this. Now intent is something that is hard to ascertain in some situations, but I can’t think of a better yardstick. You’ll always have the idealists who think something is or isn’t acceptable vs. the pragmatists. Free Software vs. Open Source isn’t going away soon. We’re all in the same larger camp though, and intent is one of the few things I can see us all agreeing on.

–jeremy

The Free Desktop

Bryce Harrington has posted an insightful commentary on running free software communities. A couple highlights:
It's easy to just copy what the proprietary guys do. After all, we like to think they're doing scientific market research and usability studies to uncover user needs. Or at the very least, users grow accustomed to the way the proprietary apps work, so if you make a good clone, you can get into the “well, at least you won't have to bother learning anything new” niche. That's actually a pretty good niche to be in, but at best it's a nibbling-from-below strategy.
However, in my view FLOSS has a secret power for achieving exactly what users need built right into the model. I'd credit a large share of Inkscape's success to simply being utter whores at taking advantage of this.
Basically, the best way to get what user's want and need into your application is for the developers to BE users.
Users have a gut-feel for what they want and need, and gut-feels are tough to express in requirements documents, bug trackers, and surveys. You know when you're developing some thingee for your own personal use what corners can be skipped, and what ones are worth polishing; you know what compromises can be made, and can immediately notice the value of some unexpected potential as the code's developed.
The reason open source has this special power is because of its openness, transparency, and (usually) ease of getting involved. Proprietary companies by their very nature are characterized as secretive and controlling, and do not consider individual users as able to contribute anything of value to their product but money.
FLOSS projects have a different value model than proprietary ones. Value in FLOSS comes not from users spending money, but on users and developers who are contributing enhancements (code, docs, translations, word-spreading, etc.)
and
So to the point – how can the free desktop succeed? Just cloning OSX or Windows isn't going to be compelling enough. Competing on a feature matrix against proprietary companies is hard since they can pull some new feature out of hiding at any point.
No, the key to success with FLOSS is its core attribute – it's openness to community-scale collaboration. Focus on energizing a strong community and empowering new users to bring their new ideas and energy in. Give them lots of room to experiment, and assist them with paving a good foundation for them to build atop. Give them invitations rather than rules, and infrastructure rather than bureaucracy. Make it easier for people with little technical skill to participate, and treat them as first class citizens when they do.
Don't think of the free desktop simply as an alternative to proprietary desktops. Instead think of it as a platform for large scale open collaboration. For us technical users sharing code, it's already hands down the best collaboration platform; the next step is to work to make it just as good for non-technical users, who are driven to collaborate on everything from clipart, encyclopedia articles, music, schedules, designs, fonts, education, games, politics, and so on. Take the rules, tools, architectures, and lessons we've gained in software collaboration and recast them for “data development”, and I think the free desktop's success will be impossible to stop.
He's absolutely right on multiple points. It's critical that you make it as easy as possible for people to get involved. Part of that comes from making it clear that you don't need to be a ninja coder to be helpful to a project. Be an evangelist, write some documentation, contribute to the projects wiki or submit good bug reports. A user that can post high quality bug reports that include all needed info and clear instructions on how to reproduce the bug are worth their weight in gold, even if they are technically unable to provide a patch. Getting community involvement is something you'll see in almost all of the so called winners. As Bryce mentions, it's sometimes easy for large projects to become insular. That can be, and in fact has been, extremely poisonous to a project and needs to be something the project leaders are cognizant of.
His point about cloning proprietary software is also extremely apropos. Sure, in some cases it's necessary or even desirable. But, it should not be the default action. Working to our strengths (and we have many) will get us much further. If you are considering starting a new software project and will be in charge of the community, you should read the linked article… digest it… then read it again. Community is that important.
–jeremy
BTW Bryce, I couldn't find a link to your RSS feed anywhere on your site or in the HTML source. If you don't know how blosxom lays things out, you might not even realize you had a feed.

Rob Enderle; Linux: Cuba and the Communist Connection – Promoting "Fear"

(via Matt Aslett): I haven’t blogged about Rob Enderle for quite some time, but he may have outdone himself here. In this post, Enderle warns that the Cuban adoption of Linux could lead to it being considered anti-American. It doesn’t stop there though:

Linux, which isn’t really a product in my mind, as it co-defines the Open Source movement, is a brand. This brand has attributes that have been created over time and generally, at least for those that use it, represents something positive.

If I’m running against an incumbent (who probably has no clue about software at all) and I know some organization under them deployed Linux and that it is being positioned as anti-U.S., might I not use that in the election? “Ladies and gentlemen I promise that under my administration we will not implement products like Linux that put the nation at risk, which contribute critical technology to the terrorists, and embolden our enemies.” In politics all you need is a grain of truth. In fact, sometimes I wonder if you even need a “grain.”

So he contents that using Linux could lose you an election. If that is not the ultimate “what if” scenario stretch, it has to be close. By that yardstick, Microsoft is responsible for nearly all spam, since it is cracked Windows zombies that is the main source. Quick, someone use that in an election. The basic premise here is so absurd that it’s hard to even argue against it in a rational manner. One statement I do take more serious issue with is:

One of the big problems with Linux, as I see it, is that certain topics (basically anything that may imply that Linux isn’t the best thing for every possible use) is off the table, because that discussion creates FUD.

I don’t see anyone saying Linux is the best thing for every possible use. I’ll go one better – it isn’t. There is no silver bullet in life, no panacea. That includes Linux. I have found that in a large variety of places, from embedded to big iron, Linux has made sense for a variety of reasons from security to stability to scalability. Does that mean that Linux is the only answer or even always the best answer? Of course not.

He ends with:

Linux will likely survive this latest internally created challenge but, at some point, someone better take ownership of the Linux brand or others will position it and supporters will probably not like how it is positioned.
What do you think Linux users should do about this? Who should own the Linux brand? And do you agree that Linux should not be used as a political weapon against anyone?

Linux isn’t a “brand”. Red Hat is a brand, as is Novell or IBM. It is however a trademark and that trademark does have a licensor. There is even a shiny “Report Abuse” link right on the homepage. That being said I don’t think the first question people asked when the US went to war with Iraq was: “What OS are they running”. After seeing Rob speak at DLS, I came away with a sort of new found respect for him. He slang little FUD and was a bit more cogent then in most of the items I had read previous to hearing him. I was so surprised, I even blogged about it. I don’t know what happened since then, but he seems to have fallen back off the deep end.

–jeremy

Who writes the Linux kernel?

An informative post over at LWN (via Matt Asay) about the code contributed to the 2.6.20 kernel, followed by the last year of kernel changes. The result? As far as companies go, Red Hat is by far in the lead as far as both number of changesets and number of lines go. Other top names are what you would expect: Novell, IBM, Linux Foundation, Intel, Oracle, etc. It's good to see that Red Hat can now back up the claim that they are doing a significant amount of work in the kernel space. It's interesting to note that “Unknown” is in first and “None” in third. The definitions are: “the line marked “(Unknown)” is exactly that: patches for which existence of a supporting employer could not be determined. The line marked “(None)”, instead, indicates the patches from developers known to be working on their own time.” That does give credence to the often mentioned statement that some real percentage of kernel work is done by volunteers. The article also looks at individual contributions. If kernel hacking is something you're interested in, the full article is something you'll want to read. LWN continues its tradition of putting out quality in-depth articles like this and is worthy of your support.
–jeremy