alex.polvi.net

I have been thinking a lot about different open source business models. The February Issue of CIO magazine covers with the words “FREE CODE (for sale), Inside the Buying and Selling of Open Source”, so I could not pass it up. In particular, there is a section called, “Your Guide to Open-Source Business Models”. The article outlines five models based around open source; Open Source + Service, Mixed, Open Source + Buy Off, Open Source + Aggregation, Open Source + Hardware.

Open Source + Service
This model is based around the idea that software is a service industry, not a manufacturing one. Open source lends it self to this, so these companies follow the model. The software is free and the customers pay for service contracts. (RedHat)

Mixed
Using closed source addons to generate revenue on top of an open source product. (Tripwire)

Open Source + Buy Off
Licensing tricks so that companies can make modifications to ‘open source’ software with out disclosing their changes. (MySQL)

Open Source + Aggregation
Package up open source software so they are dead easy to use, then sell the package.

Open Source + Hardware
Use an open source platform on hardware. (NetApp)

In my eyes, the model that stays closest to the mantra of free and open source software is “Open Source + Service”. However, this model is also weak. As the article pointed out, “venture capitalists don’t like the service-only model because the margins on service are invariably lower than those for proprietary software.” (p.56) On top of that, it does not seem like it would be that much fun to be in the service industry.

“Mixed” and “Open Source + Buy Off” are clear evil. A mixed model is nothing more then a free trial. Sure, it may be a robust trial, but the developer is holding code back. It seems like a self created conflict of interest. The buy off method seems like a cheap trick in order to make some money. If a company is sold the right to not distribute changes, they effectively became a leach. If companies using this model are successful, the communities will not be, and everything is lost.

What is a good model? We need a model that does not stomp on the contributors, promotes community, and is not a support shop! How do we do it? Not really sure. I am in love with the Ubuntu model (Ubundel), but they have yet to show a sustainable future. This is sort of expected, since they are forging the way. New models will be followed out of their ambitious lead. But what’s next?

I purpose a model that applies open source practices outside of the software industry. This time we do not take Open Source and tack on some money making revenue, we use open source itself.

The Open Source Model
The communities are the core, in fact, they are the company. Start a community that is a revenue generator. Anyone can work for the company, and the individuals are paid via contribution, not via hour. The company would list what projects they are working on and any one interested could come on board.

What sort of projects would this work for? Only the rewarding ones. If this was a development shop creating boring software, nobody would participate. However, if we were working on projects that supported humanity, had people think outside themselves, or were straight up sexy, it would be unstoppable. The pace would accelerate as it grew. The bittorrent of business models!

Free Code (for sale) exemplified that open source models are still limited to one off successes. The models that they and I proposed are not perfect, and will not be, but they are a step in the right direction. Free and open source software has so much inherent value that it has already solidified its future, we just need to do a little backwards thinking to get there.

One of google’s original selling points was how clean the interface was. Google is slowly losing this core value.

I don’t need an option to turn off personalized search results, that should be in my preferences. I don’t need a HUGE reminder that I am logged in. I don’t need you to tell me how long my query took, because a) it means nothing to me and b) my browser said it took 6x as long as you say!

The chances of me needing images, news group posts, news, the best deal, maps, and peer reviewed articles for my query is pretty slim. These choices could easily be dynamic. For example, if I google “apache httpd”, give me my search results, and news groups. I need nothing more. If I google “halloween costumes” give me search results, images, and Froogle. If I search “Isomorphism and the N-Queens problem” give me search results, news group posts, and scholarly articles. Throw a few PhDs at the problem and it will be figured out in a week!

Oh and the ads… obtrusive? yes.

I know there is some engineer in the depths of google that is sad to see his beautiful vision being ruined by the investor. Stand strong loney man, your hesitant mumbles mean the most to the company.

I don’t mean to be a Mark Shuttleworth fan boy or anything, but, he really understands free and open source software and does a good job of explaining it. If you have an hour and want to get it too, listen to this google video (not much to see).

If you are interested in my performance at the 2006 Pacific Northwest Yo-Yo championships…. clicky (yes, that is a Firefox shirt :)

< polvi> wow that’s embarrassing
< morgamic> naw man you did good!
< polvi> i can’t believe i did that in front of like 100 people
< morgamic> more like 200
< polvi> oh ok
< polvi> thanks

Browsing the latest Communications of the ACM I came across an article called “Inside risks: Software and higher education“, by John C. Knight and Nancy G. Leveson. The column argues that many contemporary computer science educations fall short providing adequate training for the real world. I would hope that this does not apply to my program, but seeing as my school is merely dreaming of having a top 25 program, I am left a bit worried.

The column goes on to talk about the many common “deficiencies” in computer science education. As I read the issues, I applied it to my current education and shuddered. Not because we heavily violated the authors concerns, but because as a student there is no way to tell how the program is doing.

One of the most troubling issues is the lack of accountability. As an undergrad I have no idea how qualified my instructors are to teach their respective subjects. I have to walk into class and blindly trust that what I am being told is accurate and relevant. Furthermore, I pay for this with no consumer data backing up my decision. Would I spend tens of thousands on a new car with out doing any research beforehand? No. Or maybe education is not a manufacturing industry, and instead it is a service industry. Still, no matter how much money I throw at it I will never get a service level agreement. And I am not alone. There are roughly 20,000 of us at OSU for some reason agree to pay for a service that offers no accountability or guarantee. Have we been fooled?

What happens if my school did not adequately prepare me? Who is accountable? I asked and paid for a computer science education, in turn they took my money and educated me. If I am under-prepared it is clearly arguable that it is the programs fault, not mine. However, can I ask for my money back? Unlikely.

The next natural question is, how do you determine ones preparedness for the work-force? Is it the ability to get a job? If that is the case I will definitely not give my classroom education credit. The Open Source Lab is where I had preparation for that. They even paid me!

Now it sounds like I am really down on my education, but that is not the case. If I pay a lot of money for something I want to know that I got something valuable in return. Right now I cannot see it. I honestly hope this is one of those “young and ignorant” moments and I just cannot see the importance of it because I am right in the middle of it. Can someone assure me that is the case?

This weekend I took a break from being on-call, went to Seattle, and got my ass kicked by 12 year-olds.