Not Your Ordinary Communities and Contributions

Few terms are more central to the free and open source ("FOSS") movement than "community" and "contribution." The common definitions of these terms are:

Community: a unified body of individuals as - a state or commonwealth; the people with common interests living in a particular area; an interacting population of various kinds of individual in a common location; a group of people with a common characteristic or interest living together within a larger society; a group linked by common policy; a body of persons or nations having a common history or common social, economic, and political interests; a body of persons of common and especially professional interests scattered through a larger society.

Contribution: a payment (as a levy or tax) imposed by military, civil, or ecclesiastical authorities usually for a special or extraordinary purpose; the act of contributing; the thing contributed

But these terms mean so much more in the context of FOSS. Anyone who sponsors, participates in or contributes to a FOSS project needs to understand not only the importance of these terms, but also how their meaning has changed over time.

Starting Point
The community is the core of any FOSS project. Consistent with the common definition, a FOSS community has traditionally been a self-defining group of people and organizations that share the common value of exchanging ideas and intellectual property in the pursuit of creating the highest quality software using an open development model. Until recently, there has been little need to define the community in any greater detail because membership was open to all and carried no obligation to participate, which resulted in the attraction of like-minded participants.

FOSS contributions have traditionally come from individual developers and companies alike. They typically included any materials submitted to the project under a standard set of terms commonly accepted and understood by the community. Again, because the community traditionally shared common values, there has been little confusion as to what constitutes a contribution and what the receiving FOSS project could do with it.

Where Are We Now?
With the growth of the open source movement, the concept of free software has taken on competitive and commercial traits, which has impacted the meaning of "community" and "contribution." Those who sponsor or participate in FOSS projects need to take note of the changes.

In the case of communities, we can no longer assume that the FOSS project sponsor and participants share common values. At a minimum, sponsors and participants might be divided between those that advocate for pure free software principles, and those that use the community for purely strategic purposes in support of a commercial advantage.

The nature of contributions has also changed. Some FOSS project participants might contribute for the purpose of advertising an alternative product or fork, or to incorporate code allowing for easier integration with a commercial product. In addition, the traditional "anything submitted" contribution model, which promoted free exchange of ideas and is the most beneficial to the community as a whole, is less relevant. More recent contribution models include the option for contributors to declare which of their submitted materials are deemed not to be contributions. The legal terms that apply to contributions are sometimes also subject to the influence of commercialization by being narrowly focused on the sponsor's objectives to the detriment of the community's needs as a whole.

How Should FOSS Project Sponsors Respond?
FOSS project sponsors (whether non-commercial or commercial) should carefully consider how to respond to this evolution in the meanings of "community" and "contribution". They should spend more time defining their FOSS goals, more closely monitor FOSS activities and contributions, and implement measures that will further their goals and ensure that the appropriate elements of the community work in their favor.

Specific actions for consideration by FOSS project sponsors include:

• Posting a definition of goals for content, community and participation. This might include a statement of purpose for the project, a definition of community values, and a code of conduct for participants.
  

• Creating separate discussion boards and mail-lists for contributions in support of the project, general discussion about the project without contribution, and discussion of other projects or any other matters not related to the sponsored project.

• Monitoring contributions and discussions to ensure that they are posted to the proper boards and lists, and to ensure that contributions do not contradict the applicable participation model and community values.

• Avoiding alienation of participants even if they appear to contradict community values. For example, even when a project participant uses a project discussion board to promote its own commercial activity, the sponsor should first decide whether to object to that practice. If it chooses to object, it should do so in a way thatfosters inclusion and participation in a rational, pro-community manner, while minimizing the perception that the sponsor is hindering project discussion or participation.

• Treating conditional contributions (i.e., contributions made under terms other than the sponsor's standard terms) as invitations for negotiation to be handled in the same manner as other commercial inbound licenses. Sponsors should not grant exceptions to conditional contributions because that risks contradicting community expectations and undermining the purpose of the project.
  

• Weighing a number of factors when faced with a choice between accepting a conditional contribution or not obtaining any rights to the contribution at all. Specific considerations include: the value of the potential contribution; the scope of rights offered; consistency with the sponsor's commercial strategy; consistency with community values and expectations; perception in the community; and consistency with free software principles. An assessment of these factors could lead to a number of outcomes from a decision that the contribution will not be part of the project, to a decision by the sponsor and contributor to enter into a commercial relationship.

Judgement Day for Commercial Open Source ... How Did I Miss It?

In a recent Business Week online article, Peter Yared, founder and CEO of San Francisco startup Transpond, describes "The Failure of Commercial Open Source Software". While Yared makes a case that the commercial open source software business hasn't lived up to the hype that it will "change the world," he reaches too far in declaring its failure. A more appropriate conclusion would be to recognize that commercial open source only recently reached broad acceptance as a business strategy and is on a strong growth trajectory. We must measure its success in that context.

Yared's arguments are diverse, but they fail to account for important indicators of open source success:

1. Minimal number of liquidity events for open source businesses. As identified by one of the commenters, several prominent examples of open source liquidation events are missing from Yared's list, including Zimbra, Trolltech and Sleepycat. In addition, the article uses 2003 as a benchmark year, allowing only 6 years to measure exit success. According to a September 2008 MoneyTree Report by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association, the average seed-financing to exit life cycle of a venture-backed company is 8.6 years. As a result, any conclusions about the success or failure of open source businesses, many of which were started within the last 6 years, are premature at best.

2. Continued success of proprietary vendors. Not only is this irrelevant to measurement of open source success, but it fails to acknowledge the growing role of open source in proprietary companies. Companies like IBM, Microsoft, Adobe and Oracle, are milking revenue from their established proprietary business models while they also distribute open source software to generate revenue, influence development communities and drive broader adoption. In addition, measuring open source displacement of proprietary software misses the point, particularly in the short 6 year time frame here. Open source targets adoption opportunities through grass roots growth, which takes longer (but is less expensive) than the hard-hitting direct sales approach of proprietary companies.

3. Success is limited to commodity businesses; Enterprises are not likely to add open source businesses to their lists of approved vendors. These assertions fail to take into account the growing reach of open source throughout the software industry. While it is true that many of the more successful open source companies to date have been in the infrastructure and commodity business, we are beginning to see significant adoption of enterprise and end user open source applications (such as Alfresco, SugarCRM and others). Matt Asay further amplifies the limitations of Yared's assertion by identifying SpringSource as an example of an open source company that innovates and targets enterprise-friendly software development, which is outside the category of traditional commodity software.

4. Cost savings of open source are overstated. This contradicts the conventional wisdom that cost savings is one of the primary reasons companies adopt open source. In an April 2009 Forrester report, 75% of survey respondents said "Reduced IT costs" are critical or very important in their decision to use open source software. In addition, a panel of venture capitalists at OSCON proposed that open source companies can typically save up to 30% in sales and marketing costs as compared to proprietary companies, which leads to quicker profitability, quicker exits and happier investors. Even so, the article is likely correct with respect to mature open source businesses. In two March 2009 Open Sources blog posts, Savio Rodrigues compares the income statement of Red Hat to those of Microsoft and Tibco. In both cases, he concludes it is unlikely that mature open source vendors will be more capital efficient than commercial vendors.

5. SaaS will overtake open source. The general trend away from installed software applications to SaaS and cloud systems is undeniable. As Matt Asay explained on his Open Road blog in May, cloud computing is the natural conclusion of open source, because cloud computing is the ultimate expression of the open source principle that services, rather than the software supported by such services, are the most valuable component of a product offering. But SaaS and cloud business models are having significant growing pains of their own. Customers are concerned about the portability of data, freedom from vendor lock-in, security and standardization and other matters that must be resolved before achieving broader commercial acceptance. (It's a bit ironic that open source software might actually be the best way to address these concerns.) SaaS and cloud businesses appear to be subject to at least the same level of skepticism as open source. As a result, it seems unlikely that SaaS and cloud business models will replace the open source software business in the near future.

6. Open source benefits do not lead to monetary gain. Yared observes that his company uses open source but typically does not pay for it other than contributing code back to projects. This is a common practice and it implies an impending failure of commercial open source. Yared concludes that these factors do "not mean every successful open source project can sustain a commercial company, especially when they are delivering complicated applications rather than simple plumbing." No doubt this is true, but it is also true of proprietary business models and does not lead to the conclusion that commercial open source has failed.

It is fair to question when open source will become as reliable an investment as other technology businesses. In this regard, Yared's article raises some important points for discussion. However, rumors of the failure of open source business models are greatly exaggerated, and any pronouncement on the success or failure of open source is premature.

April Roundup

A number of news items grabbed my attention this month ... for instance, I vaguely recall a story about one big tech company buying another, but the names escape me. In any case, a number of interesting open source blog postings appeared in April. Here is a sampling of posts falling in two basic categories:

Open Source as a Hobby and Business

• Connecting Hobby and Business in Open Source - How are some businesses able to harness the passion of developers for their open source hobby to create open source success? Dana Blankenhorn illustrates that it takes more than good software and a good business model to create a successful open source business.
  

• Open Source Business Strategy: About the Open Source Whole Product Concept - Roberto Galoppini explores the idea that successful commercialization of open source requires delivering a fully realized product. In my opinion, productization is the critical element differentiating an interesting project that is viewed as a fun toy from an enterprise class tool that customers are willing to pay for.

Open Source in Government

• Five Ideas to Get FOSS Into Governments - Sun's open source officer, Simon Phipps [Disclosure: I work for Sun], offer six (in spite of the blog title's reference to five) concrete ideas to speed government adoption and use of open source. Because of their size and influence (both as exemplary users of open source, and through their ability to impose procurement and usage rules), governments are important players in the open source movement. Broader government adoption of open source would be a great benefit to the industry as a whole.
  

• Participatory Legislation: the Italian Democratic Party Launches a Wiki - This blog post describes two cases of governments taking first steps towards applying open source principle to the legislative process. Specifically, the post mentions efforts in New Zealand and Italy to allow the public more direct input into writing laws. These small steps mark what I believe will result in a more participatory governing process that will ultimately lead to more accountable government.
  

• Election Industry Trade Group Issues Report Examining Open Source Voting - The Election Technology Council, a trade group US voting system vendors, recently published a report concluding that open source and proprietary software products must be treated differently for purposes of governments making decisions about voting technology citing complexity in management and lack of accountability in traditional open source projects among other things. My view is that the Election Technology Council is perpetuating the type of fear, uncertainty and doubt we typically see in industries not prepared for competition from open source vendors. While it is true that the integrity of the voting system requires certain minimum standards including security assurances, open source software can surely satisfy those needs.

Other hot topics included the importance of channel sales in growing the scope of the open source industry, and deeper discussion of the status of the emerging cloud industry , and what type of open source license is appropriate for cloud technology.

Commercial vs. Free: Not a Zero Sum Game

Think back to 1991 and the release of GPLv2 ... the open source software community was abuzz with great anticipation that the goals of the "free software" movement would soon be achieved. Now fast forward to present day ... the open source software business is potentially worth as much as $60 billion, a small Linux provider named RedHat has grown into a successful public company, and an open source database company named MySQL has been purchased by Sun Microsystems for $1 billion. Does this prove the success of the commercial open source movement? Of the failure of the free software movement?

If the recent firestorm in the community over Sun's proposal to sell closed-source add-ons for the open source MySQL database is any example, then the open source community appears to have concluded that the success of one is only at the expense of the other. (In the interest of full disclosure, I am a MySQL/Sun employee, and these opinions are mine alone.) The community would rather punish MySQL, one of the pillars of open source movement, than applaud the prominence it has helped bring to open source through its innovative open source and business strategies.

This "zero-sum" attitude is not only wrong, but also harmful to the open source industry. Instead, the open source industry must accept that both open source purists and commercial opportunists can co-exist in the same environment without forcing an absolute choice between them. Though it appears more open source "rationalists" are reaching this conclusion, the community needs to start acting based on what is good for open source as a whole, not just the purist forms of open source.

The viability of this type of co-existence is well proven in other contexts. Take the example of environmentalism and the "greening" of the business world. Groups like the not-for-profit Sierra Club operate on the same playing field (though at the opposite end) as companies that use the "green" label as an insincere marketing ploy (I won't point any fingers). The business world accommodates this range of diversity allowing groups interested in societal change to organize as not-for-profit entities, which allows them to focus on their chosen area of social good without being subject to income tax. Entities like the Apache Foundation, Linux Foundation and Free Software Foundation play this role in the open source world by focusing on open source for the public good (and get a tax relief too).

At the same time, though commercial entities are primarily motivated by profits, the community pushes them to be "good citizens". We see the pressure the community puts on companies these days to pursue environmentally friendly policies in spite of (or sometimes in support of) their profit motives. Similarly, commercial open source companies perform good citizenship by acting in support of open source ideals, which not only builds community goodwill but also allows them cash in someday.

To make this drive to good citizenship most effective, communities need a way to differentiate commercial entities by evaluating them both their effectiveness and sincerity in pursuing. Many environmental groups act as watchdogs and standard setters for their commercial counterparts. Similarly, the open source community has taken a new focus on improving upon the traditional benchmarks of open source (choice of an OSI approved license and release of copyrighted code) with proposals to include patent and trademarks as well as business and development models in the standard definition of "open source". Another proposal is the creation of an independent body that would objectively grade companies on their "openness". While these are great solutions, they are not likely to reach their potential for effectiveness until we all recognize the importance of co-existence.

Just as we don't hold commercial entities to the same standard of environmental purity as we do the Sierra Club, the open source community must strike the right balance between pursuing its passion and pushing commercial open source companies to act in "acceptable" ways. It must not forget that open source advocates, and good ideas that can further the open source movement, can come from virtually anywhere in the open source spectrum. While it's useful to distinguish between commercial open source companies based on openness, the community must begin acting as if we are all in this together. If we don't learn to co-exists, we risk an irreparable fracture in the movement that we all support.