Last week, Saugatuck Technology published a new whitepaper that detailed the affect open source software has had on business and the affect business has had on open source.
The big takeaway--at least the one most touted in the follow-up blogs and news reports about the paper--is that open source is driven more by the contributions of corporations and vendor-run projects than by individual developers.
Upon reading this conclusion, and some of the others gleaned from the highlights of the paper, it strikes me that there is still this radical disconnect between what people think open source software is about versus what open source software is. Of course open source software has heavy business involvement--it was for business that the whole notion of open source was codified in the first place.
The term "open source" was derived for a 1998 release of Netscape source code. Legend has it that it was Eric S. Raymond who coined the phrase to differentiate the upcoming release of the company's code from that of free software. Free software, it was seen, had too many political connotations, not to mention confusion about what "free" actually meant. So, Raymond pushed for the use of the term and eventually went on to co-found the Open Source Initiative with Bruce Perens.
One could argue whether Eric was correct in his assessment that "free software" was too much of a hot button concept for businesses to get their heads around. But there is no getting around the fact that--right or wrong--it was for business' sake that the new term was adopted. The early open source community believed that it would only be through corporate involvement that open source as a wage-producing exercise would ever succeed. They knew where their bread would be buttered, and took great strides to make open source as business-friendly as possible. Given the sheer number of open source licenses out there, maybe too many strides--but that's another blog topic.
So, forgive me when I am less than enthused when an analyst firm comes along 10 years later to tell us that "hey, open source is really a very business-friendly proposition." It really should come as no surprise.
In the grand scheme of things, I suppose, having another source coming along and telling corporations "c'mon in, the water's fine" is on the plus side. But here we are, coming into 2009, and there's still a need to convince people about the positives of open source?
Clearly, something needs to change. Will it be the pain of a world-wide economic downturn that gets folks to take a hard look at open source? Will it be the continued success of Linux, Apache, MySQL, and other free and open software projects that tips people over? Or something else altogether?
Until that change comes, I suppose we will have to continue to plug away, trying to reach one corporation at a time.
