Subscribe to this feed
The rantings of a serial entrepreneur as he wins, loses, and doesn't pull any punches in describing both...
Open Source, Closed Minds
Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 12:11 pm 8 comments
This Open Source world for me has been a mixed bath. I came into a complex scene with complex perspectives and ambitions. For me, I have always felt that making money and ethics were not mutually exclusive. Sure, I used to have the “Microsoft is bad and Bill Gates must die” mentality in my early 20s. But, my Orwellian rant faded over time and I began to have a more balanced perspective on the world and the technology which fuels it. Perhaps this is a natural byproduct of the pragmatism which piggybacks the aging process. Perhaps this is a natural byproduct of having to pay rent. Either way, I slowly came to see a world where proprietary software had its place *and* a world where 100% free software had its place. Naturally, I found solace in betwixt – the world of “Open Source”.
Most people don’t actually know the roots of “Open Source”. This term was consciously crafted in a huddled hotel room in the 90s by a council of six wise men as an intentional “fork” from the absolute free path of the Free Software Foundation (FSF). This council intentionally removed the term “free” from “free software” -- not in effort to make it less free, but rather to bake in some of the fundamental tenants of capitalism as well as steer clear of the moral bent of the FSF. Call them pragmatic, call them sell-outs, but they foresaw a model that could both defend the free (beer/freedom) and also allow for profit. Perhaps Open Source is a Social Democrat response to the absolute socialism, even the Liberalism of free software. Either way, baking free and profit into the same non-homogenous stew is a daunting task and one that has since made Stallman queasy.
But, to me, Open Source made sense. It seemed that a model which spurred capitalism would undoubtedly gain wider reach in a world which is growing more capitalistic at every glance. And reach is what it is all about. See, Open Source engenders open standards. Open standards induce information transfer. Information transfer imbues knowledge. And, well, we all know what knowledge is. Open Source, to me, was never intent on destroying capitalism or the pursuit of ambitions. Nor was it an attempt to abolish intellectual property. And, it most certainly was *not* a way to demonize anyone trying to get ahead. No, Open Source was different.
Even with these perhaps less-lofty intentions, Open Source did manage to retain something from free software that I loved – the community. It is the community that is the heart of an OS project – that from which springs up a well of brainpower, bug-fixes, documentation, and most importantly: passion. The community is the project’s Congress — its “check” to the powers that be. I foresaw a world where communities and companies would work together to create products that benefited both parties -- democratic engineering at its finest. I foresaw a world where the community made sure that the company stayed in balance whilst the company made sure the project kept moving forward. Yes, the community was a big part of my draw to this scene. I like communities. ;)
But, wow, this is where I have been surprised. The “community” of Open Source has been as vitriolic as any community I have ever witnessed (and trust me, I’ve seen some pretty dynamic real world communities in my formative years). I have seen more flames and more attacks than at a drunken tiki party. I have witnessed people wielding the bludgeon of the blogosphere and ragosphere to their vertical advantage. Pen names, pseudonyms and false cover permeate the propaganda machine that rages in so many projects. But that’s not the worst of it. The worst part has been the hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is worse than in-your-face evil. Because, at least with open evil you know what you are fighting. But in many of these communities, everyone seems to hate *anyone else* who tries to make money out of Open Source. But, 9 out of 10 times, when you peel back the onion and shine a flashlight on that person (or company) you find that they *too* are trying to make money. People in Open Source hate anyone who makes money out of it before they do. Better said, they hate anyone making *more* money out of it than they are.
The source (hehe) of most of the poison and hypocrisy is the “good vs. bad” (open vs. closed) debate which rages within these communities. Funny enough, Open Source was coined to avoid this very morality issue, yet it has become the centerpiece of a highly-charged battleground. This debate, instead of promoting healthy intellectualism, is wielded as a blunt weapon. To me, this debate begs the question of the wielder: why exactly do *you* use Open Source? Is it because it is free or cheap and you are using it as a way to pay your own rent? Or, is it because you are young and idealistic and don’t pay rent? Or, is it because you think it’s your sacred secret that nobody else should be allowed to tamper with? No matter what your reasons, I must also ask you: do *your reasons* really make *you* good and others bad?
And, this is not just a community problem. It well exists within the companies that “sponsor” these projects too. So many of these companies, who got *famous* by *giving* their code to the community, now feel that they are the rightful owner of it – sending gaggles of lawyers after people using the name of the project (because the code is now owned by the community, the trademark is the only thing left for the lawyers to sink their teeth into). That last sentence was a doozy, but read it again and see if doesn’t smack of hypocrisy. You gave it away, therefore you don’t own it. I see this with stars and athletes all the time — parents who think they “made” their children and therefore that child should be indebted for life. It doesn’t work that way.
In fact, some of these “for-profit” Open Source companies are the prime culprits in this sophomoric debate. They canonize from the cockpit, declaring themselves as “good” (for being Open) and, in this case, my company as “very evil” (for being part-Open and part-Closed). Further amazing me, this same company keeps quiet its own Closed commercial licensing scheme for its Open project. But it gets better. This same company then completed their hat trick of confusion up by purchasing a 100% Closed Source company, that had long followed in my footsteps. They did this all just a couple of months after their speech on how evil Closed/commercial was.
Ah, the hypocrisy in this scene. It’s everywhere: user to user, user to company, and company to company. It’s ripe, folks. It’s so ripe I could pick it with my mouth from a moving motorcade while thumbing a blackberry memoir with my left hand. I don’t even use a blackberry.
Honestly, I get so confused on what is good and what is bad anymore. Is Open good? Is Closed bad? Or, is free good and commercial bad? Are companies “good” when they start Open projects and then “bad” when they try to monetize them? Are users good when they are contributing code and bad when they aren’t? Or wait, I got it: users are good when they are tinkering, but bad when they try to make a living off of it? Am I good or bad? Does this affect my Christmas payload? Mother? Help. For God sake, help.
As you see, this “good vs. bad” debate gets murky very quickly. Hence, I am always surprised that it is enacted so frequently and with such fervor. But, enacted it is. And, all the swirling and twirling is impeding the progress that Open Source espoused to create. Projects get forked into comas, the power of the community is used to spread dissent instead of spread ideas. Combine all of this with the anonymity of the Net, and you have a bunch of people and companies who act very disrespectfully towards each other. Personally, for me, it has been hella depressing.
But, folks, I am not ready to give up.
I feel too strongly about communities to lose faith. The symbiosis between Open Source company and Open Source community is palpable. The symbiosis between competing Open Source companies is undeniable. It is an ecosystem and we are all part of it. Negative energy is opposing energy, which slows down progress. Yet, to progress “we” need a new perspective. What is that perspective to be? Certainly we have to abolish these notions of absolute good or evil. They are elementary and text-book in nature. Good and evil are not absolutes. Good is not a state. It is a goal -- attained through a series of decisions that you will have to make for the rest of your life.
Taking this further, maybe Open and Closed actually have no relationship with good and evil? Maybe it is all about transparency. I propose that transparency is as close as any of us are going to get to Godliness. As long as you (user or company) are transparent, anyone who works with you or uses your code, knows what they are getting. Recently, my company made a “bad” move with our own community. We weren’t transparent with them. Does that make us evil? Yes, unless we correct ourselves. So, as CEO, I took the blame for it and wrote an open letter to the community about it. That in itself doesn’t make us good either. It is the sum total of decisions made over a relevant time span that determines ultimate goodness in either man or his enterprise.
So, folks, let’s all stop the fuss (not the FOSS). Let’s all STOP trying to pretend that the world isn’t a commercial place and we don’t need to all pay rent. Let’s all stop pretending that we don’t want to make money. I say: sweep away the hypocrisy! Save the binary moralism for the playground! As soon as we do this — as soon as we all admit, that on one level or another, we have similar ambitions — the sooner we can stop pretending we are good and others are bad. This will free us up of our own guilt and give us the freedom of heart and the clarity of mind to get back to my original proposition – making money and ethics are not mutually exclusive.
Once you are clear about that, you can go back to work and be transparent! ;)
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
TechnoratiTrackback URL for this post:
http://www.trixbox.com/trackback/234
Amen!
I'm sure I'll be called a trixbox fan-boy after this but I couldn't agree with you more. There are many, many Open Source projects that wither and die after developers are forced to choose between paying the bills or creating free software. I think the best of both worlds, Open Source and Commercial Business, is acheived when
1. a company can sponsor a Free project (Fonality/trixbox)
2. the company helps pay for and support the project (keep it going for the long term)
3. the company converts a small number of free software users to comercial software users (company makes more money - around for the long term and able to support the free project for the long term)
4. find additional ways to monetize the project, training/support/vendor support, while still maintaining the free project & building the user base (developers & project related personnel get to eat and continue to work on the Free software - again, project here for the long term)
4. a project that is backed by a business and that offers training and support is more readily accepted in the business community (the only place to generate real money that will in turn help support the project)
5. Business acceptance allows VAR and integrator businesses to find, use and profit from the Free software (and make money to support their clients and be around for the long term)
6. These VAR and integrator businesses are more likely than hobby/home users to be able to afford to donate, buy support, buy training, etc. That will again, in-turn provide more support for the project.
Without the monetary support, you can be as ethical as you want and not be around long. An ethical project with monetary support will be around for quite some time.
On the transparency issue-
I have no problem with what trixbox was trying to do (during the fiasco) other than you (Fonality, tb, Chris, Kerry, whoever) weren't transparent about it. I have spoken to many others who feel as I do, many who have decided tb is now under the rule of some Dark Lord, and a few who don't care either way. I'm fine with the fact that Chris & Kerry both came out, admitted a mistake was made, developed a resolution and promised to be even more transparent in the future. If something sinister happens in the future, "Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you." - I would look elsewhere for PBX needs.
I think tribox CE is great software and I want it to be around for the long run!
Doug
www.vbcnetworks.com
Doug, Not sure you sound
Doug,
Not sure you sound like a fanboy at all. You sound like a pragmatic individual that is saying: be transparent and retain value (free) and I will remain in the community. Agreed and agreed.
Thanks for the comment.
../chris
Total Agreement
10 years ago, if you would have told me that Google would be where it is today, I would have laughed you all the way to the bank. There is certainly something to be said here for "free" software. It helps both the company doing the development and the "user" of this "free" software as they become some sort of a team, whether contractually or not. Look at the "open" format (sip) that makes all this take place. It takes all kinds of different hardware from all sorts of different manufacturers and makes it all talk. This, in my opinion, is a win, win, win combination. Let us learn from the "Google" experience that free is profitable as well. Without profits, we would all starve to death. Some of us take ideas and expand on them more than others. There is nothing wrong with that. Go and pick a company and ride the coattails for a while. You might just like it there. We are all aware there are many other open source projects going on
Idealism.
It's easy to be idealistic when mom still makes you dinner.
here comes the community rushing in
idealism or not - its pretty close to reality right now. There seems to be a lot of people ready to bash, blame and criticize for something that they (for the most part) dont own, dont support, and at most have used it to save money, or make money. I dont see many people rushing in to help, but theres a tidal wave of those that want to express their own "ideals" while looking down at others and then disappear when the community looses interest.
While many are realizing the need for community support (not necessarily monetarily), there is still a great majority that does very little but come along for the ride, and wine when the ride hits a bump in the road. If I were a commercial sponsor of this project (like fonality) and it was dragging me down like that, and in general providing no gain, I would pitch it back out on the highway - a loss can only be maintained for so long until everything is 'lost'.
Hopefully we can put all "ideals" aside, and just focus on the fact that everyone wants to build, support, and use this product, and if there are problems (in whatever form) we need to work through them, not sling them around as weapons. Open source is a nice notion, but really the large majority of us could care less, and why should they - some of us take joy in being able to steer this project with our desires/needs and contribute to it, which is the idea that should be remembered, but in general - what should really be taken home is the ability to USE and support (via simple feedback to the developers) a really GREAT product for little to nothing. For me it hasnt been free, but for most users it has, I would love to see it continue to be free in every way, but with a little better reminder that the product isnt made from thin air.
Simply put the maker of this product is listening closer than many others, and we can use that to the advantage of the project by communicating our needs and aiding in advancement (there-by aiding ourselves), or by creating lots of nonproductive filler on some forum.
I believe one of your starting assumptions is wrong.
You said earlier:
"It seemed that a model which spurred capitalism would undoubtedly gain wider reach in a world which is growing more capitalistic at every glance."
I must respectfully disagree with the latter half of that statement. I think we live in a world in which more and more people feel that the basic necessities of life are a right, rather than a personal responsibility.
If you believe, as I do, that "if a man does not work, he should not eat," then the rest of your post makes perfect sense.
Perhaps you have created dependency (not You specifically, but Open Source in general) by giving away your work for free and then seeking ways to monetize the traffic.
It never fails...whenever an open source project (or a company that attempts to make a go of commercializing an open source tool) tries to find a way to use their labor and expertise to feed their families, it goes over about like a welfare-to-work initiative.
I don't have the answers, but I can tell you that "pen names, pseudonyms and false cover(s)" don't rate a response.
My $0.02: Just from having watched the trixbox.org/.com websites for the last month, it looks like the CE is a little behind the Pro version (i.e. features are added from Pro to CE).
If that is indeed the case, maybe the way to monetize CE is by applying the Fedora/Red Hat model ;)
There wouldn't be any hard revenue to be realized, but it would enable you to profit from your work because of (rather than in spite of) the "you evil conservative! how dare you try to profit from open source" crowd.
Good Luck,
Ron Jones
It about setting expectation.
I have seen it time after time in the IT industry more than anywhere else in the commercial world. Back when networking technology began to take off, you as a consumer could expect the ability to deal for a 12-18% discount off the list price of the equipment. As competition grew, I remember talking with one my Vars who was bidding on a deal (I worked for one of those major equipment manufactures), if you don't start at 20-23% you have lost the bid before you started. They were reluctant and they were thrown out of the running. My last employer felt if he didn't get 40%, he was not buying. Yes, this is all normal economics. But what happens is, when a standard expectation is set, especially when it benefits the consumer, it is extremely difficult to reverse it. Now with Open Source, you immediately establish the standard expectation as Free. Right, wrong or indifferent it is what it is. It doesn't matter that by monetizing the product you should get a better product, a supported product, a product that adds features that businesses need and hopefully brings them to the market faster. All the value is overlooked because... you now want me to do what? Pay for it! I never had to pay before! How dare you!
So what is the magic formula for turning it? It seems the major ingredient is time (and staying power of the commercial entity). Time to prove your value proposition, or not. Time to prove your commitment, or not. Time to prove your vision is true, or not. Time to allow consumers to accept paying has value, or not. And remember time is relevant to the individual's perspective. Some will accept it sooner. Some later. Some never. Look at MySQL, One Billion from Sun Microsystems. But it started with a slow progression of adding commercial offerings while allowing the product to mature and gain greater acceptance. As a result businesses began to take note and began to demand the commercial support and development of the product. That certainly did not happen over night. The consumer expectation slowly moved from, it's free and it's mine to accepting the commercial aspect of the product. Sun certainly accepted it.
Stay the course.
Trixbox Project
I'm a home TB CE user / hobbiest and we also have a TB for our call queue at work. I would hate to see the project strained for any period of time because I like everyone, want active bug / feature improvements. Indeed the problem of revenue is not a pretty one. As it is, what is being given for no cost probably needs to be no cost in the foreseeable future, just to keep everyone sane. However there needs to be creative ways to offer new features or products for subscription or one time cost. I know this thread concentrates on open/commercial debate, but if you'll permit, I have an idea that might close the tensions between the two. What am I already paying for? Hardware... thus the TB appliance. Phones.. well there's the script issue that Fonality tried to use to address that. WHat else is there? ITSP service. I'm with Vitelity, and am VERY happy with them. I actually love the concept of Trixnet, and want to add a trunk when it's available to CE. If Trixnet could offer its network to CE users, and make it no cost for in-network, but have competitive rates for PSTN access, I'd switch in a flash. In my book it would be a real winner, and many people would probably sign up.
What I look for when choosing an ITSP is rate, all setup web based, and unlimited con-current channels on the per minute plan. If people could set up their TB and phone service altogether with a wizard, it could add one more notch toward being consumer oriented, and that could open MANY more doors. Fonality could also offer a percentage to TB installers for selling Trixnet to their customers.
John Griffith
Post new comment