Death, Taxes, And Open Source Business Models - InformationWeek

InformationWeek is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

IoT
IoT
Government // Enterprise Architecture
Commentary
11/25/2008
06:43 PM
Serdar Yegulalp
Serdar Yegulalp
Commentary
Connect Directly
Google+
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Death, Taxes, And Open Source Business Models

To the eternal list of death and taxes, we might as well add debates about open source licensing and sales. Two recent discussions about licensing and business models got me thinking again about what's suitable to what end, and how to interpret what you see other companies doing as a model for your own work.

To the eternal list of death and taxes, we might as well add debates about open source licensing and sales. Two recent discussions about licensing and business models got me thinking again about what's suitable to what end, and how to interpret what you see other companies doing as a model for your own work.

The two companies in question are MySQL and Alfresco. With the former, we have Zack Urlocker talking about a business model where the add-ons and the support are what cost you. With the latter, there's a standard core version (FOSS) and an enterprise version (not-FOSS), and the licensing for each sparked a bit of a debate about whether or not dual licensing creates as many problems as it solves. Thing is, I find myself thinking less about the specific advantages of any one strategy and more about the methodology of any given strategy at all.

My original line of thinking about open source licensing has gone like this: Whatever it is you do, make sure you are consistent. You are guaranteed to irk someone no matter which way you shift, so you're best off walking as straight a path as you can. If you start by offering an open source core with proprietary add-ons and for-pay support, then stick to that. If your deal is a totally open platform with support being the only thing people buy, then stick with that.

Sounds like good advice on paper, but how realistic is it? Business models change because the world itself changes. People make a great deal of noise about the record industry's business model being obsolete, but obsolescence is a moving target, and today's particular open source strategy may be tomorrow's curiosity -- at least for you. The other thing I worry about is how tough it can be to remain pragmatic in the face of potentially devastating criticism about your motives and intentions.

I'll pose this last thought in the form of a question: Is it OK to switch licensing and business models as long as you're not inconveniencing existing customers? Or is it better to pick one stance and stick with it come heck or high water?


Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/syegulalp

We welcome your comments on this topic on our social media channels, or [contact us directly] with questions about the site.
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Slideshows
Reflections on Tech in 2019
James M. Connolly, Editorial Director, InformationWeek and Network Computing,  12/9/2019
Slideshows
What Digital Transformation Is (And Isn't)
Cynthia Harvey, Freelance Journalist, InformationWeek,  12/4/2019
Commentary
Watch Out for New Barriers to Faster Software Development
Lisa Morgan, Freelance Writer,  12/3/2019
White Papers
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
Video
Current Issue
The Cloud Gets Ready for the 20's
This IT Trend Report explores how cloud computing is being shaped for the next phase in its maturation. It will help enterprise IT decision makers and business leaders understand some of the key trends reflected emerging cloud concepts and technologies, and in enterprise cloud usage patterns. Get it today!
Slideshows
Flash Poll