Open Source and "Commerical Interests"

Lorenzo E. Danielsson has an interesting blog post here, which responds to this post. I wrote the post on the 26th and later edited out some of the things I thought were off topic which was:

Open Source companies aught to be able to grow their business to the scale of organizations like Microsoft. On the way there we stand to learn some things from companies like Microsoft where they have (very limited at the moment) experience with going open. Is it good or bad for society when companies get this large? IMO, it depends -- transparency matters at scale.

In fairness to Lorenzo and Alfresco I need to make clear a few things and also make available the text, which Lorenzo has commented on. I stand behind what I’ve said; I just didn’t think it helped the post in terms of staying on topic.

First. I don’t work for Alfresco. I’m a community member. My opinions are my own.

I absolutely believe that open source has the potential to create both economic and vast social benefit. Apache, Eclipse, Linux for example have created a feedback in the economic/social ecosystem that without open source simply would not exist. The kind of productivity that free and open source software produces is very special and very important. It has the power to change the world and it is doing so.

I like many have trepidation with large amounts of centralized power but this is because “absolute power corrupts absolutely. “ We can't count of the benevolence of individuals or organizations because it is almost always temporal. In our industry IBM, Microsoft, Google have all struggled or continue to struggle to maintain the balance of scale and public perception. Be transparent, focus on the customer.

To address some of Lorenzo’s points:

Lorenzo commented on this text I edited out the other evening:

Open Source is not about the bits, it’s not about the community, and it’s not about licenses. It’s about a better way to do business (read: make money via serving customers.) Have you read the Clue Train Manifesto? Does it sound familiar? They don’t have any bits, community or licenses. They only have a model based on the fact that A: the world is massively connected, B: the fact that customers are as informed and in some cases better informed than vendors and C: the fact that the market now has the capability and the expectation to engage in bi-directional or n-directional conversation with vendors and other customers. They have a model that sounds a whole lot like open source without all the distracting implementation details.

Lorenzo responds:
It’s not about community, because community implies those ungrateful masses who are supposed to serve the elites. The elites have built up a system called wage slavery which is how things are supposed to be done. Community is the start of dangerous dissent against the ruling order. Never mind that those communities wrote the software. Once the labor is done, business can take over.


The System that is Open Source would not survive on community alone. “It’s not about community” is meant to say that open source is not a hierarchy of components but a network and that community alone does not make open source what it is. Community is a very important aspect of Open Source – however it IS NOT what open source IS. Community is a significant node in the network in that it can push both negative (regulating) and positive (re-enforcing) feedback on to the network. I like Lorenzo believe that the community should be strong via its rights (example: right to fork, right to vote on direction) and diverse.

Lorenzo further commented on this text I edited out the other evening:

The software industry has historically been abusive to its customers. Open Source promises to focus on the customer and that inclusive conversation. So source code, it turns out, is in a big way merely the olive branch: a statement of commitment to the claims we make. Don’t believe me? You probably use MySql or Apache. Do you care about the source code? Almost none of us do. I would be sorely upset if I found my development staff was hacking MySql code. I want my developers in the community, I want them to contribute but source code has very little to do with anything on the business side. I do care that MySql is open source. It has nothing to do with access to the source code per se. That olive branch makes it very clear that MySQL has to focus on creating value through service – they cannot abuse their customers or community.

Lorenzo responds:

So, in summary, Russ Danner sees in open source the possibility for big business to take the work of various open source communities and use it to make huge profits. The communities themselves are, as we have seen, irrelevant. Any claims they make equally so (remember, licenses are irrelevant). So Russ sees open source as yet another way for the rich to bleed to poor. And that is good.

He goes on to say:

“I would be sorely upset if I found my development staff was hacking MySql code.”

I guess development staff means “wage slaves”. What does sorely upset mean? That you deny your developers the freedom to work on what they want to work on? Does it mean that the right to choose only exists for the capitalist class, the bosses? If one of your developers worked on MySQL code on his free time, would you punish him or her for that? What if the changes the developer made to MySQL was beneficial to Alfresco in some way, would that developer be credited for that? Or still punished for their insubordination against the elite way?

But could the open source movement work for social change? Well, not in isolation. But it can play a part. One must be careful not to see all open source users or open source developers as a part of a coherent whole. The only thing that connects us all is the fact that we work on or with software that fits the criteria of being called open source or free software. Otherwise you have the full spectrum of political beliefs, including Russ Danner’s capitalist ones, or the outright racist viewpoints of Eric S. Raymond.

Context is important here and I failed to provide that in what I said. If my developers want to work on MySQL or other open source software (that is contextual [rather than core] to my business) on their own time – more power to them. When it comes to what they work on at work? It’s important that what they work on serves the organization. I’m not saying every task must be direct. I spend a lot of time in the Alfresco community and yes.. my employer pays for it, and yes.. that is the right thing for them to do because its an investment in the employee (me) and the technologies they rely on (Alfresco.) That said… If we were to spend our time developing the core components of Alfresco we wouldn’t be serving the core needs of our business and that is wrong. We may be able to help and we are certainly willing but we do need to consider where we focus development. I believe Alfresco should look for community partnership in core development, but I also believe that it will be rare that they find it. Development is expensive business and both sides must find ways to leverage each other in a fashion, which is symbiotic.

I believe open source and business are important partners. Open Source and in general the ideas put forward in Clue Train bring balance to the system by empowering the members of the market with a voice and a recognized lion share of the power. It rightly positions the companies in a position of service rather than in a position of supreme power with the potential for the kind of abuse that is associated there. I have become a fan of commercial open source companies who use dual licensing and the GPL. It clearly states code or cash is the price for this software. This provides both the economic and social feedback effects to come to play more fully. Should people be compensated for their work? Yes, without a doubt in my mind. Should we have a social conscious? Yes Absolutely. I think that open source is capable of accomplishing both. Commercial interests do not have to be void of social interests. I believe in strong leaders who see social interests as commercial interests hence the Peter Drucker quote.

Lorenzo, thanks for your response. I will spend some more time thinking about what you have written.