Think Tank Report On the State of Open Source

AlexGr writes to recommend an account of a meeting a couple of months back of representatives from more than 100 software companies discussing the state of open source software. The outcome is outlined in a 16-page report, 2007 Open Source Think Tank: The Future of Commercial Open Source (PDF). Among the surprising conclusions: participants noted a growing similarity in methods between open source and proprietary software development. They predicted some kind of convergence, where the best of both approaches gets adopted in each camp.

the operative phrase is "executive summary"

[Anonymous Coward]

This is really a quick highlight pen read for people who haven't being paying attention to the issues and can't be bothered with in-depth reading, i.e. Dilbert's boss and his colleagues. If subtract the introductory material, it's really about an 8-page report. And nothing insightful is presented, it's just a skim over some of the news surrounding open source over the past 3-4 years.

It should have been subtitled "The PHB summary".

Timed openings

[delire]

participants noted a growing similarity in methods between open source and proprietary software development.

Considering the point at which the given software is released is necessary when comparing both software development approaches.

It isn't rare for an Open Source project to be entirely developed behind closed doors before its first appearance on the 'market'. This approach is typical of larger companies, like RH and IBM (which can afford an extensive internal testing roadmap) and doesn't at all imply that the software is closed source in itself.

Once finished such software is released under an open license after which point it is continued to be developed in collaboration with the community; particularly in areas relating to bug-squashing and building interoperability with applications not considered important at the time it went to market.

Is the development of such software then considered 'open' or 'closed'? I think it's hard to generalise.

Not a think thank

[Per Abrahamsen]

I read the report, and I believe the word think tank is misleading. It was a just seminar or workshop, where people in the industry exchanged experiences for their mutual inspiration and benefit.

A think tank is more of a permanent or at least longer term organization, where similar minded people tries to build a rational justification for their already existing viewpoints.

Both are actually quite useful. The seminars / workshops are a fine place to learn from others mistakes, so you can make your own new and exciting mistakes instead of merely repeating the old and boring mistakes made by others.

The think thanks are just about the only thing today that even attempts to raise political discourse above the level of sound bites. I'm very glad they exists, even those think thanks that support the opposing side.

Re:We have a winner

[maxume]

Sure they disclaim liability, but Redhat is pretty much in the business of saying "You're better off with us than you are without us" (which is fine, but that's their business in a nutshell). Big contracts are all about support, not licensing details.

Re:Some interesting points about Novell/MS

[morgan_greywolf]

In my experience it's exactly the opposite. There's no *strategy* here, because Linux introduction in the enterprise is driven by technicians. The mixed platform emerged espontaneously.

Not at a lot of companies. For example, at Ford Motor Co., Linux adoption was initially started by technicians for a small number of things like routers, but through IT management became an official company strategy. Now most servers at Ford are either Linux or AIX or are moving to Linux or AIX.

to save you the bother of reading the whole report

[rs232]

Platinum sponsors: Microsoft, Novell

What the f**k is Microsoft doing on an Open Source conference. Oh, I forgot, Novell gave them a complimentary pass in exchange for some paper.

[ indemnification FUD ]

'While customers .. negotiate license terms (such as indemnification) .. adequate internal compliance policies and procedures to manage risks .. GPL'

One of the 'sponsers' of this report having spent years and a whole heap of money on promoting IP and patent FUD now gets to contribute to a report on the indemnification dangers of the GPL, how f*****g ironic.

[ Lack of support FUD ]

'The lack of commercially available support for some open source solutions continues to be a big barrier to adoption'

[ not compatible FUD]

''Another significant barrier to adoption by customers is integration and interoperability'

[ Open source standards not standard FUD ]

''Open source lacks compliance with many standards when compared with proprietary solutions'

[ Open source is only ever used to bargan down proprietary vendors ]

'canny CIOs are using open source's reduced acquisition costs as leverage in negotiations with proprietary vendors'

[ Open Source vendors lack the personal touch FUD ] ( a new one on me ? )

''The CIOs agreed that some level of personal touch by commercial open source vendors is needed'

[ Open Source has no known positive attributes ] ( another new one on me ? )

'The fact that a product is open source is not viewed as positive or negative'

Conclusion: If Open Source has no added value as compared to proprietary code then we might as well stick with the lawyer proofed fully supported touchie feely version ..

In related news, the Pope said today ,in an address from the Vatican, that Devil worship is not viewed as positive or negative but Religions must focus on solutions that deliver believers needs.

Money well 'sponcered' on this 'report' methtinks .. :)

http://thinktank.olliancegroup.com/ostt2007report. pdf [olliancegroup.com]

Re:Wrong

[charlesnw]

Um no? I know of several major corporations using GPL and other licensed software all through there operations. Believe it or not merit based evaulations are the norm.