Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business

Matt Asay on the Status of OSS 86

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the here-today-gone-tomorrow dept.
OSS_ilation writes "An interview with OSBC director Matt Asay at SearchOpenSource.com gives some insight into where open source software (OSS) has been, is today, and where it hopes to be in the future. A common trend identified by Asay in the interview is that OSS has become very profitable. Asay also touched on the hot-button issue of where the GPL is headed, as well as how open source vendors shouldn't let high download rates give them a big head about the real validity of their projects."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Matt Asay on the Status of OSS More

Matt Asay on the Status of OSS

Comments Filter:

  • Summation (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kylere ( 846597 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @03:53PM (#13776072)
    If people use it, you can make money from it.
    If people download it, it does not mean they are using it.

    Funny, but I already knew that. Now I just have to find something people will use besides Video Fish :-)
    • If people use it, you can make money from it.

      But who is making the money, the distributors or the developers?
      • Wouldn't that be the responsibility of the developers?

        Money people have been robbing idea people for centuries, while I think it is wrong, just consider that William G BOUGHT DOS, he did not code it.

  • Snort and Nessus (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Cally ( 10873 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @03:56PM (#13776110) Homepage
    In the week that Nessus went closed source, spitting in the face of all those who helped the project thinking it was free software, let's hope that the Gnessus [gnessus.org] project (based on the last Free version of Nessus) takes off, and that the continuing-Free Snort and Nmap continue to flourish. The progress of Sourcefire and Snort will be particularly interesting to compare with that of Tenable (Renaud's company) since Marty Roesch has been clear that Sourcefire (his company) being bought by Checkpoint won't affect Snort, which will continue to be Free software under the GPL.
    • He didn't spit on anybody's face. He just admitted that he was tired of giving away his software so his competitiors could put him out of business. He was trying to run a business (not a charity) off of OSS. The OSS services people get away with murder by charging for their services. OSS developers get murdered if they try to charge for their work. Doesn't anybody realize the obvious OSS double-standard here?

      There's a difference between OSS and FOSS!
      • I agree about the double edged nature of open source software. People ask me what the benefits in open sourcing their software is and if they can still make money on it.

        My answer tends to be if you plan to make most of your money on support, training, specialized implementations, setup, etc then you've got a chance. If the only thing you're bringing to the table is the software itself, then opening it doesn't make a lot of sense.

        I sort of walk a line of being a buisnessperson and an open source advocate.
      • Yes. Just to be clear, I'm talking about Free (not Open Source) software. Free software is always open source, but open-source software is not always Free... just as free-as-in-beer binary software (like Nessus v3) isn't Free (libre.)

    • Re:Snort and Nessus (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ponds ( 728911 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @04:29PM (#13776386)
      Uhh, the VAST majority of the nessus work was done by Tenable. I doubt I would call it "spitting in the face" of anyone. Also, the GPL does not allow Tenable to use code that has been contributed from third parties in future-closed source nessus. Only code that Tenable owns the copyright to (which happens to be something like 98% of the nessus code). All of the contributed code will not appear in closed-source nessus. So, I daresay that Tenable is spitting in the face of anyone.

      I really hope the Gnessus project rethinks their name, as a fork they should really try to take a different name so as not to confuse users. Also, I'd hate for this to cause trademark/copyright issues down the road...

      • Tenable, and Renaud, are spitting in the faces of everyone (like me) who tested, used and promoted their software on the understanding that it was Free. We (the community) contribute to a project every time we execute their code. CVS perms are not required...

        Apart from which, Renaud was never exactly a model project leader. One reason they didn't get many contributions was because those they did get were routinely ignored - like the bug in gdlib which produced broken piecharts in the HTML output, or caused

        • We (the community) contribute to a project every time we execute their code.

          That's laughable. Do you feel that Microsoft has been spitting in your face too?
          • That's laughable. Do you feel that Microsoft has been spitting in your face too?

            Of course they are spitting in our face. Remember, this is slashdot, isn't it? :)

          • No, because when I'm forced to use their software I do so against my wishes (OK, the argument could be made that I could get a job elsewhere. I find myself the wrong side of the convenience line to do so at the moment but that's my call.) But when I use Free software I'm making a political statement, that freedom is more important to me than features, usability or whatever. Alas economic and social forces are the main reason why anyone does things that they would rather not do, all things being equal. But t
            • Although it's up to Renaud how he licenses his software

              That's my point, if the community had actually contributed in a meaningful way, it wouldn't be Renaud's software, it would be community's software. I don't understand how you can take it as a personal attack that he personally changed the license for software that he personally wrote. If anything, the community spit in his face by not contributing to his project, atleast by your logic anyway.
              • (i) the community DID contribute to Nessus, when they were allowed to; (ii) there are more ways to contribute than writing code - what I meant in the GPP about using Nessus being a contribution towards promoting, testing and distributing it ; (iii) I don't take it as a personal attack, I'm just very sad Renaud's done this, tho' I'm hopeful about the Gnessus fork.

    • Re:Snort and Nessus (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Suppafly ( 179830 )
      spitting in the face of all those who helped the project thinking it was free software

      What kind of help did these people provide? Presumably if it were code, they would have something to say about Nessus going closed source.
      • What kind of help did these people provide?

        Not a lot, apparently. For those who didn't read TFsummary on the subject the other day, the primary reason for closing the source was that keeping it open was gaining little benefit, while supporting those directly competing with the company offering it.

  • A Lesson for RIAA ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by slashbob22 ( 918040 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @03:57PM (#13776114)
    Just because someone downloads music, doesn't mean they listen to the crap...

  • Source of revenue...? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sczimme ( 603413 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @04:03PM (#13776179)

    [I did RTFA, though it's entirely possible I missed something.]

    Mr. Asay did not clarify the distinction between revenue from product sales and revenue from support and other services. He mentioned Red Hat as an example of an OSS company that is making money, but he didn't indicate how much of that money came from selling RHEL and other products vice the consulting, etc. that RH also offers. He alludes to it briefly when he says "OSS has trended toward examples like the Red Hat Network and the MySQL network" but leaves it at that.

    This is not a slam on Asay, btw; it's just something I thought would make the article more useful.

  • Matt Asay's credentials and achievements. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CyricZ ( 887944 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @04:04PM (#13776181)
    Can anyone shed some light on Matt Asay's credentials and achievements? Has he made any significant open source contributions, be them in the form of code, documentation, icons, etc.? What is his background, and past involvement with the open source community. His name isn't one that rings a bell, so that's why I'm wondering who exactly he is.

    Is he a master contributor such as Bruce Perens, or is he more of an Eric S. Raymond?

    • Re:Matt Asay's credentials and achievements. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Subrafta ( 848399 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @05:16PM (#13776774)
      Matt Asay has been involved with Linux for the past few years, both professionally and academically. Asay is Director of Novell's Linux Business Office and Open Source Review Board, and is responsible for laying the strategic and business foundation for Novell's use of open source software.
      Before Novell, Asay was General Manager at Lineo, an embedded Linux software startup, where he ran Lineo's Residential Gateway business. Asay earned his Juris Doctorate degree at Stanford Law School, spending two of his three years studying software licensing and innovation, and specifically the GNU General Public License, under Professor Larry Lessig.
      http://conferences.oreillynet.com/cs/os2003/view/e _spkr/1627 [oreillynet.com]

  • hobby computing (Score:2, Interesting)

    by happyfrogcow ( 708359 )
    Who cares? Free Software in the 1990's and 2000's has revitalized the hobby of computing and programming. If you are in development for the money, your in it for the wrong reasons. You won't last.

    • So just because I want to make a living at something that I actually tend to enjoy doing (late night bughunting sessions asside), I'll never last?

      I'd love to know what experience you have in the field. Not to mention what you're smoking, because I've got news for you: the professional caliber tools are still being written by people who do it for a living. Just because they work on some of those tools in their spare time for their own reasons doesn't make them hobbyists. At the end of the day, they are st
      • Degree in Computer Science & Engineering, been working for the past 4 years as a developer in an large international company, where if you don't like what you are doing, there are plenty of other reasons to quit. Money is average, insurance benefits are good, politics are crap, and the business folks think they can change requirements on a whim. But I'm not IT staff, I don't need a pager and I'm never on call. My work stays at work.

        4 years isn't a long time, but it would feel like it if I didn't like wh
    • That is the most rediculous statement I have ever read on Slashdot.

      *My* belief is that there is a place for commercial programming/proprietary systems AND open-source programming. Just because something new comes along doesn't mean that the old thing automatically goes away.

    • If you are in development for the money, your in it for the wrong reasons.

      Bullshit. There is a lot of annoying software development work, and only some of the parts are really fun to do. Take GUI development or graphic design for example: Why do the best programs often have a poorly designed GUI? Why is there no open source GUI? GUI programing is boring. Development of module tests is boring. Developing of graphic for computer games is boring, thats one reason there are only very few open source 3D games li
      • I don't think boredom is such an issue. None of the things you mention are intrinsically boring. In fact nothing is intrinsically boring, it's all in the mind of the person doing it.

        There are other perceptual issues that may be more important.

        Quality: who wants to work on something if they think it will be 2nd rate?

        Recognition: who wants to work on some little project that nobody else uses, or even knows exists? Who wants to contribute to a monster like OpenOffice, Mozilla or X11 and be recognised on

  • OSS has been profitably for very few (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AutopsyReport ( 856852 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @04:31PM (#13776397)
    An OSS company being profitable is a rarity. For every OSS company and every OSS developer, the chances of profitability are slim. Contrast this with a typical proprietary software company, and there simply is no comparison.

    When more than a select few companies (only three listed) prove to be capable of pulling a profit, then I'd call it a trend. But considering that most open source development teams pursue their software with little to no financing, it's far too early to even call this a trend. I'd call this the beginnings of a foundation that may begin to include other viable open source products.

    • I don't exactly disagree with what your saying but could you back that up with some real data? I see your point about lack of data to prove the article but how many proprietary shops get rich off of software over night? Or ever? For every success I'm sure there are plenty of failures. What the success/failure ratio is for proprietary software vs. F/OSS software is not something I can answer but I think that bears evaluating before making broad brush comments like proprietary software is far more profitable.
    • The simple truth is that most new businesses (something like 2/3 or 3/4) fail. It doesn't really matter what field they're in, most of them tank. The thing with basing a business around open source software is that you can't really expect your money to come from the software itself, but rather you have to find something to leverage with the software (services, hardware devices, support, etc).

      Every business has pitfalls. This one just happens to have some weird ones.
  • And there I was thinking someone was starting an Open Sound System vs. ALSA flamewar...
  • ...Microsoft funding a TCO study?

    Seriously though, if corporations can't be trusted to be objective about their own products/ideologies then why would we immediately decide that we should take to heart the word of someone who is clearly pro-OSS regarding the state of OSS profitability? Following that, where do we look for an objective opinion these days?

    Granted there are a few key profitable OSS creator/providers, but in the same breath, I'm sure there are many, many more that fall on their faces and drown
  • RedHat is a public company, so their numbers are reported. I don't know about the two private companies.

    This is yet another case of someone claiming a company is profitable by looking at their revenues. Meaningless.

    Also, MySQL (I know less about RedHat and JBoss) has dual licensing, and I'm sure their product revenues come entirely from the non-GPL side of the business. Their services and training revenues may come from both. Where their profits come from, if they have any profits, is unclear.

    To my wa

    • Also, MySQL (I know less about RedHat and JBoss) has dual licensing, and I'm sure their product revenues come entirely from the non-GPL side of the business.

      Exactly. And RedHat has per-seat licensing. JBoss is licensed under the LGPL. Their business model is support, which also means that the product (last I checked) is not well documented unless you buy support. I can see where they're coming from, but it's pretty obvious that they're defrauding the "Free Software must have Free Documentation" dictum.

      So,
      • Well said! My software company's training, support, and consulting business was very profitable, but product sales were a huge loser. The sales reps used to FLY to customer sites just to give demos, often with no ensuing sale. I wish I'd been smart enough to fire the sales guys, pump up marketing, and give the product away.

        Open source is an even smarter idea, especially for RedHat. You can get programmmers to work on your product without paying them. The GPL takes in one big step further: You can even get

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close