Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 132

Thread: Towards A Real Business Model For Open-Source Software

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    13,422

    Default Towards A Real Business Model For Open-Source Software

    Phoronix: Towards A Real Business Model For Open-Source Software

    Last week in a FreeBSD status report we talked about the Chromium web-browser support on FreeBSD improving through a new subscription program whereby most of the FreeBSD patches are being kept closed-source for some length of time before being committed back upstream as open-source and reaching the hands of the non-subscribers. This caused some to question the work, but the developer behind this FreeBSD-Chromium subscription program, Sprewell, has written an editorial that we are now publishing. This details his beliefs concerning the future of open-source software business models.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14867

  2. #2

    Default

    Putting aside the authors more inflammatory statements and taking his proposal on its own I am left with a one big question. Where will the customers come from? The commercial software houses spend much (most?) of their income on marketing and advertising. They get their goods put in pretty boxes and sold at retail outlets like Amazon, Best Buy, Fry's, etc. Where will the guy who comes up with a better compression scheme find a market?

    I like that people are thinking about alternative schemes to make money off software. Not that this is completely new, Ghostscript tried something very much like this years ago with Aladdin and failed mostly due to lack of clients. I guess this is the classic business problem and up to each to solve for itself, but I'm skeptical.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: Towards A Real Business Model For Open-Source Software

    However, you can't sell open source software products because anyone is free to copy all your source and create a competitor: this is why desktop linux has failed to this day and why it will never succeed.
    Well, look how much BSD are installed on Desktops. How much Linux is installed on desktop. The percentage is similar to windows vs linux.

    This means BSD has failed to become a desktop system and will always fail, unlike Linux, untill it switches to GPL.

    To me, this means following things, something that Steve J. has understood and taken fuits off long ago:

    - FreeBSD accepts its always-behind, second choice status.
    - It accepts its milk cow status.
    - It is a system for those, who were unable to afford MacOSX and pay this with manual debugging.
    - BSD license accepts its a milk-cow license.
    - Developing under BSD license means to giving away your time and skills to proprietary blobs.

    or this guy, is brainless.


    "The only marginally successful open source business model is consulting/support, which has done well for some but brings in a small fraction of closed source revenues. "

    Opensource is NOT about consulting! Its about programming! Its about having possiblity to influence code development the exact way the customer wishes to and upstream the changes to build on and dont waste others resources.

    With opensource you control the result directly,exactly with your investment(money, time, skills) and it will never be wasted in time, will prevent reinventing the wheel, will become exactly what you wish it to be(yearly editions, which you are forced to switch anyone?)

    I think this guy,not opensource, is about consulting! *speechless*

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Columbus, OH, USA
    Posts
    323

    Default

    Sort of reminds me of the ransom model of development. I'll have to think about it.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    Well, look how much BSD are installed on Desktops. How much Linux is installed on desktop. The percentage is similar to windows vs linux.

    This means BSD has failed to become a desktop system and will always fail, unlike Linux, untill it switches to GPL.
    Hmm.... Mac OS X is a BSD. It just has a custom GUI slapped on it (Aqua GUI with Cocoa frameworks instead of GNOME with GTK or KDE Plasma with Qt).
    Last time I checked Mac OS X exceeded Linux' desktop market share by far.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KAMiKAZOW View Post
    Hmm.... Mac OS X is a BSD. It just has a custom GUI slapped on it (Aqua GUI with Cocoa frameworks instead of GNOME with GTK or KDE Plasma with Qt).
    Last time I checked Mac OS X exceeded Linux' desktop market share by far.
    MacOSX opensource? No.
    How many blobs? MANY.
    Does it steal from BSD code. Yes.

    5% vs 1.5% isnt by far.
    On servers?
    On supercomputers?
    By far!

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KAMiKAZOW View Post
    Hmm.... Mac OS X is a BSD. It just has a custom GUI slapped on it (Aqua GUI with Cocoa frameworks instead of GNOME with GTK or KDE Plasma with Qt).
    Last time I checked Mac OS X exceeded Linux' desktop market share by far.
    What a bull some people are writing here. OS X is not bsd - it just took some bsd parts, it's far more usable on desktops and user friendly, but it's nothing special and it's only marketing product which is greatly advertised. Bsd's and Linux aren't advertised, so this affects popularity, but Linux has much greater market share then *bsd.

    @Sprewell


    Many software libraries, like zlib compression or the TCP/IP stack, are written once as open source and integrated widely, particularly when they are BSD-licensed.
    And so? Libraries aren't whole operating systems or applications! Linux many other GPL products are more popular then many bsd licensed systems and applications.

    Start with a codebase that is open source, under a permissive license such as the bsd license or the cddl.
    To let company steal "my" work?

    Btw. why something like this appeared at Phoronix? Some bloggers thoughts?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    MacOSX opensource? No.
    Darwin, the whole BSD part of Mac OS X, is fully open source under a license recognized by the GNU project as Free.

    Desktop environments are not developed as part of the base OS of all BSDs. Therefore its not of any interest which DE is used to make it a BSD Ė be it GNOME, the old CDE, or Apple's Aqua+Cocoa.

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    Does it steal from BSD code. Yes.
    Apple acts fully in compliance with the BSD license. That's not stealing.

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    What a bull some people are writing here. OS X is not bsd - it just took some bsd parts
    Darwin, the operating system that consists of everything in Mac OS X that isn't GUI-related, is a BSD. That is because for all core functionality it uses BSD code.
    OSX/Darwin's kernel is XNU. XNU is a hybrid of a classic BSD kernel and Mach. Mach in turn is also a BSD-derived kernel. That makes XNU a reunification effort of two distinct BSD kernels.
    Granted, its design is different from the approach of "traditional" BSDs, but today's OpenBSD/FreeBSD/NetBSD/DragonFlyBSD is also very different from the original Berkeley Software Distribution (=BSD).

    OSX/Darwin's LibC is a variant of the FreeBSD version with some OpenBSD and NetBSD code thrown in. Sure, Apple put in its own code as well, but that doesn't make it "not BSD".

    And here's the excerpt of the header of a XNU source code header:
    * Copyright (c) 1982, 1986, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993
    * The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
    * (c) UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
    * All or some portions of this file are derived from material licensed
    * to the University of California by American Telephone and Telegraph
    * Co. or Unix System Laboratories, Inc. and are reproduced herein with
    * the permission of UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
    *
    * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
    * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
    * are met:
    * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
    * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
    * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
    * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
    * documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
    * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
    * must display the following acknowledgement:
    * This product includes software developed by the University of
    * California, Berkeley and its contributors.
    * 4. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors
    * may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
    * without specific prior written permission.
    *
    * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND
    * ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
    * IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
    * ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE
    * FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
    * DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS
    * OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
    * HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
    * LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY
    * OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
    * SUCH DAMAGE.
    *
    * @(#)init_main.c 8.16 (Berkeley) 5/14/95
    */

    /*
    *
    * Mach Operating System
    * Copyright (c) 1987 Carnegie-Mellon University
    * All rights reserved. The CMU software License Agreement specifies
    * the terms and conditions for use and redistribution.
    */

  9. #9

    Default

    @KAMiKAZOW

    My point was OS X isn't another *BSD. Cut OS X from quartz, graphic drivers, proprietary apps and then nothing interesting will remain.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    The TRUE opensource models:

    Redhat model:
    - users and programmers get testing version which they can play with. Those wanting stable, go CentOS.
    - corporate customers purchase license and get support, applied solutions(results upstreamed), they are funding the solutions they want and this solutions get upstreamed.

    Gentoo model:
    - everyone can do what he wishes, forums and documentation are here and eveyone has the choice and total control - the results get upstreamed too.

    Ubuntu model:
    - users get ready to use, bleeding age software out of the box, that they test, but also have a possiblity to get LTS - stabilized releases.
    - corporate customers have similar options as with redhat model.

    This is not forking, it is evolution.
    This are not bunch of distros, it is models for different appliances, each one ideal for specific area and all them upstream and exchange.

    This is why I will ALWAYS use Mozilla ANYDAY over Chrome garbage.
    And youtube HTML5 + H264 issue with Firefox only adds to that!

    Marrying devil with god, opensource with blobby blob, not with me!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •