| |
|
The Flavors of Java Open Source |
|
|
|
Written by Harshad Oak
|
|
Jan 12, 2005 at 12:23 AM |
The meaning of "open source" has changed with time. What was once used almost as a synonym for freeware, now means a lot more. With many companies now looking at open source as a way to do business and make money, things have changed even more lately. While all open source was earlier the same, the concepts of "real open source" and "commercial open source" have now emerged.
In this article, Lajos Moczar sheds more light on the changing face of open source. He looks at what is open source and how the Apache's brand of open source is different from that of a company like JBoss. He looks at open source with reference to two models:
* The Volunteer Model
* The Commercial Model
Read More>> The Open Source Monopoly
|
Comment by Guest on 2005-01-13 10:30:45
Jboss makes money and yet the ordinary user has a good server to use for free. both are happy. A win-win should always do well in the long run.
|
Comment by Guest on 2005-01-13 20:54:39
Numerous companies offer "paid" support models for software (including apache) that have an open source license. That doesn't change the fact that the software is open source. in fact a lot of volunteers have been making money consulting on the software they contribute to. That doesn't change the fact that the software is open source
jboss application server didn't start out having a "paid" support model around it. the software existed way before there was "profit". The other "jboss" projects (hibernate, jbpm, etc.) also existed before jboss added them to the stack of supported software.
Volunteers still contribute to the various jboss projects even though jboss group makes money off consulting and training.
if jboss started making money training people on tomcat and on tomcat support contracts that wouldn't change the fact that tomcat is open source
It?s not a monopoly; jboss isn't limiting your ability to make money off the jboss stack. The license doesn?t prohibit you from offering documentation, training and support. If you mean a monopoly of mind share, please try to remember that most C level decision makers never even heard of JBoss 9 months ago.
The real decision makers, developers who download open source to make there lives easily will tend to gravitate to the best product over time. The economics of open source will continue to allow new entrants into the market.
The jboss stack is a collection of open source projects is open source, jboss group is a commercial concern. Perhaps it?s a shame that they share the same name, that?s what seems to have got you upset.
If you looking for a bad guy in open source, talk to the people that offer an open-source entry product and a full featured commercial product. I think you'll have at least a defensive able position, if that happens to be something you also find offensive.
|
Comment by Guest on 2005-01-14 04:38:09
The term "open source" wasn't widely in use before the Open Source Initiative's efforts began in early 1998. Similar phrases, like "open source code", were around, but I think it's pretty clear that in the last seven years, practically everyone using the term "open source" did so because of the efforts OSI made to promote a more business-friendly alternative to the term "free software".
So when this Galatea article talks about "other definitions" of open source, and when people talk about "real open source" or "professional open source", we would do well to realise that it (whether intentionally or not) reflects the current rhetorical fashion of redefining "open source" to suit the argument being put forward -- in this case, that the JBoss business model is one that he isn't entirely comfortable with. He also redefines "monopoly" to express this feeling, because everybody knows that monopolies are bad things.
ajf |
|
|
|
|
Home | 
