JotSpot, like others as Jira & Confluence and Clover, are offering free licenses to open source projects. After the usual blah-blah stating they like open source, and use a lot of it, they've now decided to use open source projects as the ultimate gratis marketeer corps. They'll mainly compete for eyeballs with Confluence and SocialText in this area, so I wish them long and painful competitions, during which true no-strings-attached platforms might become the sensible choice.
I'm getting easily bored these days by folks trying to flex the open source meme to fit their business model, rather than the other way around. We see all sorts of creative, yet awkward licensing tricks these days (under the comforting term of "collaborative source"), of people who are keen to reap benefit from the "Source" word, yet not being willing to deal with the consequences. We see proprietary-source vendors like JotSpot who are keen to ride the Source wave, and make readily use of all sorts of open source components, yet choose not to participate.
Of course, the crux of (at least) my belief in open source licensing is that one should be ready to make money on services, not on license sales. Services reserve the right for customers to give you money when they want you, not when they have to. I find it infinitely easier to deal with things people actually want.
And the bad thing is I believe we'll see much more of these things happen in 2005, as press is gullible as ever.
Update: slightly rephrased, en removed IDEA from the list.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.cocoondev.org/MT/mt-tb.cgi/2198
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Open Source Whoring:
» Open Source + Service = Profit? from Blue Sky On Mars
Sunday's most popular Javablogs entry was Steven Noels' provocatively titled Open Source Whoring. Basically, Steven is complaining that companies offering their closed-source products for free are just doing it for marketing. Here's the trick, though: ... [Read More]
Tracked on March 15, 2005 01:47 PM
» JotSpot announces free service for Open Source projects from Jonathan Nolen
JotSpot just announced free service for open source projects. Good for them. And this is somewhat more significant that just free software licenses: they're actually volunteering to pay all the secondary costs: hosting, bandwidth, admin, [Read More]
Tracked on March 16, 2005 01:55 AM
» Open Source Whores and Bigots from rebelutionary
Apparently according to Steven, I’m an Open Source whore. Now, despite the fact that I find the term itself offensive, it’s just plainly not true. Rather, it’s a perfect example of Open Source religious bigotry. Bigotry? Isn’t t... [Read More]
Tracked on March 16, 2005 07:57 AM
» Strange directions from Bagel Belly Blog
I've been trying to distill some ideas regarding Free Software sparked by a discussion on the FSFE mailing list, Steven's blog post on open source whoring, and a few changes within Luminas (no, we're not giving up on FLOSS... [Read More]
Tracked on March 16, 2005 02:17 PM
» Gunfight at Wiki Coral ! from LudoBlog
Wikis seem to be a good subject for blog fights. After a while ago a nice fight between SocialText and Jot new we have another one between Steven and Mike (I've linked pages from Jonathan Nolen, as his blogs seems... [Read More]
Tracked on March 17, 2005 12:16 AM
» Put down that decompiler from Bagel Belly Blog
Here's the deal: if you buy proprietary code, or opt for one of the more open licenses that aren't quite open, you are foregoing certain rights: the freedom to run the program however you like, the freedom to look... [Read More]
Tracked on March 21, 2005 07:47 PM
I think their model ( which includes license fees and support contracts ) provides predictable income which allows them to size their permanent staff appropriately. Selling service only basically equates having no long term customers.
Sometimes the OS crowds cry of give it away and make money on service just doesn't make sense. I paid for IDEA and haven't talked to or communicated with the company since. I can't imagine how they could make money from me with "service". The product is damn near perfect. I don't need anything from them. I suppose to reach the holy grail of OS nirvana of selling services they'd have to break it in some way. Or at least change from it's current near perfection.
It's a funny straw man though so the fanactics can criticise non OS companies.
@"Services": do you believe IDEA would do the same if all the OSS folkies wouldn't be hyping Eclipse?
Hi Steven,
While JotSpot does provide a service built on proprietary software, it doesn't have a one-sided relationship with open source projects. Alex Russell, a fellow JotSpot employee, is being paid to work full time on Dojo (http://dojotoolkit.org ), a super cool open source javascript framework for Ajax-type applications. And part of my time is spent working on Yarn, the open source Python messaging library used in Hep. We've also made a practice of paying open source developers to make specific improvements to their projects.
JotSpot isn't releasing all our code as open source. But I don't think you have to do that to be a good open source citizen. The real question is, Is the world of open source code better because of the existence of JotSpot? I think you'd have to answer yes to that.
-Abe Fettig (JotSpot employee, open source developer)
Eclipse has always been chasing IDEA. Yes, I think IDEA would rock with or without Eclipse. Also, Eclipse would suck even more if it wasn't for IDEA as an example of how to do it right.
So, what's your great services idea for the Intellij folks?
@Services: I get your point about IDEA, so let's remove them from my original list of examples.
@Abe: with all due respect, but I believe you're slightly overestimating JotSpot's "massive contributions" to the open source world. Would JotSpot itself be better off without all the open source components it uses? I think you'd have to answer no to that.
That said, I think it's only fair to say that Jot's move to treat OSS projects differently than paying customers will create backlash for the "competing" OSS projects out there. It's a thin line to walk, but using OSS projects while competing with them at the same time is a bit "too easy" for me.
Of course, it is quite possible JotSpot doesn't regard xWiki and Daisy as competitors. But I'm not entirely sure about that.
Hi Steven,
I'm glad some people out there see the move. I can tell you that you are definitively right when saying that it is a potential "backlash" for "competing" OSS project out there.
XWiki definitively has a slower adoption rate because Confluence has been already setup by many OSS project as their wiki. Since Confluence's team has much more resources for finishing the product and that people are use to it, it doesn't make a lot of sense for people to switch. This has clearly reduced the amount of advanced users that could have contributes to help finish XWiki and make it a "primetime" product.
Now, both Atlassian and JotSpot are also OSS contributors (we will have to see the amount of lines of code really contributed) and the way they approach OSS is also a valid model. It is their right to do so. Many companies are doing it this way and it should be respected.
That said, in the specific areas of Application Wiki, I think it is important that the project on which future applications are going to be build, be available as Open-Source. We are talking here about a really open platform. The business model that JotSpot is going after is one where it is the central point of a market that they control.
Finally I can tell you that JotSpot views at least XWiki as a competitor. This move is definitively going after early adopters eyeballs.
Now I'm not worried, because the Open-Source world is a slow world that slowly but surely builds what users need, so I believe it will take time but this open platform will be available as open-source, whatever closed source providers give out to the OSS world.
>
I agree with the general proposition, but not with the association to SDC, of which I'm a member, and where the tendency is to totally avoid "something source" paraphrases. Currently we just say "progressive licensing." We are assumedly NOT open source as per the OSD. Namely we breach clause 6 of the OSD. We have a different vision. Our vision is simply to charge for certain uses of the program, combined with all the remaining aspects of open source. Yours is to give away the program, and charge for services only. Fine, lets meet in 10 years and compare assets :-)
hi..
I am very keen to know that how does a fully open source software (let's say MANDRAKE LINUX OS)make profit? Is it only by adding some paid accessory or by providing services. I am newbie to use open source products. But i never get the feel of it why open source? and why should a man or community should make their software available to all free. Why shouldn't they get paid for their work? Please anyone here to explain me this. I am very confused. I couldnot understand the GNU philoshy as well. Dont just tell me that just for self satisfaction they all are working day and night..please someone mail me there comments as i hardly check anybody's blogs.Mail me your comment at sanjayk.43@gmail.com or sansor@iitk.ac.in
TIA
Sanjay
Sanjay: I'll answer your enquiry philosophically. You state you don't read blogs, but you request emails sent directly to you. I will not do that, since your request clashes with one of my firmest beliefs: you can only take (get an answer) if you don't give first (read blogs).
When we earn money from our open source contributions, it's because we gave first. Seems like our customers share my beliefs: they are fine with giving us money, because they know they'll get something back from us. Or they already had.
Finally i understood What really does that mean??
Now I am also planning to lauch a website for newbies like me who can learn linux the way i learn it. I was confused,unhappy etc etc.. but i know what i need and now i can enjoy my freedom to fullest..
Thanks anyway..
Sanjay
"Feel the freedom"