451 CAOS Theory: A blog for the enterprise open source community

Adobe to acquire Day Software. Gnome contributors. Oracle bad, Oracle good. And more.

Follow 451 CAOS Links live @caostheory on Twitter and Identi.ca
“Tracking the open source news wires, so you don’t have to.”

# Adobe agreed to acquire Day Software for $240m.

# Dave Neary published Gnome census, including a list of the top company contributors. , which prompted the following…
# Greg DeKoenigsberg – Red Hat, 16%. Canonical, 1%
# Jeffrey Stedfast – Re:Red Hat, 16%. Canonical, 1%
# Jono Bacon: – Red Hat, Canonical and GNOME Contributions
# Carlo Daffara – About contributions, Canonical and adopters.

# Oracle rebrands Java, breaks Eclipse. Oracle demonstrates great community support and fixes Eclipse.

# Dell and HP will certify and resell Oracle Enterprise Linux, Solaris and Oracle VM on their respective x86 platforms.

# Oracle reportedly shut down servers Sun had contributed to the build farm for PostgreSQL.

# Whamcloud is a new venture-backed company formed around the Lustre distributed file system.

# Openbravo reported that new downloads of its open source ERP software have increased 320% in five months.

# Mitchell Baker provided an update on Mozilla’s search fro a new CEO.

# Nuxeo updated Nuxeo Digital Asset Management and released Nuxeo DAM – Cloud Edition.

# CodeWeavers released CrossOver 9.1 and CrossOver Games 9.1 for both Mac and Linux.

# Rapid7 is sponsoring and partnering with w3af, the open source Web application attack and audit framework.

# Brian Proffitt said don’t be too quick to dismiss open core.

# Tarus Balog explained why he thinks open core is dead.

# Nagios Enterprises gained more than 200 Nagios XI customers in the first half of 2010.

# Former Sun distinguished engineer Bryan Cantrill joined Joyent as VP of engineering.

# The Indonesian Ministry for Research and Technology estimated that migration to OSS could save state as much $400m.

# Novell said reports SuSE Linux losing share to Ubuntu are nonsense.

# The GNOME Release Team pushed the GNOME 3.0 release to March 2011.

# Convirture released version 2.0 of the Enterprise edition of its ConVirt virtualization management software.

# Sourcefire launched Razorback, a framework for multi-vendor threat detection and protection.

# Qualys released BlindElephant, an open source web application fingerprinting engine.

# Contegix agreed to sponsor the Clojure development language project.

# vtiger unveiled vtiger CRM On Demand, the cloud-based version of its open source CRM software.

# Jos Poortvliet joined Novell as openSUSE Community Manager.

# Funambol introduced DM Carrier Edition an open source device management offering for WiMAX.

# Sony Pictures Imageworks and Industrial Light & Magic developed Alembic, an open source exchange format.

# The Register reported that Canonical will integrate Hadoop and NoSQL database technologies with Ubuntu 10.10.

# The Open Invention Network experienced 35% growth in licensees during the second quarter.

# OpenSAF released version 4.0 of its high availability middleware platform.

One of the issues that has arisen from the ongoing debate about the open core licensing strategy is the continuing confusion about open core compared to the use of open source components in a larger proprietary product – such as IBM’s use of Apache within WebSphere.

To some people there is no difference between the two (since they both result in products that make use of open source but are not open source), however it is clear to me that while the end result might be the same these are very different strategies that involve different approaches to engaging with open source communities/projects.

While open core has a clear definition there is no agreed term or definition for the latter category.

Over the years we have used a variety of terms to describe it, including “open and closed”, “embedded open source”, “open inside” and “open complement”, while Jack Repenning has referred to it as “open infrastructure”.

Our next categorization of open source-related business strategies is still a work in progress but the current thinking is as follows:

• There are a variety of complementary strategies employed by vendors to generate revenue from open source software indirectly.

• The simplest of these is open complement which is selling other products and services that are related to but separate from, and not reliant upon, the open source project.

• Then there is encouraging open source development on top of proprietary products to retain develop interest in that product. This is known as open edge.

• Then there is using open source software to create a platform for the provision of SaaS or cloud or social networking services (for example), which I am referring to as open platform.

• Then there is using open source components as building blocks for a larger proprietary software product, which I am calling an open foundation licensing strategy.

(This categorization is a work in progress, we welcome and encourage any feedback)

Open core and open foundation have different evolutionary lineages: open core is a variation on dual licensing as practiced by the likes of MySQL and Sleepycat that also borrows heavily on the value-added subscription model as practiced by Red Hat and JBoss. Meanwhile open foundation has its roots in the commercialization of BSD, which pre-dates the concepts of open source and free software, as well as Apache.

From a practical perspective, the easiest way to think of the distinction between open core and open foundation is via an example:

PostgreSQL is an independent, community-developed open source project. EnterpriseDB offers extensions to the PostgreSQL core, such as Oracle-compatibility, in the form of Postgres Plus Advanced Server.

PostgreSQL has also been used by many other vendors to create commercial products. For example Greenplum used PostgreSQL as the foundation of its Greenplum Database (for other examples see this post). This allowed the company to build on proven database technology and avoid reinventing the wheel, but it also involved the creation of an entirely new product, rather than extensions to an open source project (the company initially actually started a new project, Bizgres, and created extensions to that but Bizgres was last seen in August 2008).

So while open core involves offering proprietary extensions targeted at a segment of the open source project user base, open foundation involves using open source software to create entirely new products, targeted at a different user base.

The example used above highlights three important points to consider when comparing open core and open foundation strategies:

1/ While open core is most readily associated with vendor-controlled projects it can also be used as a strategy to monetize community-controlled projects.

2/ Open core strategies can be used in conjunction with complementary strategies. In the Greenplum example the company’s relationship with Bizgres was open core, while the relationship with PostgreSQL was open foundation. Similarly there is an open core relationship between Actuate’s BIRT products and the Eclipse BIRT project, and an open complement relationship between Actuate 10 and the Eclipse BIRT project. Meanwhile there is an open core relationship between Day Software’s CRX content repository and the Apache Jackrabbit and Sling projects, and a open foundation relationship between CQ5 and Jackrabbit, Felix and Sling – as well as the numerous other Apache projects that Day contributes to.

3/ Open core and open foundation are licensing strategies used as part of a larger business strategy for engaging with and commercializing open source software, which highlights the futility in trying to pigeon-hole companies as “open core vendors” or “open source vendors”.

Finally it is worth thinking about the different tensions that the open core and open foundation strategies create with their respective communities.

As Jorg Janke notes, “looking for an income stream as an open source vendor always results in some sort of conflict with the community. So, you have to pick the community you want to ‘offend’.”

With a vendor-controlled open core strategy the community is a user community, and as we have previously discussed the conflict is in deciding what features belong in the core and what features don’t.

With an open foundation strategy the community is the open source project developer community, and the conflict lies in deciding what features and resources to contribute to that project.

A community-controlled open core strategy arguable results in conflict with both the user and developer communities, although since the vendor does not own or control the project the relationship is much more comparable to the open foundation strategy.

We will be writing more about other strategies for generating revenue from open source software, in a follow-up to our Open Source is Not a Business Model report, which is due to be published latter this year. It will provide more context for the economic motivators and issues involved in the various models, as well as updated research on which vendors are following which strategies, and why, as well as a survey to uncover what software users make of it all. The report will be freely available to CAOS subscribers. For more details of the CAOS research practice, and to apply for trial access, click here.

New projects. Old arguments. And more.

Follow 451 CAOS Links live @caostheory on Twitter and Identi.ca
“Tracking the open source news wires, so you don’t have to.”

New projects
# Gemini Mobile Technologies released Hibari, a new open source non-relational database for big data.

# Lockheed Martin launched the Eureka Streams open source project for enterprise social networking.

# Sony Pictures Imageworks expanded its open source initiative with the release of OpenColorIO.

Old arguments
# Kirk Wylie discussed the importance of natural split in open core , OpenGamma’s approach.

# Alan Shimel offered 10 commandments for open core. Mostly sensible, #6 will ruffle some feathers though.

# Simon Phipps maintained that open source does not need “monetising”.

# Carlo Daffara discussed property and efficiency as the basis of OSS business models.

# Jorg Janke continued his discussion of various open source business strategies in relation to Compiere.

# Henrik Ingo explained what you can do to help get rid of open core if you are so inclined.

# dotCMS went open core with the release of version 1.9.

# IBM faces EU antitrust investigation linked to TurboHercules complaint.

# The FT reported that IBM is blaming Microsoft for the EU investigation into its mainframe business practices.

# TechDirt explained how WordPress and Thesis have settled their differences over themes and the GPL.

The best of the rest
# Novell introduced SUSE Gallery for publishing and sharing Linux-based appliances.

# VoltDB released version 1.1 of its open source database.

# EnterpriseDB released Postgres Plus Advanced Server 8.4 and added Rob Bearden to its board.

# SAP has adopted Black Duck’s Suite to manage the use of open source software in its software development process.

# Oracle provided details of the MySQL Sunday event at Oracle Open World.

# SearchEnterpriseLinux reported that Ubuntu is gaining ground as a data center OS at the expense of SUSE Linux.

# Physorg.com explained how Georgia Institute of Technology researchers are helping the US military benefit from OSS.

# GENIVI Allianced has reportedly opted for MeeGo for its in-vehicle infotainment platform.

Topics for this podcast:

*OSCON conference highlights and impressions
*Rackspace and NASA open source more of cloud computing
*Open core debate du jour
*Open source motors Rhomobile’s multi-smartphone development software

iTunes or direct download (27:39, 7.6MB)

The post-OSCON lull. In alphabetical order.

Follow 451 CAOS Links live @caostheory on Twitter and Identi.ca
“Tracking the open source news wires, so you don’t have to.”

# Canonical launched a virtual appliance of IBM’s DB2 Express-C software running on the Ubuntu cloud platform.

# Carlo Daffara discussed the relationship between open core, dual licensing and contributions.

# ForgeRock released OpenAM 9.5, the first community-sourced release of the OpenAM access management software.

# Ignacio M. Llorente provided an overview of the OpenNebula project, in the context of OpenStack.

# Kaltura launched version 2.0 of Its on-prem Community Edition open source video platform.

# Nuxeo announced Nuxeo Correspondence Management, a new application built with Nuxeo Case Management Framework.

# Open Source for America has grown its membership from 70 to 1,700 in its first year.

# Outerthought released a proof of concept for Lily, a content repository that combines Apache Hbase and Solr.

# Sauce Labs announced Sauce OnDemand, enabling cross-browser testing of Adobe Flex and Flash in the cloud.

# Savio Rodrigues explained why OpenStack will not kill open core.

# SugarCRM announced it will release open source functional and performance testing tools for web-enabled apps.

# Terracotta announced Ehcache 2.2, offering over a terabyte of data in a single cache.

# The Apache Software Foundation announced Apache FOP Version 1.0.

# The open core issue (part two) How the open core strategy works, and how it doesn’t.