What's In Your Code?

Open Source in the Future

Analyst Clay Ryder has an interesting piece at IT-Director.com: “Why we won’t be talking about Open Source in the future.” Here’s an excerpt:

While people have the need to segment out what is new and/or different from what they know, the reality is that from a bits and bytes perspective, open source software is no different than any other. It is code that runs on the machine and hopefully solves a problem and delivers value to the end user. The development model and the pricing model vary, as do issues related to intellectual property and ownership, but at the end of the day it is just software.

Well – he’s right and he isn’t. Certainly from a “bits and bytes” perspective software is software. But from the perspective of impact on the industry, open source is anything but the same. Think for a second about the huge changes that open source is causing… first, the decline of the perpetual license. Perpetual license is simply a term for a big up front payment to begin using the software. It makes a decision to use a piece of software more difficult for obvious reasons, and makes the evaluation process more difficult. Open source is changing that model – just download and try it. Then buy a support contract if you want one.

Second, IT people have always wanted to be able to see much more of what's actually going on with the software they use – to have a look at the code for troubleshooting and to fill out any gaps in the documentation. Difficult in the old way – easy with open source.

So as this evolution continues, software companies will need to adjust their business models – by charging for the real value add in terms of support and new releases – typically far less than the perpetual license. And due to the availability of products for download and evaluation over the Web, they will make up for the perpetual license with reduced sales and marketing expenses. Btw - This has the added benefit of giving software companies incentives to be sure that the software they make available on the Web is solid, and doesn’t need a lot of handholding.

In both cases – customers win. And software companies that figure this out win too.

The Merc

The San Jose Mercury News is for sale (again). Their parent, Knight Ridder, was recently purchased, and the new owner has decided to sell a few of the Knight Ridder papers including the Merc because they don't fit the profile they want (plus probably to help pay for the rest). I like the Merc a lot, and was thinking the other day about what I'd like to see...

My thought is this...wouldn't it be terrific if we could organize some kind of local ownership for the merc - particularly one with a tech influence. Newspapers are increasingly getting irrelevant due to the web - but what if we had a good one like the merc - and the mission to see what could happen if we rethought it as a web-centric pub. And where better than here to do it. There are some good examples of what it might begin to look like - the new york times web site is terrific - imagine what it could be if that were the primary mission.  It is time for someone to take that shot...before we see all the papers we like on the block

The Circle of Software Life

Oracle’s acquisitions of Innobase and Sleepycat have spawned a series of articles and blogs suggesting that this marks some new and perhaps negative milestone for the open source movement.

It’s true that many open source communities are (at least in part) helped by contributors whose employers allow their participation and it's possible that developers may have to opt out of supporting a particular project, based on competitive issues

At the end of the day however – I think that this issue will be self regulating. The new dynamic is the community. If Oracle, or anyone else who acquires an open source project, starts taking actions that are unacceptable to the members of the community, they will vote with their feet and there will be a new project. In fact, the real question for the company that acquires the project is what do we need to do to keep the people excited about continuing with us. It is probably the best way to graft in the new model of the software world.

So, I’m not that worried.

A BlackBerry on Every Desk?

On Friday, RIM indicated it’s ready to get back to business by acquiring Ascendant Systems. Ascendant’s technology enables cell phones to work with PBX-based corporate phone systems. Once the technologies are integrated, RIM promises you’ll be able to use your BlackBerry like your office phone, using call forwarding, transferring calls, making conference calls, etc.

RIM’s settlement last week with NTP for $612.5 million dollars was the ultimate reminder of the value of intellectual property at the heart of any technology company. Even if the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office eventually overturns NTP's patents, NTP gets to keep the cash.

RIM settled to put this nightmare behind the company. Its CEO Jim Balsillie was quoted as saying: "We really did this to give certainty, and calmness and comfort to our ecosystem."

Like many a company that has traveled this frustrating path, RIM did what was in the best interest of shareholders and customers.

Webcast - Informal Survey

Last week, our CTO Ray Waldin participated in a webinar with Rob Jenkins from CollabNet and Eddie Correia from SD Times. The topic was "Two Steps to Centralized, Secure, and Auditable Source Code."

As part of the webinar, we conducted an online survey. Here are some of the more interesting results. (We're not for a minute suggesting these are in any way statistically valid):

How do you manage the use of open source in your code base today?
a.  We don't use open source code - 38%
b.  I don't know - 4%
c.  It is left up to the development teams - 44%
d.  We routinely audit open source code - 13%

My thought on the 38% who say they don't use OSS is that they shouldn't take any bets on that.

How frequently do you audit?
a.  Only when we think we have a problem - 25%
b.  Only before release -10%
c.  On a routine milestone basis - 10%
d.  Audit what? Never! - 55%

The "never audit" result is not completely surprising and hopefully that's why they tuned in to our webcast.

James Governor on Transparency and IT Portfolios

I've been meaning to write about James' recent post but travel tends to get in the way of my best intentions.

James kicks off commending Zimbra for its willingness to publicly post its bug status for all to see and track. James makes the point that if enterprises become increasingly open about the technologies they are using, they can learn from one another, enabling all parties to make better technology decisions. We think it's inevitable that ISVs will increasingly be required to publish the componentry in their code. James gives a nod to this thinking and our ipingredients.org initiative, which advocates for IP transparency in the software development process.

It may take more time for enterprises to get on board, but there's a lot of potential value to increasing openness/sharing of what goes in your code.