Simon Phipps's Blog

Sun and Open Source - Development, not Deployment

In his recent posting on java.net Alan Williamson asks how open source software can ever be profitable. I believe his thinking confuses two different issues - how software is developed and how it is deployed. In some contexts they are the same thing, but in a growing number they are completely different. In the difference lays the answer.

I believe the best way to understand open source is as a methodology. It's essentially been in Sun's genes for 20 years, and Sun has repeatedly tried to fuse open community development and the creation of broad commercial markets in project after project. Today Sun sees open source as the best way to build great software in co-operation with the rest of the massively-connected community, given the commercial freedom to do so. We employ engineers to work on open source projects. We support the open source community; we deliver value to customers; we protect, facilitate and enfranchise both.

Open source is a software development methodology - that's why you need the source! The openness facilitates a developer community. It's not primarily intended as part of the deployment vehicle for end users, and that's where the risk lies. The developer-friendly features make it all seem so tempting for deployers - control over the software, free code and no lock-in - but those things were put there for the developers, not the deployers. Obviously an open development community needs the source code to be under an open-access license and on a web site - otherwise how could it function?

When deployers decide to use the benefits that facilitate the developers as the vehicle for deployment, they will inevitably 'pay the price' somehow. They could pay by putting people into the open source community to act on their behalf, collecting the code and deploying it on their systems. Alternatively they could get community members procure, perhaps customise the code and then deploy the results. But an expert is always required. Sun's answer, the one most companies want to hear, is "we join the community so you don't have to" - and in the process we indemnify you, we get your bugs fixed and we hold your hand.

For Sun, open source software development often makes perfect sense as part of our business plan. Our story is not "we want to bring it down", it's "we are a member-practitioner, and here's how we do it". Sun works in the Open Source community, and then adds value with packaging, documentation, support, long term insurance that the project will continue, indemnification and more, so that the Sun customer can feel secure in adopting an Open Source technology, and feel that they are justifiably receiving a value for paying money to Sun. Doing these things to enable deployment doesn't impact the 'freedom' of the development community - it just that the freedom that enables development isn't applicable to most people deploying.

Sun invests more in open source than pretty much any other company, has more reliance on open source in its products, and uses that experience to deliver the value customers want. I might summarise this by saying "Sun is the industry's biggest open source company" and "we joined the community so our customers don't have to" and currently most importantly "we're taking the risks so our customers are indemnified".

So how does open source make money, Alan? Well, simply by letting businesses make great products that people want. Development and deployment aren't (always) the same thing.

[Also posted on Webmink : the Blog]

Comments

• Thank you.
  I'm not someone to be without words very often; but I can honestly say that your insight made me think (quite long) about things different.

  Great BLOG!

  Posted by: zander on July 30, 2003 at 05:27 AM

• Companies who need software pay for its development!
  Companies can use software to make them more efficient. They can buy the software off the shelf or they can have it developed in-house. By developing software in house, companies gain complete control of the software - what features to include! Such software can be released as open-source enabling other companies to benefit from the work. Releasing software as open source doesn't cost anything, and it gets you great geek karma.

  Posted by: jessewilson on July 30, 2003 at 11:02 AM

• Companies who need software pay for its development!
  That's certainly one model, can't disagree with you there.

  Posted by: webmink on July 30, 2003 at 11:06 AM

• Good lucid explanation...thanks
  I agree with the blog, very clearly articulated...thanks

  Posted by: bkamal on July 30, 2003 at 12:38 PM

• This is a limited viewpoint
  Simon this is showing Sun's strategy, but not only that its limited to the Apache model. Sun has shown consistantly that they do not support any model but this model and that they only support this model so long as it doesn't challenge proprietary software. You see this is the difference between supporting in a "sure go write tools for us to use" and supporting open source as a real development model for mainstream software. When I say Sun doesn't support open source, I'm not talking about how you don't feel like writing XML parsers any more than any other company does. Let's face it, Sun supports openness if by open ness you means "openly controlled by Sun" ;-) -- Tell me how open source communities are to work when members are bound by NDAs with Sun? (like JSR-168)... Tell me how open source is to work if Sun picks who isn't subject to protection money (TCKs)? No Sun supports academic open source. Don't worry Simon, I'm sure history will be different. There are still a few companies that survived after fighting new methods of production/progress. Look at Morgan automobiles. They still make their cars by hand.

  Posted by: acoliver on July 31, 2003 at 07:29 AM

• Microsoft shows path to Open Source revenue
  Microsoft is planning new negative comparison marketing, starting with Linux, Apache HTTPd, and MySQL, most likely reminiscent of their anti-OS/2 campaign.

  ref: http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=12803689

  Another way of looking at it, however, is actually good for Open Source supporters. The man in charge of the project at Microsoft, Martin Taylor, says that the "the end-to-end scenarios is where things don't work quite as well with Linux." But that is precisely where Open Source consultants and integrators can find the Value Add proposition. That is where Open Source differs from Free (as in money). Someone needs to provide support, integration, deployment, enhancement, etc. Companies can either develop that expertise in-house, or out-source. And in the longer run, Open Source projects will evolve to make such tasks easier, as the lessons from deployment are fed back into the development community.

  Posted by: noel on July 31, 2003 at 07:49 AM

• This is a limited viewpoint
  - "Sun has shown consistantly that they do not support any model but this model"

  Sun donated all of their Servlet, JSP and related technologies to the ASF, and continues an active involvement.

  - "Sun supports openness if by open ness you means openly controlled by Sun"

  Sun doesn't control Tomcat, or other Open Source projects.

  - Tell me how open source communities are to work when members are bound by NDAs with Sun? (like JSR-168)

  First of all, JSR's are standards, not Open Source. CORBA wasn't Open Source, but you could have an Open Source ORB.

  Likewise, just because JSR development isn't as open as it could be, doesn't mean that they don't lead to Open Source Software.

  I would like to see Sun move more things under a real Open Source license like the Apache Software License, and not the SCSL (which is an "academic" source license), but your comments are not conducive to influencing the outcome that you want.

  Posted by: noel on July 31, 2003 at 09:01 AM

• Software libre
  Simon, that was a good read, and I think it captures Sun's position very clearly.

  But until Sun is willing to work with projects and release code under ANY license that's part of the Open Source Definition (including the GPL), I don't consider Java to have embraced the true spirit of open source. The ASL is essentially a public domain license; it guarantees nothing to the community in the way that a copyleft license does. If Tomcat switched to a GNU license (not that it's even possible at this point), Sun's support and continuing contributions would be gone in a heartbeat.

  Wes

  Posted by: wbiggs on August 01, 2003 at 12:52 AM

• Software libre
  Thanks for your comment, Wes, appreciated.

  Sun does in fact use both the GPL and the LGPL for some projects; the view is that one should use the most appropriate license for the task in hand, to facilitate the community that's gathering around the code. We have neither a basic philosophical objection to, nor a fervent religious affinity for, GNU licenses.

  In the case of ASF, I think it's very unlikely that a GNU license would be selected (this has been discussed in my discussion area starting on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/webmink/message/462 in response to the copy of this posting on webmink.net) - as one ASF Member comments there "The GPL-driven
  concept of Open Source aren't about freedom. The GPL is about mandating (removing freedom) that everything be available in source form (hence the 'open' part of Open Source)." I have heard many open source community members express concerns about the GPL.

  Why? Well, when it isn't possible to select an appropriate license for the /deployment/ part of the software life-cycle, GNU licenses make life very hard because of their (not-so) hidden agenda. But in dual-licensing situations they can often be very appropriate.

  -- Simon

  Posted by: webmink on August 01, 2003 at 04:05 AM

• disagree
  My friend, I'm disagree.
  Open Source is not only a development methodology.

  Open Source is a PROCESS. Read it: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107_2-5057755.html

  Open Source is COMMUNICATION for developers, users, customers or partners.

  Open Source is PHILOSOPY and BELIEVE.

  Open Source is COOPERATION and Mr McNealy have to understand it yet.

  Posted by: nerd on August 01, 2003 at 06:04 AM

• This is a limited viewpoint
  Simon, I'm beginning to think there is no point. I'm not going to go rounds with you on what Sun officially controls versus actually. However, the JSR-168 thing really gets under my skin. JSR-168 is BASED on Jetspeed. And how nice that you'll license it back to jetspeed on your terms. NDAs mean that proprietary vendors get an unfair advantage and damage open source communities where members of the open source community participate in the JSR. Basically the JCP is incompatible with open source. And then you throw me a scrap from the table and tell me I might ruin it. I ought to create my own standards board, worked for sun.

  Posted by: acoliver on August 01, 2003 at 06:19 AM

• This is a limited viewpoint
  "the SCSL (which is an "academic" source license". Do you think that Microsoft's Shared Source is "academic" also?

  Because SCSL and Shared Source are too similar...

  Just my 2 cents

  Posted by: nerd on August 01, 2003 at 07:31 AM

• Software libre
  Simon, thanks for the follow-up. Do you prefer to discuss this in the Yahoo forum?

  Could you share some Sun projects that have been released as (L)GPL? Just curious.

  For the record, I use GNU licenses for much of my software, but I often rely on ASL/BSD-licensed libraries, and generally support the ASF's contention that the GPL and ASL are compatible (GNU's opposition seems to be purely pragmatic).

  The definition of freedom that I would apply to a GPL-type license is the _preservation_ of the freedoms defined at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.

  0. The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
  1. The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
  2. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
  3. The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

  Dual licensing (under a copyleft and non-copyleft license) would serve the community very well IMO.

  Wes

  Posted by: wbiggs on August 01, 2003 at 11:39 AM

• disagree? no, just different scope
  Don't assume we disagree just because I can't write everything in a short article responding to someone else...
  

  Posted by: webmink on August 01, 2003 at 04:26 PM

• Software libre
  Wes,

  OpenOffice.org is dual-licensed under LGPL and SISSL. Sun contributes code to both Gnome (you'll see we have started shipping that with Solaris) and Linux, both under GPL & there are other examples. So Sun's not allergic to FSF - Sun is a corporate patron, see http://patron.fsf.org/2003-patrons.html :-)

  I recommend Sun's stealth open source web site, http://www.sunsource.net/ for more details on projects.

  Concerning the ASF and GPL, I recommend you look at the current thinking on the Apache Wiki - http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?Licensing
  It's nowhere near as cut-and-dried as you're suggesting.

  -- Simon (here or Yahoo is fine BTW)

  Posted by: webmink on August 01, 2003 at 05:11 PM

• -
  I didn't actually reply here, Andrew, it was Noel...

  Posted by: webmink on August 01, 2003 at 05:16 PM

• A good explanation cannot cover all the ground
  I'd also recommend reading what I said at http://www.webmink.net/2003_07_27_oldblog.htm#105968847932146383

  Posted by: webmink on August 01, 2003 at 05:29 PM

• Software libre
  Hi, as a long contributor to OSS, I'd like to post a short comment on your GPL points.
  GPL is very good if you create an application, a finished work that users can use instead of a platform other application providers can build on top of.

  The trouble with Java is that it is object orientation like it was meant to (well mostly) and code reuse is getting quite easy.
  If you want to create an open source application in Java your users will (sooner or later) ask you if they can link to those classes from a closed library. While the LGPL was created for that, the LGPL suffers from some problems that make it unsuitable for Java.

  I always use the Apache licence; it proved quite sufficient for me, and if someone copies the code fully into their sourcetree I still have 2 things; they can never use the name I chose, the open source version will always grow faster then that closed source version. Making it silly to have to copy it time after time for that thirth party.

  (L)GPL is just not viable for any real object oriented language.

  Posted by: zander on August 03, 2003 at 07:29 AM

• RE: This is a limited viewpoint

  acoliver,

  it is common knowledge that trying to convice a big company (anything with over 50 employees) does not work by talking to its employees.
  You actually do more damage then good in this way.
  Or to turn this from basing into something constructive; talk about things you agree on and work from there.

  You would also quickly stop talking to someone smaller as you pointing out your bad things.

  Posted by: zander on August 03, 2003 at 07:38 AM

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.