The leader in enterprise class, open source middleware

JBoss Enterprise Middleware

Subscribe to JBoss Enterprise Middleware: eMailAlertsEmail Alerts newslettersWeekly Newsletters
Get JBoss Enterprise Middleware: homepageHomepage mobileMobile rssRSS facebookFacebook twitterTwitter linkedinLinkedIn

JBoss Authors: APM Blog, Stackify Blog, SOASTA Blog, XebiaLabs Blog, Dynatrace Blog

Related Topics: Apache Web Server Journal

Apache Web Server: Article

The Commercialization of Open Source

Is VC investment a good thing for open source?

We've all heard the news: JBoss has received $10 million in funding and now it's time to sit back and mull it over. Without a doubt this infusion of capital is a signal of confidence for JBoss Group. But is this investment a good thing for open source? Not an unimportant question for those of us who have decided to use open source in our enterprise applications. If organizations are just now deciding to use open source, this announcement could cause them to rethink their decision and weigh the possibility that their choice may not be so open as it has been. We do have a few exemplars that we can draw from to help us understand what could happen. The most obvious are IBM alphaWorks, the Apache Foundation, and the various Linux vendors, some of whom have IPOed.

alphaWorks is home to a number of open source projects. We don't hear about this IBM-funded effort as much as we used to because many efforts have simply taken a back seat to Eclipse in the media. Another reason is that many of the Java projects have been donated to the Apache Jakarta project. Even so, it continues to act as an incubator while being funded by IBM.

The fact that Apache receives a significant portion of its funding and support from Collabnet is neither highly publicized nor used in marketing efforts. Apache's branding has developed organically. Aside from the number of high-quality offerings (donated by IBM and others), much of the respect that Apache enjoys is due to Collabnet. Being backed by Collabnet has given businesses enough trust in the viability of Apache that they are willing to base critical business applications on Apache technology. Because of this, Apache has been a big win for Sun, IBM, O'Reilly, Oracle, Borland, and others.

What of open source projects that don't enjoy this level of support? Is JBoss a viable option for businesses without the backing of a group such as Apache or the JBoss Organization? Could Linux be where it is today without the efforts of companies such as Red Hat? What does all of this say about the future of open source projects? Will the companies that are supporting open source continue to do so once they face real pressure from investors? Will people be willing to donate their time to open source projects knowing that others will be profiting from their efforts?

There is no doubt that the JBoss project enjoys a large grass roots following. The difference between the JBoss Organization and Apache is that the JBoss founders have been much more vocal about their efforts than Apache has been. In addition to the attention that this loud chest thumping has attracted, it has also made some people nervous about the future of the JBoss project. There is no question that JBoss products will survive. This infusion of capital all but ensures a healthy future for them. The question is: What form will that future take if the principal sponsors of the project are now off trying to satisfy those who provided this capital?

It is conceivable that under the limited GPL license, future development on JBoss will occur in a totally commercialized context. Will we see two versions of JBoss: one open source and another for those who are willing to ante up licensing fees? Will documentation and support only be doled out to those who are willing to pay? Not according to Marc Fleury. Fleury has the personality and attitude that was needed to bring JBoss to this level. He seems to know when to thumb is nose at the establishment and when to pull back. As long as Fleury is in control, I expect he will keep his word and JBoss will remain as it is. The question is: How long can Fleury maintain control?

In an article published on CNet (June 2, 1999) just after Red Hat announced that it had filed for an IPO, an analyst raised the question, "If a company such as VA or Red Hat went public and made a lot of money off of Linux, what does that mean for all those people who've done a lot of work and don't necessarily make money out of it? Will they still want to contribute to Linux?" A quick survey of the Fedora (a project to build a complete OS from free software) IRC channels showed that more than 300 people were signed onto #fedora and 120 where signed onto #fedora-devel. More important, there were people engaging in dialogue while trying to advance the development of this open source project. While these numbers don't rival the thousands that participate in projects like Ant, it still appears to be a healthy vibrant community working toward a common goal.

It's unclear how many of the people who have contributed to Red Hat's success have been compensated for their efforts. The JBoss Group has made a concerted effort to compensate people who have contributed to the JBoss project. The recent hiring of Gavin King illuminates the group's efforts to continue to support Professional Open Source, that is open source software developed by professionals earning a living from the product that they are contributing to. Is this any different than what Sun, IBM, and others have been doing with their support of Apache Jakarta?

Only time will tell if the JBoss Group can successfully transform themselves from a group of developers working on an open source project into a viable commercial enterprise. Or if JBoss as an open source product will remain viable and not be consumed by JBoss, the commercial enterprise. If history has anything to say, they should be able to pull it off.

More Stories By Kirk Pepperdine

Kirk Pepperdine has more than 10 years of experience in OO technologies. In edition to his work in the area of performance tuning, Kirk has focused on building middleware for distributed applications.

Comments (9) View Comments

Share your thoughts on this story.

Add your comment
You must be signed in to add a comment. Sign-in | Register

In accordance with our Comment Policy, we encourage comments that are on topic, relevant and to-the-point. We will remove comments that include profanity, personal attacks, racial slurs, threats of violence, or other inappropriate material that violates our Terms and Conditions, and will block users who make repeated violations. We ask all readers to expect diversity of opinion and to treat one another with dignity and respect.

Most Recent Comments
Prashanth Kasturi 05/17/04 05:02:19 AM EDT

It is an interesting article. I think getting funding is good because the efforts can be compensated for and many more open source projects will take off.

I think, primarily as a tech company or a developer, getting all the code is important. If the company after getting the funding maintains a supported and un supported version, with existing documentation, it would be the ideal scenario.

I do wish it continues with the dual track instead of reducing cost and making it necessary for every installation to have a license. It is similar to Weblogic, etc who only dont provide source code but provide the platform free for development.

Satya 05/10/04 03:44:59 PM EDT

Who will benefit from commercialization of open source? Does any of the programmers who do free programming get any part of that money. It is a great injustice to commercialize open source applications. It is similar to a person A stealing the work of person B, and selling it for profit. There is no difference between commercialization of open source applications and stealing. In fact, it should be banned. Either it should be completely open sourced, or it may be completely commercial. We should encourage open source strategy only to the extent that it does not kill the industry. It already started killing the industry; several companies are suffering.

RP 04/14/04 05:19:51 PM EDT

Mark dont get gnu greedy like mysql or redhat. Jboss is great because of the LGPL. And the manitenance, training, and support is worth every penny. Not to mention consulting can be bought as well.

tom matthews 04/09/04 11:07:57 AM EDT

Since JBoss inc contributes 80% of JBoss codebase, they CAN'T fork JBoss in a proprietary way. Something the article misses. In fact BSD style licenses like Apache allow for that fork by vendors. The LGPL dissalows it. LGPL is safer for enterprises in that way.

jp 04/08/04 01:06:14 PM EDT

Open Source has always felt like an extension of grad school for students/programmers who can't seem to break away. Some day the Open Source programmers/hobbyists are going to get a life and wonder why they've been programming for free in their spare time after a full day's work. An infusion of cash can only feed the development and make it grow. The Open Source model is an anomaly in the business world and the better projects will inevitably become commercialized software. Paying the programmer isn't a sin. Neither is buying commercial software. Programmers have to eat too.

Mike Kenny 04/08/04 03:07:32 AM EDT

Many companies use and develop software to add value to their business rather than as their business. For these companies using products such as JBoss, tomcat, etc. provides a starting point for them to begin customizing. If they do not contribute their customizations, enhancements or patches to the community they will not be able to make use of new features in future releases. So there is a commercial incentive to donate to the effort.

Interesting that with all of the references to Apache and Red Hat I saw no mention of either Geronimo, the jakarta project to produce an Application Server in competition to JBoss, or Red Hats announcement that they would be producing their own server based on the Jonas code base.

Ken 04/07/04 09:01:57 AM EDT

Two-tier licensing sets one clear difficulty - how does the community deal with selling freely-donated code? I suspect that this may be a minefield in future.
Another more general issue is that some form of funding may be neccessary to sustain projects in maintenance mode - not many people will do maintenance programming for nothing. You can already see this on Source Forge which has a fair number of stalled projects - perhaps this is a Darwinian trait but I do think it will become a feature of many open source projects where sexy new features will be added but annoying bugs and poor documentation will not be fixed.
There is also the frequently raised argument that if everything is Open Source who pays the developers who write Open Source - what do they do as the day job?

Gwendolyn 04/07/04 03:16:43 AM EDT

Interesting article. I think, in principle, there is nothing wrong in funding open source projects. Open source does not mean that it's made for free. Open source should be the better option because you share cost, reuse software, and only create what you need. I do think that any donation to an open source project should demand that the generated results are released under an open source license. That way funding can be retracted/reverted if the copyright holders want to close the source.

David 04/06/04 11:32:25 PM EDT

This sort of concern is very real already. MySQL used to be a pure GPL type of license, allowing you to use their db as you saw fit, and if you made changes, you contributed those back to the community. Our company made such changes to the JDBC driver (then operated independently of MySQL) code.

Now, if you use it with a non-GPL application, whether you make money on MySQL or not, you need to buy a commercial license. They have changed.