Sometimes I think my only true talent is an uncanny ability to surround myself with talented people. One of those is a friend of mine who recently moved back to North Carolina from New York City, and to help celebrate that move, last week I invited a bunch of smart, intelligent and devilishly witty people over for a “Dos de Mayo” party.

Of course it was impossible not to talk “shop” at least part of the time, and I’m sure I held forth on open source at least a little. My friend Phil was listening, and he wrote down on his Blackberry the words “fauxpen source“.

I thought it was brilliant.

Now a Google search turns up a number of references to “fauxpen source” prior to Phil, but I’m willing to put it down as one of those independent discoveries, like Leibniz and Newton with calculus, and give him credit for it, especially since Phil spends little time in the software business, much less open source software, and it is doubtful he picked it up elsewhere.

The three people who read my blog know that I am pretty particular about the use of the term “open source”. The term was coined as a more business friendly alternative to “free software”, however many have tried to distance it even further by applying it, if not to commercial software, at least to commercial software business models.

Open source is more business friendly since the English word “free” is pretty loaded. The classic example is that it can mean free as in freedom (libre) as well as free as in beer (gratis). Dan Ariely devotes a whole chapter to “free” in his most excellent book Predictably Irrational, and since deploying open source software is not without cost (in either time, money or both) it can be misleading.

But I am hoping to take a page out of Carlo Daffara’s book and present a rather emotionless explanation for why open source software is free software, and it is wrong to imply otherwise.

Given that “open source software” is defined by the OSI’s Open Source Definition (OSD), which consists of ten criteria, and given that “free software” is defined by The Free Software Definition, which consists of four freedoms, I will attempt to map one onto the other. I expect it to be easier than mapping the integers onto the real numbers, but one never knows.

Before I get started, I want to point out the Introduction to the Open Source Definition, which states:

Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria

Note that it doesn’t say “should comply” or “it is suggested that it meet” but specifically uses the word “must”.

Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.

The OSD focuses more on distribution issues than use, but the 6th criterion states “The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.” I would say this is the same as Freedom 0.

Freedom 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.

There are a couple of criteria in the OSD that map to this. The 2nd requires that the source code must be made available (“The program must include source code”), and the 3rd requires the ability to make derived works (“The license must allow modifications and derived works”).

Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor .

This is met by the very first criterion, Free Redistribution, which even includes the word “free”. Note that there is no altruistic language such as “help your neighbor” in the OSD, which also makes it more palatable for business interests.

Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

The Free Software Definition separates adapting code to one’s needs from distribution of those changes. It’s an important distinction, since the right to modify code for personal use is much different to the right to distribute those changes.

The OSD combines the two with criterion 3. The first phrase “must allow modifications and derived works” covers adaptation and the second phrase “must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software” covers distribution.

The OSD adds a large number of other requirements, which I think makes open source even more “free” than free software, since it specifically spells out additional freedoms. These criteria also are very business friendly, such as number 4 about the integrity of the author’s source code. Integrity is a huge part of any business, and it is one reason that while we encourage the use of the OpenNMS software by anyone, we strongly protect the OpenNMS trademark. The OSD allows a license that requires derivative works to carry a different name (we use trademark law to enforce this since the GPL does not have this provision).

This analysis shows that open source software is free software, and I welcome anyone to point out the flaws in my logic.

In practice, I think it is pretty easy to identify open/free versus commercial/non-free software. Where it gets difficult is in identifying open source vs. commercial software companies.

In the US it seems to be a growing trend for companies to adopt a “fauxpen source” business model – using the term open source to market their commercial software offerings by providing some of the code under an OSI-approved license, but basing their revenues on the distribution of software under commercial licenses. I claim that a successful company exists to maximize profit, and if that profit is based on commercial software it is disingenuous to label the company “open source”.

Commercial licenses violate a number of the OSD criteria, since one can’t freely distribute, modify, or sometimes even see the code. The fact that some of the code is available is irrelevant: both Google and Microsoft distribute thousands if not millions of lines of code each year under open licenses but neither company would label itself as “open source”.

Having read and re-read the Open Source Definition, I have to marvel at both its simplicity and completeness. It would be a shame to let a small but well-funded and vocal group of people pervert it to their own ends.

UPDATE: The original purpose of this post was to demonstrate that open source software is also free software, and that it is at odds with commercial software. So here is a syllogism that supports my conclusion:

Open source is free software.
Commercially licensed software is not free.
Therefore, if your business (main revenue source) is selling commercial software, you are not open source.

Does that help any?

Matt Asay has a way of pushing my buttons, and while I had pretty much decided to refrain from letting him rile me up, a post he made today saddened more than angered me. Since this was a new emotion with respect to Matt, I thought it was worth exploring.

He starts off with a question from a survey:

Does open source really needs [sic] individual contributions from developers to survive?

As written, of course the answer is “no”. It’s a loaded question. If one guy sits down and writes an application, and then publishes it under an open source license, why would he need anyone else? What would it mean for him to “survive”? Feed himself? Feed his family? Have a multi-million dollar exit?

A better question is “Can open source benefit from a vibrant and active community?” Of course the answer to that is “yes”.

He then goes on to state:

… “community” is perhaps the most overhyped word in software, one that doesn’t deliver nearly as much value as marketing people would like you to think.

Heh, I really don’t listen to marketing people at all, but I would have to agree that the fauxpen source crowd often abuses the idea of community as much as the term “open source”. The fact that marketing people can’t squeeze value out of community doesn’t mean that communities don’t have value.

Matt continues:

… we tend to think of community as a group of people that actively contribute code to a project.

I don’t know who “we” are, but that is a very, very narrow definition of community. I consider anyone who uses OpenNMS and finds some value in it to be part of our community, not just the people who contribute code.

Then we get to the “moron” section of the post. Matt quotes Linus Torvalds:

… anybody who argues against free-loading in open source is a moron.

Argues against? Heck, I embrace free-loaders. They’re great. I want as many people as possible to download and use OpenNMS – for free. Why should someone have to have a background in computer science to get value out of open source software? Of course projects like the Linux kernel, which is used by millions, have relatively few people contributing back. Heck, I’ve been using it for over a decade and I wouldn’t know how to recognize a kernel bug or how to report it, much less fix it.

Likewise, OpenNMS is a complex piece of software and it takes some intense dedication to get to the point where one can contribute code. I don’t expect anyone to sit down and suddenly dedicate hours and hours of their life working on it. Plus, I would never expect someone to contribute anything to OpenNMS unless they started out with some serious “free-loader” time.

There is more to the post where it seems Matt is arguing that only corporate, commercial software companies can create successful software products, but I’m living proof that this isn’t the case.

Seven years ago this month, I started my own company focused on OpenNMS. It was me, a laptop, some space in the attic and a book on Java. It was the community around OpenNMS, especially the members of the Order of the Green Polo, that kept OpenNMS (and me) going, and it was also the many users, such as those in the Order of the Blue Polo, who urged us to keep going.

And it has been an amazing ride. Speaking of community, this week Alejandro Galue has come up from Venezuela to work on OpenNMS: just because he wants to, not because I am paying him.

Considering the tensions between the governments of our two countries, it’s amazing how there is absolutely no tension between us. People working together on a common goal like open source seem to transcend national boundaries.

At OpenNMS, we are replacing products from HP and IBM at some of the largest companies in the world. We have another client who is going to imbed OpenNMS in their management offering. We’ve been profitable since Day One and we continue to grow year after year. This was due to a lot of hard work on our part, but we wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for our community. It’s not hype – it’s just a fact.

Wikipedia defines “Sour Grapes” as “to deny desire for something one cannot attain.” I am saddened that Matt apparently has never truly experienced being part of an open source community, or else he wouldn’t be able to dismiss it so quickly. I am pretty certain that this is because Alfresco has built a business model more aligned with commercial software than open source, and they haven’t spent the time necessary to build that community, or perhaps they don’t have the skills or the temperament. Commercial software licensing and business goals are at odds with open source software and associated business models, and that will be hard if not impossible to change.

Just because you’re doing something wrong doesn’t mean it doesn’t work. When communities do work, it is mighty sweet.

I live in Chatham County, North Carolina, USA. This is surprising to me, since I grew up less than an hour away in a town called Asheboro, and when I turned 18 I wanted to be as far away as I could. I moved to Los Angeles. I didn’t expect to end up this close to where I grew up.

Chatham is an interesting place to live, and I often describe it as one-third redneck, one-third hippie, and one-third Latino. I can find a lot to love in all three aspects of the culture.

Working on open source software in Chatham appeals to the hippie aspect of the culture, but I really don’t view myself as a hippie. However, I do embrace such hippie ideals as personal freedom, concern for the environment, community and cooperation.

These ideas are not incompatible with capitalism, although many think they are, especially the environmental aspect. The problem is that often there is no direct way to evaluate the costs or value of things like “clean air” and “community” when trying to determine the best way to maximize profit, so these things can be exploited.

I’m trying to come up with a term to describe people who are attracted to hippie ideals but can combine them with the capitalist ideal of maximizing return on investment. It’s sort of like that scene in A Beautiful Mind where John Nash demonstrates that if he and his friends cooperate the overall benefit to the group is greater than if they act alone.

What should we call ourselves? Neo-Hippies? Pragmatic Idealists? The practitioners of conservatism popularized by the American President Reagan and Presidents Bush are called Neo-Cons – I’m looking for something like that.

What does this have to do with open source software? True open source software provides just such a cooperative benefit, since both the creators and the consumers of software have an ownership stake in the project.

While not always true of consumer software, enterprise software has tall barriers to entry and exit. If you have a large company running on Windows, it is not easy to switch to, say, OS X. Enterprise software also tends to be expensive. I once worked with a large bank, and the network manager spent nearly US$1 million on an application called Concord Network Health. While not a bad app, it was expensive, and when I was hired to install it I realized that the manager had made a bad choice. The information he was interested in was not possible to easily acquire with the software.

But there was no way they were going to scrap the project after spending so much money on it. In fact, they kept spending money on it in yearly maintenance costs in order not to “lose” their investment due to lack of upgrades and bug fixes. Even after the manager was fired a couple of years later, he still defends the decision.

In the meantime, Concord made gobs of money and made their investors happy. While not strictly a zero-sum game, in this case (and in many, many others I can name) the software vendor profited much more than the end user.

While it is rare for a vendor to seek to actively screw their customers, it is the profit aspect of proprietary software that really appeals to the open core folks. They want the benefits of open source and community, but they also want the advantages of vendor lock-in and software license revenue. My claim is that having that business model within the framework of maximizing profits means that at some point the community will suffer, and we’re back to the zero-sum game.

True open source software gets rid of this dichotomy. By lowering the barriers to entry and exit, it changes the dynamics of the vendor/customer relationship. The benefits to the vendor increase proportionally to the benefits to the community (and thus the customers), and not tangentially.

Sure, open source is not without cost, but without huge up-front license fees it is much easier to choose a different solution. Without required maintenance fees it costs a lot less to own. And being open source, it is often easier and less expensive to add the functionality you need than to seek out a different solution.

But many people seem to think that adopting a pure open source business strategy goes against capitalism. Sure, I’ll grant that it is a lot harder to make money fast, but in the long run I believe the payoff will be greater and more sustainable.

I didn’t start this post with the idea of ending up rehashing my open source v. open core beliefs (I plan to prove the validity of the pure open source business model by making OpenNMS incredibly successful, not by writing blog posts) but instead to focus on a businessman with a social agenda vs. a pure profit one.

Specifically, Lyle Estill.

Lyle is a local legend. At times he is pure hippie. Catch him on a work day and you’ll find him in dirty overalls. At other times he is pure capitalist. Catch him at a business meeting and he’s dressed in “dry clean only” finery rivaling my own collection of Armani.

He’s a salesman, a metal sculptor, a chess player, a writer and founding member of the grassroots biodiesel movement. I have rarely met a tougher negotiator or a person more focused on the bottom line, yet in almost everything he does there is a social angle to it.

He was recently quoted in USA Today (an OpenNMS client, I might add) on the resurgence of a local currency we have called The Plenty. Unfortuntely, the quote was wrong. He said we are a “whacked-out little town,” meaning a little odd but in a good way, which got translated as “wiped-out little town,” which doesn’t sound good at all. Now, when the Telegraph in the UK runs the article, the headline is “Struggling US towns print their own currency“.

(sigh)

We’re not struggling. In fact in the face of this recession I’d say we’re doing pretty well. Part of that is due to our emphasis on community.

Communities in general are becoming more prevalent. With the widespread availability of broadband internet the geographical barriers are gone and sites likes Facebook are seeing record traffic. In software especially, the role of the user community is getting a lot of attention. I don’t think that anyone will disagree that at least for enterprise software, in the near future there will be some component that is open source in order to foster just such a community.

But a traditional capitalist might see community as something to be manipulated, if not exploited, much like clean water or air. That could result in some short term gains but they will be at the expense of long term gains as the community learns that they are being manipulated.

With the rising importance of communities, there will be those of us that see that vibrant, independent and empowered communities go hand in hand with maximizing profit in the long term. That money and ideals don’t have to be mutually exclusive. But what should we call ourselves? Neo-hippies doesn’t seem quite right.

Oh, and in case anyone is counting, Lyle is rather financially well off. He demonstrates that wealth and community is not an either/or situation. I’m just trying to follow in his footsteps.

I was talking to a potential client the other day and the question of “buy vs. build” came up.

I have been saying for several years now that software (all software) will eventually become either open source or a commodity product. The days of expensive “enterprise” software will be over, perhaps not tomorrow, but within the next ten years.

But the “buy vs. build” decision won’t go away. Organizations will still have to decide if they want to try and purchase the software to solve a particular problem (the commodity side) or do they want to build their own solution (using open source).

In the past, “build” meant to build the system from scratch and “buy” included taking off-the-shelf software and configuring it to work in the environment. With the increased popularity and power of open source software, it has become a whole lot easier to build a solution in house (since one doesn’t have to reinvent the wheel), and with the availability of broadband networks, the buy solution now includes outsourcing the whole thing to another vendor.

So I’m talking with this client and it was really hard to determine if OpenNMS would be a good fit. Since we are a services company, going through our sales process is a bit different than with buying software. If you buy a piece of software and it doesn’t meet your needs, the vendor still profits, as does the salesperson, so they have the incentive to sell as many licenses as they can to anyone they can.

With our business model, if we try to put OpenNMS into a place where it doesn’t belong, we just end up doing tons of support. Compared to a situation where OpenNMS is a good fit, these clients would end up costing us money. While we like money and money is good, it is not worth forcing OpenNMS to fit where it doesn’t.

There are several factors that go in to the buy vs. build decision for a management solution, and often it is not possible to determine them on a phone call. Size plays a big role, as a small organization, especially one without a technical focus, is much better off either outsourcing the whole thing or buying a basic solution like WhatsUp Gold. Larger institutions should opt for something like Solarwind’s Orion or if they are heavily Windows focused, Nimsoft’s Nimbus.

But for many larger organizations and especially those at the carrier level, the business network is so unique that no off-the-shelf product can be made to scale or to fit their business processes. For them there really isn’t a “buy” solution, although in the past the enterprise software vendors have tried to sell one.

But size isn’t the only factor, nor is it even the main one. The true measure of a buy vs. build decision comes down to your people.

I’m not sure when “people” became a bad word, but as far back as I can remember companies have been trying to reduce the number of people in their IT departments. Perhaps it was because they had a roomful of “screen monkeys“, or perhaps it was because, especially during the bubble, anyone in the industry was very expensive. But in my experience having a few good IT folks coupled with the right tools is the best way to manage your information infrastructure.

But how to do you ask that on a conference call? How do you ask “Hey, do you have anyone on your staff who really enjoys solving problems with technology and they have the skills to take something like OpenNMS and run with it?”

If you read our Order of the Blue Polo testimonials (keep ’em coming) you’ll see some that praise the “ease of use” of OpenNMS. While I find OpenNMS extremely easy to use, our biggest criticism is the learning curve. Yet there are people talking about how easy it was to get running. The only conclusion I can come to is that OpenNMS users are just smarter, more hard working, witty, and physically attractive than your average IT person (grin).

Those organizations that choose “build” and have the staff to pull it off will be the big winners. I saw a great post yesterday on The True Cost of Migrating to Open Source. Mark Taylor presents a solid argument that the cost to migrate to a free and open solution (as opposed to a shareware, open core, neo-proprietary, or “commercial” open source solution) is the same as migrating to another proprietary product, yet the long term cost savings are great. While I’m sure this will get him labeled as some hippy purist, it is hard to argue with his conclusions.

I just wish the buy vs. build conclusion was as easy to reach.