Here, differences between open source and free software are argued again. We come back to this question: is open source “free beer” or “free speech”?
On early stage, free-software advocates were aiming to fight against those proprietary software capitalists. However, this “free” idea didn’t fit the current situation because free software companies were difficult to defeat those “capitalists” due to a lack of commercial ascendancy. So it changed. Some believe open source has lost its soul which is against the “copyright-toting software capitalists”.
In the article “Is open source losing its soul?” the author, Asay, suggests that, in current situation, it is better for open source to keep “some bits proprietary” than “hold to a purist software development philosophy”. He is right. As I wrote on a previous blog, an open source company sometimes needs an adoption to fit new environment in order to grow stronger, including changing strategies. If open source companies follow a "proprietary" way, even it seems being radically changed from the initial approach, to become more competitive against those “proprietary” companies, it can enhance the their own competitive power. This is a necessity in the expansion of open source. As Asay points out, “companies should be putting profitability first. It's the necessity that makes every other necessity possible”. Therefore, most open source companies are now holding a different ideology from free software purists. It means “free speech” but not “free beer” at all.
Moreover, after a successful beginning, open source companies can drive those “proprietary” companies, like Oracle and IBM, contributing codes to open source. If possible, open source can finally win this battle against copyright-toting capitalism. So it is much more convinced that the current form of open source is apart from its initial model, especially not in a charge-free way.
Sources: Is open source losing its soul?
Retrieved from: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10253671-16.html
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
Open source: “pay or contribute” model
This article mainly talks about the support of outside development contributions in open source softwares. The case mentioned in this article is the encouragement of these outside development contributions in Jahia, a kind of open-sourced Web Content Integration software. It is called “pay or contribute”.
I agree, as the author Asay says, the most important and difficult part for open source softwares is how to find contributors to provide applications. Because open source softwares, comparing with softwares that has own developers, is hard to survive without anyone using its code and developing applications for it. This problem also can be seen as a weak point for open source-based websites competing with websites who have own producers. Therefore, Jahia provides lots of discount on commercial subscription to stimulate application developers using its platform, producing apps and providing apps.
In China, there is a social networking website, called Xiaonei, which is similar to Facebook performing well. It focused on its users, most are students, and provides a lot of interesting applications to attract these users. At the beginning, it succeeded by using free charging policy for those app providers, regardless of the app’s quality. Then, it built a good reputation in students and increased user groups so that more application providers willing to provide products for it. And now, it costs money. This, in my opinion, is a good strategy for a open source-based softwares or websites.
Like this article mentioned about Jahia, using different marketing strategy and changing traditional operating method may be the solution when open source is growing but facing many troubles.
Article: A look inside Jahia's 'pay or contribute' open-source model.
from: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10251115-16.html
I agree, as the author Asay says, the most important and difficult part for open source softwares is how to find contributors to provide applications. Because open source softwares, comparing with softwares that has own developers, is hard to survive without anyone using its code and developing applications for it. This problem also can be seen as a weak point for open source-based websites competing with websites who have own producers. Therefore, Jahia provides lots of discount on commercial subscription to stimulate application developers using its platform, producing apps and providing apps.
In China, there is a social networking website, called Xiaonei, which is similar to Facebook performing well. It focused on its users, most are students, and provides a lot of interesting applications to attract these users. At the beginning, it succeeded by using free charging policy for those app providers, regardless of the app’s quality. Then, it built a good reputation in students and increased user groups so that more application providers willing to provide products for it. And now, it costs money. This, in my opinion, is a good strategy for a open source-based softwares or websites.
Like this article mentioned about Jahia, using different marketing strategy and changing traditional operating method may be the solution when open source is growing but facing many troubles.
Article: A look inside Jahia's 'pay or contribute' open-source model.
from: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10251115-16.html
Saturday, 23 May 2009
Red Flag Linux, a counterattack against MS Window?
This article reveals that Chinese government forces its Internet cafés to use Red Flag Linux system.
I checked the government document about the policy of internet café. There is only one province out of 32, which has a document mentioned Linux system. And it says that “…we recommend Red Flag Linux and Microsoft Server…” Moreover, Red Flag Linux can be downloaded from official site freely. So I don’t think the government “is forcing its internet cafés”.
However, I agree that there is no guarantee of freedom by using licensed open source. Open source-based software is not free beer but more likely to be free speech. Like free softwares, they are not free of charge but free of use. As I know, most internet cafés in china are using MS Windows system. Under such circumstances, Red Flag Linux as an open source-based system is now cooperating with a provincial government to some extent. I suppose the aim is trying to break the monopoly of MS Windows in China, more or less. Regardless of the effect, this can be seen as a counterattack from the open source community to Microsoft.
The author in this article points out several factors to make the software “truly free” such as “Free markets, open standards, and open data”. Nevertheless, I believe the real obstacle for the development of open source-based system is not the marketing, licensing or standardizing, but the development of application softwares. MS Windows is now having many software companies to develop softwares, but operating systems like Linux lack this competitive ability. Therefore, although Red Flag Linux is taking its action, there, unfortunately, can’t be any threat to MS Windows.
Sources:
Article, Open-source freedom lost on Chinese government, retrieved from http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10113243-16.html
Red Flag Linux official site: http://www.redflag-linux.com/d/iso/
I checked the government document about the policy of internet café. There is only one province out of 32, which has a document mentioned Linux system. And it says that “…we recommend Red Flag Linux and Microsoft Server…” Moreover, Red Flag Linux can be downloaded from official site freely. So I don’t think the government “is forcing its internet cafés”.
However, I agree that there is no guarantee of freedom by using licensed open source. Open source-based software is not free beer but more likely to be free speech. Like free softwares, they are not free of charge but free of use. As I know, most internet cafés in china are using MS Windows system. Under such circumstances, Red Flag Linux as an open source-based system is now cooperating with a provincial government to some extent. I suppose the aim is trying to break the monopoly of MS Windows in China, more or less. Regardless of the effect, this can be seen as a counterattack from the open source community to Microsoft.
The author in this article points out several factors to make the software “truly free” such as “Free markets, open standards, and open data”. Nevertheless, I believe the real obstacle for the development of open source-based system is not the marketing, licensing or standardizing, but the development of application softwares. MS Windows is now having many software companies to develop softwares, but operating systems like Linux lack this competitive ability. Therefore, although Red Flag Linux is taking its action, there, unfortunately, can’t be any threat to MS Windows.
Sources:
Article, Open-source freedom lost on Chinese government, retrieved from http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10113243-16.html
Red Flag Linux official site: http://www.redflag-linux.com/d/iso/
Wednesday, 20 May 2009
Open source, a necessity for Microsoft?
Few days ago, I read an article on Yu Cheng’s blog titled Microsoft vs Linux? It says Microsoft “starts a fight with open source community” and is against TomTom.
Now, in the article, Microsoft returned to open source starting to take on Google, but using different strategy which support open source. Last year, it bought Powerset for the natural language search technology and kept it open source-based in order to compete with Google.
In my opinion, this is not only aiming to Google but also to its competitors, especially Linux. Although Microsoft claimed it would make the source code of its systems public, Windows is still not an open source-based operating system due to its restriction on source code which is “you can see but not edit”. Users are still hard to access the core of the system. But open source is the competitive advantage for Linux. Thus, after few years, Linux can be the most dangerous rival for Microsoft so that Microsoft needs to search for a way to prevent this.
Furthermore, because Windows is not open source-based, governments, for example, Chinese government, are concerning about its security. That will directly affect Microsoft’s market in government system. So a necessity of open source strategy is required. We can assume from these cases, open source may become a mainstream in software industry in the future, who knows?
Article from http://www.bangkokpost.com/tech/techscoop/17019/microsoft-returns-to-open-source-to-take-on-google
Mentioned Yu Cheng’s blog: Microsoft vs Linux, see http://yuchengbob.multiply.com/journal/item/1
Now, in the article, Microsoft returned to open source starting to take on Google, but using different strategy which support open source. Last year, it bought Powerset for the natural language search technology and kept it open source-based in order to compete with Google.
In my opinion, this is not only aiming to Google but also to its competitors, especially Linux. Although Microsoft claimed it would make the source code of its systems public, Windows is still not an open source-based operating system due to its restriction on source code which is “you can see but not edit”. Users are still hard to access the core of the system. But open source is the competitive advantage for Linux. Thus, after few years, Linux can be the most dangerous rival for Microsoft so that Microsoft needs to search for a way to prevent this.
Furthermore, because Windows is not open source-based, governments, for example, Chinese government, are concerning about its security. That will directly affect Microsoft’s market in government system. So a necessity of open source strategy is required. We can assume from these cases, open source may become a mainstream in software industry in the future, who knows?
Article from http://www.bangkokpost.com/tech/techscoop/17019/microsoft-returns-to-open-source-to-take-on-google
Mentioned Yu Cheng’s blog: Microsoft vs Linux, see http://yuchengbob.multiply.com/journal/item/1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)