One of the big myths about open source software is that being free is its
chief value. The myth, of course, is in the meaning people ascribe to "free."
A question often crops up from business folk; 'Sun is giving so much source-code
to open source, how will it ever monetise these donations -
how can you make money if you keep giving stuff away?' It's a good question.
At its heart lies a misunderstanding about the nature of open source software,
and once that's cleared up everything falls into place much more easily. The
paradox - profiting from what is given away - is actually one many of us participate
in every day in another area of our lives.
What can we do about neutering the chilling effects of software patents on
software development? This essay looks at the question of how the Common Development
and Distribution License attempts to achieve that.
Responding to criticism of the CDDL and of MPL licenses in general, this essay proposes a model for open source that concentrates on the software commons and goes on to understand licenses, rather than the usual license-first approach.
Patents were based on a social contract when they were invented during the industrial revolution, but they are increasingly becoming a barrier to innovation. This article examines what open source developers can and should do about them.
Some people think that open source means using other people's work for
free. That'a a sterile tactic and the truth is more that open source allows
a new economic dynamic to come into force.
As companies play a greater and greater role in various open source communities,
we can perhaps gain insight into the dynamics by considering two ideas -
the Japanese concept of keiretsu and the Web 2.0 idea of the long
tail.
There are many open source business models, but they seem to have in common
a shift to associating payment with the value derived from software rather
than the acquisition of 'bits'.