No such open source movement

Anyway, today an article entitled The Open Source Monopoly caught my eye. You can read the whole article by Lajos Moczar here. If you want the summarized version, just read Niel Ellis’ comment comparing open source and organic foods. I think he’s right on.

I don’t habor a lot of love for JBoss. I used to. I advocated it here and there back during JBoss 2.x but I didn’t like the developer community. Add that to the fact that I’m already an ASF committer and it’s easy to understand why I’m excited for Geronimo.

But despite that bias, I don’t agree with Lajos’ arguments. They seem alarmist and tend to miss the point. I’ve never liked the idea of an “open source movement” simply because there never was one. Similarly, Lajos’ Volunteer and Commercial Models just don’t exist as cleanly as he suggests. Plenty of “volunteers” within the ASF, FSF, and FreeBSD communities are compensated for their work. The ASF actually encourages commerical use of its software.

Lajos writes:

As a long-time user of open source software, this Commercial Model is what concerns me the most. I don’t deny anyone the right to make money - we all need it. But what I detest, however, is anyone who embraces a movement for marketing or strategic purposes and then ends up doing the same things as the supposed enemies of the movement. This is why I have a problem with JBoss and other such companies. What I’m talking about, in the end, are monopolies.

First off, monopolies aren’t always as bad and evil as everyone wants to think they are, but that’s for a different blog article.

Open source is (simply and completely) a licensing mechanism that can be used for good or awesome by anyone for any reason. When developers complain about forks or commercialization within the open source movement they tend to forget that there is no single open source movement. No one is behind the wheel. There is only a mob of developers and companies taking advantage of sharing source code. Some do it for money, some for a hobby, some for world domination. The only constant is that all those who fly the banner of open source agree on nothing more than a licensing mechanism (and not even the same license).

I think Ted Leung is on to something when he describes open source as “commons-based peer production of software.” Matthew Langhamagrees. As Ted points out, “So, the next time you hear ‘open source development’, think ‘the most economically efficient method for matching resources to construct information products.’” Now that’s a movement I could get behind.