Open-Source Politics

Gluecode was formed by a group of people who were fundamentally unhappy with the way JBoss, creator of the best-known application server on the open-source market, was being run. That's because JBoss is seen by some as an attempt to create a commercial product designed to benefit a few rather than the larger open-source community.

With this in mind, Gluecode was committed to gathering all the open-source contributions being provided by the open-source community and creating a low-cost application server based on technologies approved by the Apache Group.

Given that goal and IBM's previous commitments to open source, it would seem odd IBM felt the need to buy Gluecode unless it felt threatened. After all, a low-cost, robust open-source application server could become popular at the expense of IBM's WebSphere platform. So this move could be construed as a blatant attempt to control and even slow the pace of technology migration from proprietary platforms such as WebSphere to open-source projects such as Gluecode. In some quarters, this acquisition is seen as nothing short of hypocritical because while IBM loves Linux as a counter to Windows, the company has been slow to embrace open-source initiatives at any layer where it sells high-margin software that sits above the operating system.

Alas, just as IBM was moving to solidify its influence over the open-source movement, along comes Michael Dell, who decides to pour millions of dollars into IBM's primary Linux partner. Obviously, Dell now will exercise more influence over Red Hat's agenda, which may push IBM toward other Linux distributors such as Novell or Net Integration Technologies.

Whatever happens, it's clear that money and politics are at work in the open-source community, leaving everyone to wonder how much of the future agenda will be pushed by noble-minded developers vs. big-time strategists working behind the scenes.

What are your open-source politics? I can be reached at (516) 562-7477 or via e-mail at [email protected].