Beware Vendors Playing Open Source Games

Some things are all or nothing propositions. We think Open Source licenses are like that. Something can be open source, sold under a standard open source license, preferably the GPL, available for free download, and transformed at the current user's will (and skills). Or it can be something else and that something else is not Open Source.

The problem, and you'll be surprised, I'm sure, is that some vendors like to have it both ways. The want credit for being good guys and hewing to the pure brotherhood of Open Source, but they also want the protection or the potential revenue or something--we're not sure what it is ourselves--of closed, proprietary code. They don't get it. You can't be both at the same time.

Last week, Caldera bought most of SCO--the Unix and Professional Services part, leaving the Tarantella part behind--and immediately started dancing the sorta, kinda, purer-than-Microsoft-but-dirtier-than-Linux-should-be Open Dance. It's not hard to recognize.

Rules for Fake Open Source and How to Recognize It
1. Vendor makes up a new name for his "open source" license and you realize that the license provisions are somehow different than the open source rules you've learned and love.
2. When asked why he chose not to use a standard Open Source license like GPL, vendor has too many answers, all conflicting.
3. Vendor's real reason for using a faux Open Source license is always self-serving. Hiding behind his responsibility to others--"we don't own all the source code"--or to users--"open source code isn't as well maintained"--the vendor's real concern is almost always about controlling and/or protecting his intellectual property and getting paid for it.

I should make it perfectly clear that making money is no crime in my book and that I have no trouble with an Open Source model that says "I Open Source this" and "I license this application for a fee." Companies who make no money aren't in business for long.

But I have lots of trouble with vendors who want to wrap themselves in the pure white robes of the Open Source movement without either understanding what that means or meaning to comply with its rules.

To many of us, the strongest and most interesting part of the Open Source movement is how compellingly it moves highly skilled systems professionals, capable of commanding high salaries or fees in the marketplace, to share their expertise for the pure joy of sharing knowledge, solving problems--and receiving peer recognition. We recognize that we must preserve this desire for intellectual challenge and excellence, while putting in place appropriate infrastructures to let more companies build code and many more companies use it. It will be very tricky.

VARs will play an important role as service providers, familiar with customers and vertical market sectors, will be able to add their skills to the mix, implementing Open Source solutions and, if they choose, adding to the Open Source code set or building for-fee applications.

The key, I believe, is to do this with complete openness and honesty, matching our business candor to the breezy openness that has brought the Open Source movement so far.

Amy D. Wohl has been writing about the computer industry for more than 20 years. She is the editor of Amy D. Wohl's Opinions, a monthly newsletter.