Open Core vs Open Source
I didn’t attend the Open Core conference, and aside from the tweet storm about it, I have no knowledge of what went on. I don’t intend to weigh into the debate about the opinions expressed there. For those who didn’t follow it, there was a lot of disagreement about the use of Open Source software in for profit enterprises, particularly the hyperscalers (Amazon, Google et al).
However, what the controversy seems to have raised is some basic misunderstandings about how stuff works.
All technology is hip and cool until it becomes commoditised.
It is not realistic for a successful Open Source project to avoid being integrated into "for profit" products and/or services, unless the project is so specialised that it cannot be used for profitable purposes.
If an Open Source project is widely applicable and good, and it's licence permits reuse, then it will be reused. This is unambiguously a good thing. Solving a problem in a reliable method and having that method be used across society is how we avoid having to reinvent the wheel. Yes, the direct financial rewards don't flow back to the author, but that is an easy problem to solve.
There is no openness is software only being useable for non-profit purpose. If you want to do that, you're effectively a proprietary product. Own it.
This does mean, however, that the limelight associated with having a hip and cool project will move on. But this is inevitable. The inventor of the flushing toilet is not a household name, but that doesn't make their contribution any less important.
I've been personally involved in the OpenStack project, and I think it has largely succeeded. It's succeeded to the extent it's pretty boring now. The big conferences for OpenStack have had to broaden their focus for this reason: OpenStack itself is not going to pull a crowd. Chuck a bunch of stuff on top of it and around it, and it will.
This doesn't minimise the value of OpenStack. Perhaps one day it will be the flushing toilet of IT infrastructure. If it is, I will be proud to have sat on its Board.
Damn straight. OpenStack, e.g., is like the worm-drive of IT... still (somewhat) sexy when used in an adjustable spanner or a grain feeder, but not so obviously revolutionary when you're seeing the products that resulted from and then overshadow it. WRT non-versus-for profit companies... I'm sorry, but software development is expensive. If someone with big pockets is going to throw money at something because they believe they can get an edge, and the 'community' benefits, then I'm all for it. If it also means the big spenders might be able to commoditise said tech and reduce the barriers to entry for people who can't (or shouldn't) be reinventing the wheel (or the worm-drive), so much the better. The cynic in me sees the bleating about open *anything* being used commercially as little more than folks pining for the fjords, and failing to grasp that 'community' goes way past *just* developers.