True Nature of Open Source Debate: Open Source is not a business model, it is a platform

Dan Farber started the debate by saying

Economics don’t favor pure open source. The future is hybrids–cars, software, people, pets. It’s better for the planet…

Then J.P. Rangaswami countered Dan’s argument by claiming that open source is a viable option under gift economics than scarcity based economics

So for me there is a golden thread that links opensource with abundance with delayed gratification with collaboration and teamwork all the way to co-creation of value with the customer. All economically sound, just not scarcity-economy sound.

James McGovern jumped into the argument saying

Too much of the discussion around open source has been centered around software vendors and paid support models. The assumption is that enterprises won’t go it alone in terms of using software without someone providing a holding hand. The funny thing is that many enterprises are doing just that. Ask yourself how many enterprises use Eclipse? Then ask yourself how many enterprises pay for support for Eclipse? Once an enterprise starts getting a taste of what it means to support themselves then the economic model changes significantly towards something more positive. The real question if folks can understand positive may not come from the perspective of a software vendor but it can benefit large enterprises in an economically sound way.

To which James Robertson countered saying

It’s easy to be happy with free software that is being continually improved; the harder question is what companies would do if IBM decided that Eclipse wasn’t worth whatever it is they spend on it. Right now, Eclipse is a loss leader for IBM’s paid software; as with any loss leader, if IBM decides that it’s not pulling people over to the paid side, the seeming altruism will come to an end.

I do not agree with James Robertson. First, enterprises will use a product like Eclipse irrespective of whether it is backed by IBM or not. Second, the worst case scenario, which he is highlighting in his post, could happen in proprietary software too. What is the factor, unique in the case of proprietary model, that could prevent any software from going out of marketplace? One bad move by the proprietary software company, or one smart move by their competitors, could send the software (and the company) out of the map in no time. At least, in the case of open source software like Eclipse, there is a chance that some group might take over the project and continue with the development. The proprietary software lacks such a backup.

Apart from this view of mine on this debate, I think all the bloggers in this debate seems to be missing a very important point. I have an entirely different perspective on the open source software. I don’t see it an an anti-proprietary model. Open source software is not a competitor to proprietary software. I have an altogether different philosophical viewpoint to it. I would like to see it in the way I see science than as an economic model. If we take a look at the science, Newton and Einstein didn’t worry about patenting their work and making money out of it. They developed their concepts out of curiosity to understand nature. Then came further developments in Physics, then Chemistry, then Biology and so on. These scientific works laid the foundation on which companies built products ranging from airplanes, drugs, rockets, etc. Some of the companies succeeded and many failed. Nobody said science is not a viable option. Science continues to grow irrespective of whether the companies, built on top of them, succeed or not. This continuous growth helped others companies step in and try their chance to succeed. Science is serving as a platform on which these business models play the game in the playground called “marketplace”. Science acts as a great leveler for these economic forces. Science ensures that no single person/company gets the monopoly over people’s life. Similar to science, open source was born out of curiosity of the human beings to understand the software. It developed into a huge movement to satisfy the inner urges of the “open source scientists”. Open source movement, like science, acts as a platform on which various business models play the game (including the Web 2.0 models). Some of the models will succeed and many will fail. But open source will continue to thrive in the future and help other players to play the game on another day. Like science, open source acts as a great leveler for these economic forces and ensures that no single person/company holds monopoly over the people’s lives. Open Source will thrive as a platform even if some of the business models on it fails.

My problem with Dan Farber and others is that they try to view open source as a business model. I strongly disagree with this viewpoint. I see open source as a platform on which various business models can dance around.