IMO

It's expected that pretty soon we all will hear about the next big "tech" IPO, which will create a mass of instant millionaires and billionaires. And these newly rich will have made their fortunes, at least partly, by leveraging Open Source and the efforts of unpaid volunteers.

I'm often asked, "Doesn't that bother you?" Ignoring the implication that somehow I "deserve" something due to my involvement when there are, of course, multitudes of people more deserving than I, I can honest answer, "No, not really." 

Continue reading "Why Open Source Needs Non Profits"

Yesterday I learned that, along with Karl Fogel and Mike Godwin, I was elected to serve on the Board of Directors (BoD) of the Open Source Initiative (OSI). I consider this a great honor, joining the ranks of the great FOSS luminaries of this esteemed organization. I am also very excited by the changes and the challenges that the coming year holds for OSI, as they... we move to a member, representational model. This is, of course, the logical outcome from OSI moving from being the stewards of the Open Source Definition, to being, for lack of a better term, stewards of Open Source itself. There are, after all, quite a number of open source foundations out there, including the ASF (which I'm also on the BoD of, as well as President), the FSF and Outercurve (which I am on the BoD as well). But just as all these FOSS entities share a common license type, there are also other shared concepts which are core and central to the whole milieu of Open Source, a sort of common ground. And OSI is ideally suited to serve as the focal point for that common ground, a "United Nations" kind of entity. As successful as Open Source has been, it is clear that there is still much to be done... much FUD to be cleared away, much more "evangelism" to be done, and fostering the continued use of FOSS methodologies outside of the traditional "software development" space. And I'm proud to be part of an organization which is wholeheartedly behind all those efforts, and more. Exciting times ahead indeed.

Geir posts this interesting blog entry. If Sun and others are really interested in figuring out how to improve the situation within the JCP, especially in *really* encouraging community involvement and interaction, I wonder who-oh-who could they possibly ask?

I've been asked to speak at the CDC next Monday regarding Open Source. It will be 2 sessions, with a "lunch and learn" break in between. I haven't been to Atlanta since ApacheCon US 2007, so it will be a nice opportunity to get back down there, even if only for a day.

Over the last several weeks, M&As have been the main news of choice. IMO, the Oracle/BEA, Sun/MySQL and even SpringSource/Covalent aren't the most "interesting" ones regarding what-it-all-means-for-open-source. The reason is simple: for the most part, the mindsets of the companies are very, very similar. Look at Oracle/BEA. Here you have a large proprietary company buying a smaller proprietary one. I mean come on, how much more boring can you get? What about Sun/MySQL? Well, here you have a company (Sun) who is really trying hard to "be" the open source company, buying a company that is an open source company. Again, as far as alignment of philosophies behind open source and how it relates to your business, the two mesh relatively well. Same with SpringSource and Covalent, except the alignment is very, very meshed at the get-go. So when proprietary buys proprietary, or open source buys open source, it's really a big yawn-fest. The believers keep on believing, and the non-believers keep on being skeptical. That's why the Nokia/Trolltech and, even more importantly, the Microsoft/Yahoo scenarios are, at least for me, the ones worth their weight in popcorn. When a company perceived as "closed source" or "proprietary" takes a huge interest in open-source based (or "open source friendly") companies, then it makes me sit up and take notice. Of course, those whose existences thrive on FUD look at all this as an attempt to destroy open source by these companies; that a commercial proprietary company's only reason for obtaining an open source company is to divide and conquer. But maybe, just maybe, these companies are finally figuring out which way the wind is blowing, and want to re-align themselves, to see open source not as competition, per se, but as complimentary. At least, that's the optimist in me talking... PS: Of course, ALL of the mergers/acquisitions are interesting in other ways as well... but I'm just looking at them from an open source PoV.