|
An interesting rant over at InfoWorld on reasons why FOSS firms should not compete with each other, but against proprietary firms. I just can't see a point in competing against other OSS companies- products when none of them have cracked a major revenue barrier. Everyone should be targeting the incumbent proprietary vendors who have all the money. The writer, Dave Rosenberg, sees FOSS v FOSS competition as a kind of cannibalization. There is some insight there, but also a big assumption that any appreciable number of FOSS firms could compete directly with proprietary players.If you work for an open source company and your team is focused on trying to beat other open source products you are doomed to economic failure. That kind of focus means you can't see the big picture and you should just return the money to your investors so they can invest it in companies that have bigger goals. It also probably means that your company is fueled by ego and your investors should probably take the money away from you before you start building Lenin-esque monuments to your engineers for refactoring a project ten times. On the one hand, Rosenberg is right that commercial success should be a standard with which to gauge FOSS firms, on the other hand, he does not consider how open/free licenses may hurt the competitiveness of FOSS firms when going up against proprietary organizations, and that the FOSS market is quite a small one.
Business/licensing models hold FOSS firms back and cause them to compete against one another as each tries to win a larger share of the FOSS market. Only the most successful FOSS firms will get to play in the big leagues against proprietary firms, while the majority of FOSS entities must enjoy being big fish in small ponds.
posted by Noel Le @ 7:15 AM | Free Culture Movement
Link to this Entry |
Printer-Friendly |
Email a Comment | Post a Comment(0)
|
