Home Page
04.23.2008 (previous | next)
Linux Goes Corporate

Nick Carr comments on a Linux Foundation report that over 70% of Linux kernel development is done by paid workers at commercial firms. Apparently, Linux has become a corporate initiative. Carr writes:

There's nothing particularly surprising in the shift from the volunteer to the corporate model - it tends to be what happens when lots of money enters the picture - but it does reveal that while Net-based "social production" efforts may be unprecedented in their scale and unusual in their technology-mediated structure, they are no more immune, or even resistant, to being incorporated into established market systems than any other type of labor that produces commercially valuable goods.
...
The shift in Linux kernel development from unpaid to paid labor, from volunteers to employees, suggests that the Net doesn't necessarily weaken the hand of central management or repeal old truths about business organization.
Right. I would add that the increasing corporate aspects of Linux, formal capital-organizational structure, is good for its sustainability and viability in the market. Free software advocates may disagree with this point, yet they turn a blind eye and undoubtedly rejoice in the gains of Linux from its increasing corporate nature.

Carr notes that writer Tom Slee provides additional insights:

Open source started off as a small-scale set of projects done mainly by volunteers. As the scale and scope of open source projects an increasing number have provided their contributors with some money (augmented perhaps by a waitressing job). Now a few of the most successful have hit the big time and become full-scale economically important commercial enterprises.

Things change. As open source software has matured and expanded it has become both more unlike the rest of the world and more like it. It will be fascinating to see what comes next, but the Linux Foundation report has made clear that open source has crossed its commercial Rubicon, and there is probably no going back.

If the FOSS Movement embraces the benefits of the corporate model, its growth and impact on the technology sector will benefit. But if it continues to repudiate all aspects of corporate commercialization, it should look towards itself rather than blame established firms and intellectual property rights for stifling FOSS innovation. The FOSS Movement's game of antagonism towards the corporate world while reaping positive rewards from it has held it back- perhaps as much as FOSS ideology.

posted by Noel Le @ 11:03 AM | Free Culture Movement

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(2)


Comments

"if it continues to repudiate all aspects of corporate commercialization"

It never did. You probably would like to paint patent and/or copyright monopolies as somehow essential core aspects of commercialization (whether by corporations or individuals)- but they certainly aren't - the vast bulk of commercialized goods and services are neither patented nor copyrighted-with-intent (berne convention means a lot of stuff is technically copyrighted that shouldn't be) at any stage in their lifecycle.

"The FOSS Movement's game of antagonism towards the corporate world"

This is nonsense - neither the Free software nor Open Source movements (they're different movements, you've been corrected on this point before...) are antagonistic towards the "corporate world" as a whole. They may be "antagonistic" towards monopolisation of the redistribution, modification and application of information.

SOME free software supporters may well be generally anti-corporate (I disagree with limitation of liability and "corporate
personhood" for example, but my view is certainly
a minority one at the moment - for which your paymasters can be thankful I guess).

SOME people in or supporting the existence of corporations may well be generally opposed to the freedoms free software ensures.

But you're trying to paint FOSS as anticommercial and anticorporate when it isn't - in fact, licenses can't even qualify as officially Open Source unless they ALLOW commercial use! Precisely why several of the "Creative Commons" movement's licenses ("noncommercial") are not considered open source!

So, as usual, you're just wrong.

Posted by: Larbo at April 27, 2008 1:37 AM

FOSS has never been anti-commercial or anti-corporate, even if some proponents might be. Similarly, not all proprietary software developers are anti-FOSS, even if some proponents might be.

In fact, Open Source has opened up the market to vastly more competition and commercial opportunity. Where would Google be without Open Source? Without world-beating scale, stuck in a garage. :-)

Posted by: Jeff Waugh at May 2, 2008 2:12 PM








 
IPcentral WebLog

Blog Main

IPcentral Blogosphere Archives

Search the Blog

Recent Posts
  - The "Loud Minority" in the FOSS Movement
- "Free" Culture: It's Not What "We in the West" Might Imagine
- Linux Goes Corporate
- Bruce Everiss on video game piracy
- Reality Settles in on FOSS
- Red Hat Gets Realistic
- FOSS Adoption and Consumer Welfare
- Isn’t It Ironic: TechCrunch Blames the Music Industry for the Dangerous Ideas of Lessig and the Free Culture Movement
- Commercial Open Source Firms Get VC Money
- Differing Estimates of Patent Litigation Costs
Archives by Month
  - April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
  - (see all)
Archives by Subject
  - Academia
- Access: Commons, Fair Use, Orphan Works, Public Domain
- Accounting
- Analog Holes
- Antitrust
- Art
- Aspen
- Big Tent
- Biotech
- Books
- Comments from Readers
- Counterfeit
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- DMCA
- DRM & Watermarks, etc.
- Economics, Game Theory & Public Choice
- Enforcement & Remedies
- Free Culture Movement
- Games
- General
- Infrastructure
- International
- Internet: P2P, Search Engines...
- Legislation and Legislators
- Liberty and IP
- Markets: Business, Investment & Innovation
- Media: Video, Music...
- Patents
- Pharma
- Physical Property
- Prices, Terms, and Licensing
- Privacy and Security
- Radio
- Software
- Spectrum & Wireless
- Standards
- Supreme Court
- Tax-Funded IP
- Telecom
- Theft of Service
- Universities
Links
 

Site Feed

  - Atom
- RSS 1.0
- RSS 2.0
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.


 
Home Page