Free Is Not The Opposite Of Commercial

Free software is not the opposite of commercial software. It is not an attack on commercial software; it can be a way of getting work done that enables software companies to collaborate with community projects for the betterment of both. Users can benefit, because they have access to software that is the product of the efforts of vibrant, diverse communities, dedicated to creating great software, efficiently and cost-effectively.

For those who have followed these topics for some time, this is not new information, but I wanted to take the opportunity to clearly establish the CodePlex Foundation's perspective on these issues.

There are successful software companies whose businesses are based on free software.

The CodePlex Foundation’s Board of Directors and Board of Advisors prove the point. The individuals who are contributing their time and effort to our success have decades of industry experience leading companies that have successfully built revenue and profit solely from free software. Ximian, VA Linux, MySQL, SugarCRM, and DotNetNuke are examples of how to run profitable software companies, built on a free software license base. Ximian (Miguel de Icaza) and VA Linux (Larry Augustin, Mark Stone) were built on GPLv2-licensed software technologies; MySQL (Monty Widenius) is licensed under GPLv2, SugarCRM (Larry Augustin) is based on GPLv3, and DotNetNuke (Shaun Walker) is based on BSD.

Ximian provided Linux-based applications for email (Evolution), messaging (Gaim), and productivity (OpenOffice.org) which were packaged into the Ximian Desktop and were all free software.  The company was acquired in 2003 by Novell.

VA Linux, which began life as one of first commercial businesses focused on distributing and managing Linux-based IT systems, provided companies with an alternative to more expensive UNIX-based workstations; the company has since changed its business model to become a publisher and provider of software development support. Now known as SourceForge, the company operates SourceForge.net, Slashdot, IT Manager's Journal and Freshmeat as well as Ohloh.

MySQL used GPLv2 to establish one of the early dual licensing businesses, offering a free community version under GPLv2. For companies that wanted to embed the database into proprietary products, MySQL was offered under a royalty-based non-GPL license.

SugarCRM in 2007 was re-licensed under GPLv3. It had previously offered its software under a custom license.  Like MySQL, SugarCRM has a dual-license business model: the Sugar Community Edition is available as free software, and the company also sells annual subscriptions to SaaS versions of Sugar Professional and Sugar Enterprise. This model has built value for SugarCRM, its partners, and also for developers looking for a good CRM system.

Shaun Walker of Dot Net Nuke built a great content management system on a BSD license.  Contributors sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA) that enables the company to defend the project in the event of a legal dispute regarding intellectual property claims. 

There are also business models beyond software companies that can build profitable enterprises based on free software - including development services, hosting, and deployment services companies - which are beyond the scope of this discussion.

So from my perspective and that of the CodePlex Foundation, free software is not the opposite of commercial software.  The two terms are orthogonal and can either apply or not apply to any given piece of code. We also acknowledge the distinctions present in the community between “free software” and “open source software”.  We will tend to use the latter to describe the broad range of software projects that we want to support. We believe in making it easier to get things done, with the best tool for the job, with the best license for the tool; and we believe that by enabling more software companies to contribute to community projects, we can help advance the state of software.

Comments

[Chris Mister]

Hi Sam,

What's your take on this concept of users having control over their computing and not running a proprietary "black box"? Is that a goal you support? It isn't clear to me what the end goal of the Codeplex Foundation is. Stallman seems to be concerned that you want to distract developers into building applications that will keep the underlying system proprietary. Can I suggest that the Codeplex Foundation add to its mission, the creation of a fully free operatin system.

Thanks

Chris M

[William A. Rowe, Jr. (wrowe)]

Interesting observations. But one word you really need to mind is the word Free. As (primarily) an Apache License developer, I've dropped the words Free, and the letters F/L from OSS to describe most open source software.

Free has become a religious word. It doesn't describe operational costs of using or adopting open source. It doesn't describe the cost of the package downloaded at no charge, or obtained at cost from a trusted developer/company. This is true even of FSF source code.

If you claim Open Source, the code needs to meet the OSI's definition, and in large measure, both FLOSS and OSS communities can get behind an open flavor and distribution of specific code.

But by using the word Free, you are ascribing code to the FSF view of a political/religious agenda in which all software must be open source. You (deservedly) subject your code and agenda to the scrutiny such as Chris's observations above. I don't fault FLOSS advocates for their argument or worldview (except those playing GPL+propritary games in a futile attempt to curry favor of both audiences, and satisfying neither).

But whether the mission is to create distribute and promote OSS, or advance a FLOSS agenda, words matter. Your examples of DotNetNuke which is not FLOSS, or SugarCRM which is arguably not FLOSS until it adopts an AGPL license, both confuse the discussion.

You even highlight this discrepancy in the end of the article. So while the title of your post, as well as your embedded premises are all entirely correct, CodePlex foundation would be well served by avoiding any claim to being a FLOSS organization (but rather OSS). Unless CodePlex chooses to commit itself to a Free agenda, which then must be consistently applied across all of the projects within its dominion :)

[William A. Rowe, Jr. (wrowe)]

Just to clarify; none of the above suggests that CodePlex could not engage Free Software community projects. I only raised the question of whether CodePlex should put its hat into that ring as a supporter of Free Software.

As you say, these are not diametrically opposed.

[Sam Ramji]

@Chris M - I'm not aligned with the recommendations you're making. The Free Software Foundation has been established for many years and is committed to the goals that you laid out in your post.

The CodePlex Foundation's goal is to increase contribution from software companies to open source projects. Whether or not the particular open source project is "free" according to the FSF's 4 freedoms is orthogonal to that goal. What I laid out in this post is in support of exactly that - whether or not a given open source software project is "free as in freedom" has no bearing on whether or not it is or can be commercialized.

[Sam Ramji]

@wrowe - Agreed; the commitment of the CodePlex Foundation is to increase contribution to open source projects. We do not claim to be, and are not, a FLOSS organization. We are not opposed to FLOSS/FOSS software technologies or licenses, including the GPLv3. We are in favor of software companies contributing to open source community projects.

[Chris Mister]

Thanks for the responses Sam. I think I understand, but can you help me with a further clarification. Would you say that when we look back at the work of the Codeplex Foundation in two years time, we will see that the primary focus will have been open source applications running on Windows as opposed to open source applications running on Linux? If that isn't the case, I'm sure we would all like to hear that there is going to be support for Linux. And if this is about Open Source on Windows, can you understand why many will see this as counter to the goals of both the free software and open source community. I say that because it is my experience that many open source developers are committed to advancing the Linux platform.

[Sam Ramji]

@Chris M - We'll have to wait and see what projects are offered to the CodePlex Foundation to determine what the primary focus will be. I hope to see support for Linux as well as Windows. In my experience, open source developers are committed to advancing their own projects as well as those projects that are closely related to them. Free software developers on the other hand are consistently committed to advancing the Linux platform.

I should point out that my new company (http://sonoasystems.com) produces cloud computing infrastructure based on Linux. There are plenty of incentives for me personally to ensure that the CodePlex Foundation is technology neutral.