content/editorial/ec8Feb.html - openoffice-org - Git at Google

 <html><head>
 <meta HTTP-EQUIV="content-type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
 </head>
 <body>
 <title>Managing Open Source: 9 February 2001</title><p>
 <h2><font color="#cc6600" face="Courier New, Courier, mono" size="+2">Editor's Column</font></h2>
 <p><a href="//lspintro.html">-Louis Suarez-Potts</a></p>
 <p>9 February 2001</p>
 <p><b>Organizing Open Source</b></p>
 <p>As a system of software production, <a href="http://www.opensource.org">Open
   Source</a> usually says little to nothing about the <i>how</i> of its organization
   and implementation. But, in fact, merely releasing software under GPL (or some
   other such <a href="http://www.opensource.org/licenses/">license</a>) does not
   necessarily get you &quot;there.&quot; Even if your release is <a href="http://www.slashdot.org">Slashdotted</a>,
   it still may not fly. What's lacking is the infrastructure comprised both of
   machines and persons, for ensuring that interested developers can securely download
   the open-sourced code and upload their patches without totally wrecking not
   just the software but also the whole enterprise. And what's also missing from
   this fanciful picture is any system for the creation and management of a developer
   community. Open Source, that is, is more than a number of individuals downloading
   source code and working on it alone; when it works, it is implicitly a communal
   and collaborative enterprise.</p>
 <p> Of course, one <i>could</i> simply place the code on a server send a notice
   to a probably indifferent <a href="http://www.slashdot.org">Slashdot</a>, and
   then wait. If the code were interesting enough or somehow offered compellingly
   attractive benefits, it might very well attract developers who could form working
   groups, might establish a version system like <a href="http://www.cvshome.org/">CVS
   (Concurrent Versions System)</a>, and--maybe--articulate directions and goals
   for the community. And it might happen: <a href="http://www.linux.org/">Linux</a>,
   for instance, was and remains pretty much a grassroots enterprise (what <a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr">Eric
   Raymond</a> <a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/">calls
   the &quot;bazaar&quot;</a>), with a widespread and disparate community of developers--and
   <a href="http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/torvalds/">Linus Torvalds</a>--maintaining
   and contributing to the code as they will, in implicit collaboration. And Linux,
   with its globally dispersed and active community is, as we all know, the defining
   model of Open Source.</p>
 <p>But, does the Linux model still obtain, or at least with the same force as
   previously? I'd like to suggest that, for a variety of reasons, Linux is less
   the model for the future of Open Source than an exceptional paragon.. The community--or,
   communities--that have formed around the kernel have been more passionate than
   commercial. This is to say--heretically, to be sure--that the model of Open
   Source Linux exemplifies (a community of passionate users and developers) is
   probably not the model of open-source ventures to come-- and, according to recent
   <a href="http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,38240,00.html">reports</a>,
   they will come.</p>
 <p>Instead of a Linux-like model, however, the more likely scenario is that a
   company will wish to open source proprietary software because the company leaders
   have come to realize that it's not only cheaper in the long run to develop software
   using the open-source model, but that one also gets in better software faster.
   A company, that is, might open source its software to save money and get ahead
   of its rivals. The loss of proprietary control is, in this scenario, comparatively
   slight in exchange for what it gains.</p>
 <p>And what do the developers gain? If the company has arranged its Open Source
   venture properly, developers benefit in at least two, obvious, ways: from the
   intellectual capital embodied in the code and from the communities organized
   around that capital. The interested developer can, at her will, deploy the available
   code for her own purposes; and learning from the construction of the code further
   enhances her own career. What is more, the collaborative community that develops
   in working on the code provides her with invaluable help both in the present
   and in the future. </p>
 <p>But for this economy to work, the company open sourcing its property must not
   only make the source code it has opened in some way desirable and valuable to
   developers, but also provide an infrastructure, technical and managerial, that
   enables developers to work efficiently on the intellectual capital it has released.
   Without such an infrastructure, by which the code is made securely available
   and communities enabled, little might ever take place that will prove profitable
   for the originating company. In fact, one could state it even more strongly:
   Open Source, as a business and not as a hobby, demands sophisticated managerial
   support that will make sure the servers work, the pages load, and--importantly!--help
   shape the community of developers into productive groups, either through roadmaps,
   standards, or goals.</p>
 <p>All this is fairly obvious to anyone who works in Open Source--such as the
   OpenOffice.org community. But it merits stating, for the myth of Open Source
   is still the myth of the West mapped to cyberspace: of individuals hacking at
   their favorite programs for by and large mysterious reasons, of which personal
   satisfaction ranks high. In the &quot;real world&quot; there is, of course,
   still that appeal to much of open-source work. But Open Source is more than
   a culture: it is a dialectical strategy by which developers are given enormous
   power and opportunity that requires a novel managerial approach.</p>
 <br>
 <h4>Previous columns</h4>
 <p>1 February 2001 <i><a href="ec1Feb.html">Open Source
   and Its Culture</a></i></p>
 <p>23 January 2001 <i><a href="communityaction.html">Community
   Action</a></i></p>
 <p>16 January 2001 <i><a href="ec16Jan01.html">Quo Vadis
   OpenOffice.org?</a></i></p>
 <p>9 January 2001 <i><a href="thebuild.html">The 613
   build:&nbsp; problems and opportunities</a></i></p>
 <p>3 January 2001 <i><a href="SunsOpenDoor.html">Sun's
   open door</a></i></p>
 <p>&nbsp;</p>
 <p>
 <p>E-mail:<a href="mailto:louis at collab.net"> Louis at collab.net</a></p>
 <p>&nbsp;</p>
 <p>&nbsp;</p>
 </body>
 </html>
	<html><head>
	<meta HTTP-EQUIV="content-type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
	</head>
	<body>
	<title>Managing Open Source: 9 February 2001</title><p>
	<h2><font color="#cc6600" face="Courier New, Courier, mono" size="+2">Editor's Column</font></h2>
	<p><a href="//lspintro.html">-Louis Suarez-Potts</a></p>
	<p>9 February 2001</p>
	<p><b>Organizing Open Source</b></p>
	<p>As a system of software production, <a href="http://www.opensource.org">Open
	Source</a> usually says little to nothing about the <i>how</i> of its organization
	and implementation. But, in fact, merely releasing software under GPL (or some
	other such <a href="http://www.opensource.org/licenses/">license</a>) does not
	necessarily get you "there." Even if your release is <a href="http://www.slashdot.org">Slashdotted</a>,
	it still may not fly. What's lacking is the infrastructure comprised both of
	machines and persons, for ensuring that interested developers can securely download
	the open-sourced code and upload their patches without totally wrecking not
	just the software but also the whole enterprise. And what's also missing from
	this fanciful picture is any system for the creation and management of a developer
	community. Open Source, that is, is more than a number of individuals downloading
	source code and working on it alone; when it works, it is implicitly a communal
	and collaborative enterprise.</p>
	<p> Of course, one <i>could</i> simply place the code on a server send a notice
	to a probably indifferent <a href="http://www.slashdot.org">Slashdot</a>, and
	then wait. If the code were interesting enough or somehow offered compellingly
	attractive benefits, it might very well attract developers who could form working
	groups, might establish a version system like <a href="http://www.cvshome.org/">CVS
	(Concurrent Versions System)</a>, and--maybe--articulate directions and goals
	for the community. And it might happen: <a href="http://www.linux.org/">Linux</a>,
	for instance, was and remains pretty much a grassroots enterprise (what <a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr">Eric
	Raymond</a> <a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/">calls
	the "bazaar"</a>), with a widespread and disparate community of developers--and
	<a href="http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/torvalds/">Linus Torvalds</a>--maintaining
	and contributing to the code as they will, in implicit collaboration. And Linux,
	with its globally dispersed and active community is, as we all know, the defining
	model of Open Source.</p>
	<p>But, does the Linux model still obtain, or at least with the same force as
	previously? I'd like to suggest that, for a variety of reasons, Linux is less
	the model for the future of Open Source than an exceptional paragon.. The community--or,
	communities--that have formed around the kernel have been more passionate than
	commercial. This is to say--heretically, to be sure--that the model of Open
	Source Linux exemplifies (a community of passionate users and developers) is
	probably not the model of open-source ventures to come-- and, according to recent
	<a href="http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,38240,00.html">reports</a>,
	they will come.</p>
	<p>Instead of a Linux-like model, however, the more likely scenario is that a
	company will wish to open source proprietary software because the company leaders
	have come to realize that it's not only cheaper in the long run to develop software
	using the open-source model, but that one also gets in better software faster.
	A company, that is, might open source its software to save money and get ahead
	of its rivals. The loss of proprietary control is, in this scenario, comparatively
	slight in exchange for what it gains.</p>
	<p>And what do the developers gain? If the company has arranged its Open Source
	venture properly, developers benefit in at least two, obvious, ways: from the
	intellectual capital embodied in the code and from the communities organized
	around that capital. The interested developer can, at her will, deploy the available
	code for her own purposes; and learning from the construction of the code further
	enhances her own career. What is more, the collaborative community that develops
	in working on the code provides her with invaluable help both in the present
	and in the future. </p>
	<p>But for this economy to work, the company open sourcing its property must not
	only make the source code it has opened in some way desirable and valuable to
	developers, but also provide an infrastructure, technical and managerial, that
	enables developers to work efficiently on the intellectual capital it has released.
	Without such an infrastructure, by which the code is made securely available
	and communities enabled, little might ever take place that will prove profitable
	for the originating company. In fact, one could state it even more strongly:
	Open Source, as a business and not as a hobby, demands sophisticated managerial
	support that will make sure the servers work, the pages load, and--importantly!--help
	shape the community of developers into productive groups, either through roadmaps,
	standards, or goals.</p>
	<p>All this is fairly obvious to anyone who works in Open Source--such as the
	OpenOffice.org community. But it merits stating, for the myth of Open Source
	is still the myth of the West mapped to cyberspace: of individuals hacking at
	their favorite programs for by and large mysterious reasons, of which personal
	satisfaction ranks high. In the "real world" there is, of course,
	still that appeal to much of open-source work. But Open Source is more than
	a culture: it is a dialectical strategy by which developers are given enormous
	power and opportunity that requires a novel managerial approach.</p>
	<br>
	<h4>Previous columns</h4>
	<p>1 February 2001 <i><a href="ec1Feb.html">Open Source
	and Its Culture</a></i></p>
	<p>23 January 2001 <i><a href="communityaction.html">Community
	Action</a></i></p>
	<p>16 January 2001 <i><a href="ec16Jan01.html">Quo Vadis
	OpenOffice.org?</a></i></p>
	<p>9 January 2001 <i><a href="thebuild.html">The 613
	build:  problems and opportunities</a></i></p>
	<p>3 January 2001 <i><a href="SunsOpenDoor.html">Sun's
	open door</a></i></p>
	<p> </p>
	<p>
	<p>E-mail:<a href="mailto:louis at collab.net"> Louis at collab.net</a></p>
	<p> </p>
	<p> </p>
	</body>
	</html>