Re: [OT] Re: Troll Tech [was Re: Sco vs. IBM]

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>]

On Sat, 2003-06-21 at 14:38, Larry McVoy wrote:
> Second, the point you are missing, on purpose? is that with a pure
> open source play there is no barrier to entry for anyone else, they
> can take your source and sell it under the same terms. 

They can sell it 'under the same terms' in that they can write the same
things on the contract -- but they can't offer the same service and make
it as attractive to the customer -- because although any of your
competitors may be able to copy and distribute the code you wrote, that
doesn't mean they know it and can support it just as well as you can.

To take an example -- if, for the sake of argument, you were to GPL
BitKeeper, do you really think anyone would be able to jump on the
bandwagon and support it as well as you can?

It doesn't work like that -- those who wrote and continue to maintain
the 'official' (or only) branch of the code do have a serious commercial
advantage in offering support. 

I've seen customers come to my employer for support on stuff we've
written and maintain, after failing to get satisfaction from our
competitors -- who have access to all the same code. Why do you think
that happens?

> There is a reason that the VC's want to know what you have that noone
> else has and how you are going to keep them from getting it.  Hate
> VC's all you want, they still have a point.

They do indeed. But sometimes they have some flawed ideas about
precisely what it _is_ that nobody else has but would need to compete
properly.

It's not just access to the source code of the software -- it runs
deeper than that. To be honest, I consider hiding and restrictively
licensing your code to be largely analogous to security by obscurity --
it tends to work to a large extent but it's a poor substitute for
_really_ fixing the problem, by being able to offer your customers a
decent service and making them want to stay with you. 

The increasing prevalence of Free Software means that the industry is
more and more about _services_ rather than products, and hence companies
have to stay alert and think about providing a decent service to their
customers rather than resting their on their laurels and drawing in
money from old technology while papering over the holes.

While I can see that giving the VCs the screaming heebie-jeebies since
it means that IT companies need to work hard to recruit and retain good
people and there are far fewer cash cows, I don't necessarily think it's
a bad thing for the industry or for IT consumers/users in general.

-- 
dwmw2