Want to know the future of FOSS? You can look it up in a database In IT, there is sexy tech, there is fashionable tech, and there are databases. Your average database has very little charisma, however. Nobody's ever made a movie about one. They should. They should make lots of movies. (The Reg must note at this point that we're not counting the vendors in this. Some of them have, indeed, …
Interesting perspective on IT. I'm not sure it helps though, any more than 'Everything is software'.
That multiple new and interesting ways of providing, using and profiting from FOSS continue to be explored and developed doesn't really help us pin down the future. I'm not seeing FOSS ERP systems taking over the corporate world, infrastructure as code is mainly embedding the power of the cloud providers and giving them juicy vendor-lock-in pricing options and on databases themselves there's now so much choice as to type of database, let alone implementation technology, that businesses are predominantly focussing on the market leaders - because the tech matters less than being able to use it, and that means hiring people with skills (or willing to learn a specific technology skill).
So really it's not all that much different to where we were a decade ago.
I can't agree with your comments about licenses, because what is ideal depends on what you value.
Some want to maximise usage, so they might go with BSD or MIT. SQLite is even just public domain.
Some value the code remaining free, so they prefer GPL.
Your non commercial usage license would be to maximise your chances of charging for the software I'd guess. But it blocks much reuse, Debian couldn't touch it for sure. If the Linux kernel had kept its original non commercial use license it would have been unlikely to have conquered the world as it has.
Better to give away the software and charge for some service that depends on it I think.
Software is more centralized now than it has ever been since few mainframes ruled the IT world. There is less competition now. Everybody uses mostly the same software, and very few entities do control it. Without money to be made, entering some sectors is impossible.
Whilst all FOSS is created equal, they do not evolve equally, something to bear in mind when you bet your company on it for those technical reasons the boss/bill payer will never understand but will still support because he pays you so much money you must know what you are talking about.
Having made a punt on some software only to see it stagnate and finding migration to a different product convoluted at best or impossible at worst, I know these decisions can bite you hard down the road as you struggle support an old out of date and hopeless product.
Anyone that has had to manage backups, archiving or financial software or email systems will know that your are effectively stuck once you make a choice, how many people will move away from SAP gouges its customers again? These things are never easy or simple or cheap to move away from.
Thank you for your comment.
Indeed, the moment a company starts using software, be it free/open source or proprietary/closed source software, it is "investing" in its choice. There is always money involved, even no license fee has to be paid. You adequately describe the migration cost if it turns out that a decision is leading to a dead end, e.g. because the software that was chosen is no longer maintained.
I would like to add another perspective to your comment, namely that of the FOSS project manager. Anyone that has had to maintain a popular FOSS project, dealing with questions (and complaints) of users knows that this effort isn't sustainable without financial resources. As a former FOSS developer, I received plenty of unsolicited advice on how to secure such resources, almost always from people who have zero experience when it comes to running a FOSS project.
I have tried many ways to monetize my FOSS project: asking for donations (not sustainable), trying to get ad revenue (not sustainable), writing documentation (too much effort for what you get in return), offering support (extremely hard to sell, especially with increasing quality of your product), professional services (cannibalizes further development of your product), dual licensing (worked for me), commercial add-ons (worked for me), software as a service (should work, but I left this to my successors).
For a more elaborate overview, see https://entreprenerd.lowagie.com/ossurvival/
Most products which have become 'Business Source' started as open source and used that to gain market share and contributors. They then used contributor agreements which handed to the startup investors the copyright of community contributors allowing unrestricted relicensing. Hence they turned their back on open source when the time came to monetize.
Successful sustainable open source projects have many key contributors, ideally competitors, who have a mutual interest in saving money. Presumably these large corporates have lawyers smart enough to avoid projects with onerous contributor agreements that have enabled the overnight abandonment of open source by some startups. Check the contributor agreement. I don't think a project with genuine open source intentions would require you to allow arbitrary relicensing of your code.
My Chinese dentist tells me to FOSS, and I appreciate his point of view, but many of us are stuck with what our employers choose.
Enterprises that have been suckered into Microsoft's cloud of Office and accessories will likely already be SQL Server customers. Using existing contracts and pricing tactics ("Software Assurance" BS, for example), Microsoft will negotiate away temptation to go FOSS, as it has been doing successfully for decades. FOSS is still viewed by some as third-party, 'free'-but-support-will-cost, community-hodgepodge software with dodgy [HIPAA, etc.] compliance and licensing.
Prohibitive costs of conversion aside, FUD still works. Supported interoperability (not only technical, but licensed) has always been a legitimate concern, and it is even more so now, with automation and AI. Like it or not, we are seeing (cloudy, sometimes Azure-tinted) consolidation in the market.
No matter what sound decision you make, we have already seen how Microsoft just might change its licensing, spoiling your well-laid plans:
https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/31/cloud_rivals_hit_back_at/
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
