Two other rapidly growing open-source companies -- Java server software maker The JBoss Group and open-source database manufacturer MySQL -- have adopted the "professional open-source" approach, selling a commercial licence around free software and offering support and other services.
These companies aren't encumbered by any conflict with proprietary products, unlike their larger competitors, which face a significant challenge in shedding a "not invented here" way of thinking.
Still, open-source middleware, databases and desktop systems represent a tiny fraction of the overall business software market. Commercial software companies argue that the cost of maintaining enterprise-grade software is far more significant than the original price to license it, and that open-source offerings fall short in this area. Moreover, well-heeled players like IBM and Microsoft have the resources to invest in research and innovation.
"When [MySQL] has to support enterprise features -- that's when the rubber meets the road," said Thomas Rizzo, director of product management for Microsoft's SQL Server database. "Right now, they're copying things that are documented in textbooks."
Open-source software also carries legal risks, as current litigation between the SCO Group and IBM demonstrates. Corporations that consider a deeper commitment to open source should perform legal due diligence to protect themselves from potential lawsuits around patents or copyrights, even with the indemnification offered by providers, said George Weiss, an analyst at Gartner Group.
"It's virtually impossible to guarantee the purity of the code," Weiss said. "Software today is a very touchy area of litigation."
That point was underscored during Sabre's conversion to open-source software. A meeting between technology executives and the company's legal staff "opened the institutional doors" to using open source, said Bob Offutt, Sabre's senior vice president of strategic planning, and the company eventually decided that it was comfortable with its exposure and came up with a policy regarding open source.
If you can't beat 'em...
Because open-source development has become so pervasive -- there are an estimated 1.1 milion open-source developers working at least part time in North America -- many companies have felt pressure to experiment with it for fear of being left behind.
Server maker Sun, for example, was late in embracing Linux but now is pinning its hopes on open-source packages to break into new markets. Its Java Desktop System, released in December, is a collection of open-source products for which Sun provides support. The company is also considering the possibility of setting one of its most valuable software assets -- Java -- into open source, said James Gosling, chief technology officer of Sun's development tools division.
Talkback
In 15 years there will be no such thing as "software" -- just like today you can't see, and don't care about the wires that carry your broadband connection home, in the future software will be pervasive. Open-source will disapear just as Commodore and Spectrum hobyists did in the 90's, and the Oracle's and Microsoft's of today will have won the day by transforming themselves to deliver the new technology model.
It really doesn’t matter at what point in the process a company takes its profits: hardware; operating system, application software; or professional services. It’s the old joke of giving away the whisky for free, but charging an awful lot for the bottle cap. Call it a “system”, a “service”, an “application” or a “business process”— it’s still a bottle of booze.
Open source software will mostly have disappeared within a couple of years as the advantages to the individual contributor dwindle: increasing one’s visibility in a highly-paid field and the self-righteous feeling of providing a rebellious alternative to big-company greed.