Adapt or die--the choice facing the open source movement
By Tom Foremski - February 17, 2006
. . . a potential solution to the acquisition of the commons.
Can Larry Ellison be stopped? By which I mean could Oracle shut down the fledgling open-source software movement through a series of acquisitions??
Consider this: This week, (not) coincidentally with the open source conference at the Argent Hotel in San Francisco, Oracle announced the acquisition of Sleepycat, an up and coming open source database; MYSQL said Oracle tried to buy it; and industry insiders are saying the acquisition of JBoss by Oracle is imminent.
In one fell swoop, Oracle has drawn a square around the most active and interesting parts of the open source movement--the databases and tools. These are the platforms for applications. Applications are just skins on the database--if you own the database (Oracle) or access to the data (Net Apps) you are in the sweet spot.
Oracle isn't going to lose its customer base to challengers such as MySQL or Sleepycat. But it will lose some of the new IT business. And there is some new IT business out there--but it is all heading for open source. Become.com for example, a very successful shopping comparison web site--all runs on open source. And I cannot tell you how many startups have told me: All our IT is open source we don't pay a penny in license fees to anybody.
If you don't have a legacy requirement to run Oracle, you won't. It's as simple as that; and it's why Oracle wants to remove this option. Because it's not just the startups, it is also enterprise IT departments, that are now comfortable with using open source. That's a huge chunk of lost business if even a small number of Oracle's enterpise customers choose open-source equivalent products.
Oracle could lose tens of millions of dollars in new business from just a handful of large customers in a single quarter. It costs less than that to acquire these small, privately held companies.
Even if Oracle paid a very high multiple for one of its open source challengers--it would still be ahead of the game. The ROI on paying a few tens of millions to acquire an open-source company would be stunning. Oracle would make its ROI in just months--because its potential loss of business would easily outweigh its acquisition costs.
It is a no brainer for Oracle. In fact, Oracle would be negligent in its fiduciary duties to its shareholders--its legal duty to maximize its profits and value--if it did not pursue such an obvious strategy. Oracle's duty is to defend itself against disruptive innovation.
However, I think there is a way that the open source movement can protect itself from the last gasp Darwinism of the 20th century.
To save the open source movement from acquisition by commercial interests I propose that open source companies adopt a Grameen Bank-type organisational structure. It is a corporation with a Not-for-Loss charter in which all customers are automatically shareholders, and also the developers within the open source communities that develop these products become shareholders.
I don't know what the right mix of shareholder rights and awards would be but it would prevent the selling off of the open source movement, imho. The shareholders would never agree to a commercial aquistion by default.
And it is not as if the geeks and customers will get rich by being shareholders--they won't--because it prevents a market from forming in the M&A open-source sector. If you don't have a market you aren't able to sell out.
If there is no effective M&A defense, then it will become very difficult to recruit a developer community. Without a developer community you have none of the open-source benefits.
So all you VCs thinking you can invest in open source companies and sell them to Larry--think again. No developer wants to work free for Larry--which is a very real future scenario.
Work hard now and then Oracle acquires the project? No way, it ain't going to happen. Where is the glory of working on an open source project when eventually Oracle reaps the benefits?
I'll say it again: In one fell swoop Oracle drew a square around the open source movement and unless it can prove that it can remain independent--it is a dead movement. Unless the open source movement reorganizes to meet this challenge it will dwindle and become an interesting footnote in the history of the computing industry.
But if it can meet the challenge, then the open source movement has the potential to become one of the jewels in the crown of humankind--it has the potential to become one of the most valuable collective projects since the pyramids, the industrial revolution, and now: enabling the collaborative revolution.
- - -
Here is some more of my reasoning . . .
February 17, 2006 | Permalink | Comment | Category: Disruptive | Subscribe to SVW
- Top Stories:
- Socialbrite: Helping Non-Profits Master Social Tools For Social Change
- The Pressure Is On When Every Company Is Now A Media Company...
- Vinod Khosla: How To Succeed In Silicon Valley By Bumbling And Failing...
- Saturday Post: If You Are In The Path Of A Disruptive Technology You Are Toast - Goodbye Newspaper Companies
- SDForum Garden Party Notes: Vinod Khosla is the Antichrist; Jim Clark has a size problem; Silicon Valley Trophies - Hot women and large yachts...
- Traveling Geeks Trip Next Week ... Join Us In London!
- Bitten and Smitten: Why Journalism Is Like Falling For The Wrong Person
- Year One: The Lessons Of The Intel Insider Media Advisory Program
- UberCEO Survey: CEOs Of Fortune 100 Snub Social Media - None Blog, Only 2 Twitter
- From Big Blue To Big Brown - IBM Launches Green Services In Smart Sewage And Beyond
- Keeping It Real: PR's Real-Time Web Challenge
- A Saturday Post: The Internet Devalues Everything It Touches, Anything That Can Be Digitized
Comments (5)
I think it's important to distinguish between the open source community and open source companies: you can buy the latter, not the former. Mr Ellison could buy every open source company he likes, but he can't control the communities that support them: all they have to do is "fork" the code - start a new version - which will effectively render his investment worthless. This ability to fork code - a central freedom of open source software - is what keeps the communities vibrant, and the companies honest.
So, there's really no need for complicated ploys: it's already built into the heart of open source. It's why free software survived the dotcom crash: the companies crashed, but the communities didn't. It's why open source is, in this sense, indestructible: it may hibernate from time to time, but it can always wake up.
If you want more details on why Mr Ellison has more to fear from the open source world, rather than vice-versa, I blogged about this last week.
Posted: February 17, 2006 2:39 PM
I take your point--but it is a psychological thing. Yes, the communities could "fork" but the enterprises will be dealing with Oracle, a familiar vendor. It will remove an option they had of alternate vendors of maintenance and support services. . .
Posted: February 17, 2006 5:18 PM
Certainly, there is a psychological element - it's what keeps Microsoft in the driving seat.
But if there is enough demand, new open source companies, based around either the original or the forked code, will soon appear, especially if there is a pool of disgruntled coders who depart Oracle-acquired businesses.
You're right that Oracle could mess things up, in the sense of making a simple situation complicated, but I think that the underlying dynamics of the open source world - communities plus companies - means that alternatives would keeping on sprouting, hydra-like, every time existing companies are acquired, exhausting even Mr Ellison's resources.
Posted: February 18, 2006 1:23 AM
Without a mention of licensing or the GPL, I can't follow your analysis.
Please see Bruce Perens' assessment, entitled "Does Oracle Understand What it's Buying"?
Posted: February 22, 2006 4:10 PM
Open Sorce companies misbehave like every other company.
Look at what happended with VA Software (LNUX) whose stock rose 60% in 5 days BEFORE the first report with earning ever in its history. That stock had been flat for 6 months.
I reported what happened to SEC for suspect insider trading, as you can read on my blog. Please let me know what you think about that situation
Posted: February 24, 2006 4:21 AM