 |
|
 |
| ||||||
|
07.30.10 Is An Open Core Lock-in A Bad Idea Or A Viable Option?  By Savio RodriguesA debate has been raging over the popular open core business model that many open source vendors are utilizing today. Opponents caution buyers from using open core products because of a bait-and-switch that will lock-in buyers to a closed source product. Proponents of the open core model argue that it balances the rights of users with the revenue aspirations of vendors. That there is no one true open source business model that open source vendors utilize would come as no surprise to InfoWorld readers - support subscriptions, professional services, dual licensing and open core are but a few of the business models utilized. It's important to recognize that the business model an open source vendor utilizes has a direct impact on your rights and freedoms when utilizing a product from the vendor. As little as five years ago, the support subscription business model was the de facto choice for new entrants into the open source vendor arena. In this model, there was only one version of the product, with equivalent features and functions, available to all users. Paying users were able to get professional support for the product in question. But customers realized quickly that they could run the product without support and address their support issues themselves or through community forums. Vendors watched as 15 percent of paying support subscription customers decided not to renew their support subscriptions. This of course had an impact on paying and non-paying customers, since the revenue lost could have been used to fund further development of the product. The open core business model grew in popularity as a means of addressing the lack of a sustained revenue trigger. The open core model relies on a core product released under an open source license. However, that core product is expanded upon, often with enterprise features, additional testing and integration. The vendor sells this superset product under a commercial, not open source, license on a subscription basis. There are often license or contractual terms that prevent a company from continuing to use the commercially licensed product if they stop paying the subscription. In many cases, the source code for the commercial product is not made available. ComputerWorld UK columnist Simon Phipps writes: "But to use the package effectively in production, a business probably won't find the functions of the core package sufficient, even in the (usual) case of the core package being highly capable. They will find the core package largely ineffective without certain "extras", and these are only available in the "Enterprise Version" of the package - which is not open source. To use those features, you are forced to be a customer only of the sponsoring company. There's no alternative, no way to do it yourself if the value delivered doesn't justify the expense involved or if you are time-rich and cash-poor. Worse, using the package locks you in to the supplier. If they prove a bad choice as a supplier, or if your business needs change, you have no real choice beyond "take it or leave it"." Continue reading this article. About the Author: Savio Rodrigues is a product manager with IBM's WebSphere Software division. He envisions a day when open source and traditional software live in harmony. This site contains Savio's personal views. IBM does not necessarily agree with the views expressed here. |
|||||
|
| ||
| -- ITProWire is an iEntry, Inc. publication -- iEntry, Inc. 2549 Richmond Rd. Lexington KY, 40509 2010 iEntry, Inc. All Rights Reserved Privacy Policy Legal archives | advertising info | news headlines | free newsletters | comments/feedback | submit article |
