Open Source Doesn’t Need More Support. It Needs Better Business Models

Jamie Allen, Typesafe‘s Director of Global Services published an interesting point of view on Twitter:

And he’s right of course. We are constantly reminded of the fact that we should support FOSS projects on which we depend. Just recently, Wikipedia had this huge banner on top of it, asking for money, and we probably should. But do we really depend on them, and can we really make a difference? Let us look at the problem from a business perspective.

There isn’t a second Red Hat

About a year ago, there was an extremely interesting article on Tech Crunch by Peter Levine, partner at Andreessen Horowitz who have just invested $40M in Stack Exchange. The article was about Why There Will Never Be Another RedHat: The Economics Of Open Source. It compared Red Hat’s and VMWare’s market capitalisation and revenue with that of Microsoft, Oracle, or Amazon, showing that even Red Hat is a rather insignificant competitor in terms of these size metrics.

Why is this so?

Let’s go back to Groovy: There are probably tens of thousands of Groovy developers out there who have simply downloaded Groovy and then never again interacted with the vendor. It probably wouldn’t even be wrong to say that many developers weren’t aware of Pivotal having been the main sponsor behind Groovy. Sure, Groovy is a strong brand, but it is really “everybody’s brand”, and thus: nobody’s brand. Not being a strong brand, it attracted only techies with language interests (and it is a beautiful language to work with, indeed!)

Now, Pivotal has withdrawn their engagement from Groovy, for completely understandable reasons. Let’s review Jamie’s point of view:

Pivotal’s move to end support of Groovy is a stark reminder that enterprises who depend on FOSS projects should help support them.

Would it have mattered if “we” had supported Groovy?

Perhaps. A Groovy Foundation (similar to the Apache Foundation, or the Eclipse Foundation) might have made Groovy a bit less dependent on Pivotal, and this can still happen. Possibly, a couple of larger companies who depend on Groovy, or Gradle might chime in and become Silver or Gold or Platinum Sponsors, or something like that. Perhaps, Gradleware will seize the opportunity and “buy” Groovy to become THE Groovy company.

But will it work? Does the same work for Typesafe? Can monetising an Open Source language and platform work in times when even C# is now given away for free?

Red Hat can make money off Linux, because Linux is a very complex ecosystem that just requires a support subscription when you’re running it in production. No bank on this planet will ever run a server farm without the vendor promising 24h support with under 1h reaction time. But is the same true for Scala, Groovy? The “critical” work has long been done by the developers. The binaries are built and shipped onto production where operations takes over. Operations couldn’t care less if that binary is built with Groovy, Scala, Java, Ceylon, Kotlin, Fantom, or any of the other gazillion Java alternatives. All operations will ever care about is the JVM, or Weblogic – and the database, of course. And operations is where the long-term subscription money is, not development.

This doesn’t mean that no one should make money from developers. Companies like JetBrains, ZeroTurnaround, or also ourselves, Data Geekery show that it works, on a much smaller scale. But if a company is “selling” a programming language that doesn’t immediately help them upsell their customers to buy their significant other subscriptions, you should be wary as the vendor motivation to produce the programming language product is very unclear – and in the case of Pivotal, “unclear” is not even close to describe the vendor motivation.

Good examples of holistic platform strategies are these, because operations and the end user can immediately drive the decision chain that justifies the language lock-in for the developers:

  • C# -> Visual Studio -> SQL Server -> Azure, etc.
  • Java -> JVM / Weblogic -> Oracle Database -> Oracle Commerce, etc.

OK examples are these, although the upselling potential might not be viable enough to maintain a whole ecosystem. We’ll see how it works:

  • Kotlin -> IntelliJ

Less good examples are these, because the value proposition chain is really not obvious. There is no justification for the language lock-in:

  • Groovy -> Cloud Platform ??
  • Scala -> Reactive Programming ??
  • Ceylon -> RHEL ??

The Business Model

Jamie Allen’s Tweet shows a lot about what’s wrong with many Open Source vendors. While he claims that end users depend on OSS products from their vendors, the opposite is true. The end user can simply fork the OSS product and lead it to a graceful end of life before replacing it. But the vendor really depends on the goodwill and the benevolence of their FOSS communities. The vendor then tries to leverage goodwill to make a weird-sounding upselling between completely unrelated products. This cannot work.

So join us in our endeavours. Make Open Source a business. A viable business, a business driven by the vendor (and by the market, of course). A business that makes sense. A business that involves dual-licensing and reasonable upselling. A business that uses Open Source mainly as a freemium entry point for the actual business.

You can be romantic about F(L)OSS in your heart, that’s OK. But please don’t depend on it. It would be too bad if you don’t succeed, just because you ran out of money from your “sponsors”, because you didn’t care about the business aspect of your product.

Read also 5 lessons for any open source business transitioning to a revenue-based model

Suis-je Groovy? No! What Pivotal’s Decision Means for Open Source Software

Today there was great news in the JVM ecosystem.

Pivotal, the company who is committed to OSS has become a bit less committed:


The reaction in the community were largely summarised by the hashtag #jesuisgroovy:

The interesting part in Pivotal’s announcement is this one:

The decision to conclude its sponsorship of Groovy and Grails is part of Pivotal’s larger strategy to concentrate resources on accelerating both commercial and open source projects that support its growing traction in Platform-as-a-Service, Data, and Agile development. Pivotal has determined that the time is right to let further development of Groovy and Grails be led by other interested parties in the open source community who can best serve the goals of those projects.

The official announcement can be read here.

Groovy is not a viable business (for Pivotal)

In other words, Groovy is not a viable business for Pivotal. And it’s hard to disagree here. Groovy has never been created with any commercial interests. Like many Open Source projects, Groovy was created in order to make something “better”, mostly for the sake of it being better. Of course it was useful as it introduced a lot of nice features into the Java ecosystem at a time before all these new JVM languages popped up. And before all these new JVM languages finally had an effect on Java-the-language itself.

On the other hand, the Groovy website’s rather geeky look-and-feel has never made it seem as though virtually anyone had any commercial interests in the language or the platform for that matter. I’m not trying to be harsh here, Groovy is an awesome language, created with love. But maintaining an Open Source ecosystem is hard work. It costs a lot of money and effort. And in the case of Groovy, it is just very hard to disagree with the fact that there is probably little money to be made out of it.

How to make money out of Open Source

When we moved on from a purely Open Source jOOQ to a dual-licensed one, we were criticised a lot by people who realised that they might fall into the dual-licensing category who no longer gets to ride for free. This was of course a disappointing evolution for those people. We see it as one step forward for a product that doesn’t just want to implement l’art pour l’art. We believe that we’re adding value on a small scale to a select set of customers with real SQL problems, and we want to continue to do so. Thus, commercial interests are now the driving force behind our developments, and dual-licensing is the easiest way to achieve that on our own small scale.

Many of those who had criticised us claimed that we should create a support-based Open Source business model instead (like Pivotal!). In other words: Let “them” pay for support – whoever “they” are. But that is not a viable model in the long run.

We create fishing poles. We don’t want to compete with our customers, the fishermen.

In software, the vendor of some product shouldn’t commoditize the main driver for innovation: The product. They should sell the product and create an ecosystem and a market for consultants that will be much better at applying the product to some concrete customer’s business. It is a win-win-win situation for everyone:

  • Vendors get money from licenses
  • Consultants get money from their specialist knowledge
  • End-users get a better, cheaper solution with a lower cost of ownership

Although, the consultant is always the one whose work is commoditized in the long run as demand for the product increases, and more consultants pop up trying to make money from their consulting business.

Joel Spolsky has written an extremely interesting Strategy Letter on the idea of commoditizing a complementary product (support, in this case) to increase the demand for the primary product (license, in this case). In the case of a PaaS company like Pivotal, however, we can only guess that even the commoditization of a whole programming language and ecosystem is no longer sustainable enough to increase demand for their PaaS offerings.

If that is the truth, then other platforms like Spring are at the stake as well! If Groovy is not sustainable, why should Spring be?

Am I Groovy?

Suis-je Groovy? To get back to the original claim:

No, I’m not Groovy. Groovy and every other piece of Open Source software that does not in any direct way produce a commercial value for both the vendor and the consumer is doomed to fail in the long run. Open Source software has created a tremendous amount of value in our industry. Companies like ourselves wouldn’t be possible if we’d still pay millions for an operating system license. The question is not whether software is free as in beer or as in freedom. The question is whether anyone has any viable commercial interests in making a particular software element cheap or even free. If they don’t, well, the joke will be on you as the vendor might just stop doing it. Open Source or not.

Free Open Source with Commercial Support

Have you ever thought about “Free” Open Source with commercial support vs. commercial software? We have and we found that the following is true:

Free Open Source Software with commercial support

… is the best business model for companies selling services for very complex OSS software where customers might lack skilled personnel. This includes things like

The above systems can cause terrible pain to your productive environments when they crash. You want to have extremely skilled fire fighters ready when your system goes down. Some of the above systems have been said to be deliberately complex in order to be able to pursue this particular business model.

Commercial software or dual-licensed software

… is the best business model for companies selling very simple, easy to use software where customers do not rely on skilled personnel in the event of a crash. This is particularly true for

The above software are so easy to handle and to maintain, their vendors would hardly make any money with support. Granted, support is always included in the license fees. That’s just part of the service quality.