When I first started working on the business side of open source software, it felt like I spent a lot of time convincing people that they couldn't just throw old code over the wall. I think people managing dying projects actually felt relief that there was something they could do with their old project that might keep a few loyal customers happy. I'd explain to them that if they weren't willing to maintain it, probably nobody else was and given the amount of work it takes to open source a project, they'd be much better off helping their loyal customers move to a better long term solution.

But then Jeremy Allison pointed out to me that sometimes there's really cool technology in old projects that can be used and leveraged in other projects if it's open sourced.

So I hope that HP's Tru64 UNIX Advanced File System (AdvFS) provides just that - cool technology that can be used and leveraged in Linux and other operating systems. HP's Tru64 customers have been long, loyal customers which speaks to good technology. Hopefully that technology will now enable Linux to work better and faster.

I really like using analogies and metaphors to explain things. I think good ones catch on quick and get carried further and further until they sound ridiculous - but that's when you know there was a grain of truth to them. Two that I've heard recently that really worked (or at least got used over and over again!) are open source software as honey and open source software as a deli.

Open source software model = Bee Hive 

James Dixon originally wrote the bee and honey analogy in the The Bee Keeper. His analogy is:

• The open source community are bees,
• The open source software they produce is honey,
• Companies that foster or "own" open source software are beekeepers, they create an environment that fosters honey creation.
• Companies are processed honey eaters or "supported" software.

Matthew Aslett takes the idea even further. He applies it to companies that certify and support open source software, as well as those that have proprietary and open source software solutions and even pure open source software projects with no  commercial company attached.  He starts by pointing out that there are two types of honey: domestic honey (company owned projects) and wild honey (community only projects).

In his model, OpenLogic is a "honey collector":

There are some consumers (adopters) that might prefer the taste (and low cost) of wild honey and are happy to go to the effort of collecting it and processing it for themselves. However, if they do not want to take the time or the risk to do so instead they might pay a honey collector (support provider) to do the job for them.

While the honey collector does not have responsibility to look after the bees that a bee keeper has he will have to take care not to disrupt the nest and may well choose to make an effort to nurture the nest and encourage honey production. Of course, as these are wild bees there is also always a risk that the bees will leave the nest or production will dry up.

OpenLogic is also a "blender":

blenders (service/certification providers) that pick and choose honey from a variety of freely available bee nests and blend it together to produce a more palatable product.

And then there are "brewers", companies that create hybrid products of open source and proprietary software:

An example would be a brewer of mead. A brewer could of course choose to develop his own honey using man-made hives or acquire honey from a bee keeper, but by exploiting wild honey he lowers production costs and focuses on the additional value he brings to the production process.

Open source software = Deli

A couple of weeks ago I was at an HP event where r0ml gave a talk "The Software Deli". His analogy was that proprietary software is like automobile manufacturing and open source software is like sandwich manufacturing. You don't go into a deli and order the same sandwich as everyone else. You go into the deli and you pick and choose what kind of bread, what type of meat, type of cheese, … that picking and choosing and custom software is a lot like how companies use open source software. I knew it was a good analogy when ever speaker after him, and everyone that asked a question, tried to frame their thoughts in terms of sandwich making! The talk was recorded and should be on the web soon - I'll add a link when it is.

Got any more good open source software analogies?

So by now I'm sure you've seen the Red Hat settlement around patent litigation involving Firestar Software, Inc. and DataTern, Inc. Hopefully this patent settlement sets a standard for future patent settlements because it really took into account the nature of open source software development and usage. Here's a few ways that Red Hat made sure they covered open source software developers and users in their agreement:

From Groklaw, patents can now be settled in a way that works for the GPL:

It's also harmonious with GPLv2, of course, but this is history in the making, friends. They settled a lawsuit brought against them in a way that licenses patents without violating the GPL. I'll show you how, but first, so you know I'm not just dreaming, here's the answer I got from Richard Fontana, Open Source Licensing and Patent Counsel, Red Hat, to my question about whether this is the first known GPLv3 patent agreement that works:

Most patent settlements and similar agreements are confidential, but to my knowledge this is the first patent settlement that satisfies the requirements of GPL version 3. Indeed, it really goes further than GPLv3 in the degree to which upstream and downstream parties receive safety from the patents at issue here. (And this is not a case of trying to find a loophole in the GPL, but rather a desire on our part to reach an agreement that provided broad patent protection for developers, distributors and users, while complying fully with the conditions of the licenses of the software we and our community distribute.)

Breaking it down into more detail, as Mark Radcliff points out, Red Hat covered derivative works:

Red Hat reports that the settlement agreement covers derivative works of Red Hat branded products and combinations including Red Hat branded products.

and developers: 

Red Hat has recognized that this traditional approach would not meet the needs of its community and negotiated a settlement that included the upstream members of its ecosystem. The settlement agreement also covers predecessor products of the Red Hat branded product.

As Red Hat says, they covered customers, end users, developers and community. 

So not only is open source software innovating in the software development models and business models but now it's also improving our legal models.

P.S. I'm not an attorney.

One of OpenLogic's main goals in creating the Open Source Census is to encourage enterprises to use open source software by showing them how much open source software is being used. In order to do that, we need to make sure that we get enterprises to participate in the Open Source Census. 

In order to encourage enterprises to submit scans, for the next month we are offering the following promotion along with IDC. Once you (an enterprise) submit 200 OSS Discovery scans from your company to The Open Source Census, you'll receive:

• Two free hours of open source software policy consulting from OpenLogic.
• Two free support calls for any issues relating to the 400+ open source software packages in the OpenLogic Certified Library of open source software.
• A free copy of the IDC report, "Worldwide Software Business Strategies 2008 Top 10 Predictions for 2008".

You can read here for more information.

I'm interested to see how it works. Any other ideas on how to encourage enterprises to participate? 

Tomorrow I'll be giving a webinar called Best Practices for Open Source Governance: Understanding Open Source License Obligations in the Enterprise. How's that for a mouth full? Basically, I'll be talking about how complicated licensing can be and how OpenLogic breaks  down the licensing for a given open source software project. First we create a compliance matrix that shows required copyright notices, warranties, export restrictions, etc. and then we summarize with a checklist of things you must do to comply with the licensing for that project.

Come join me tomorrow. Listen, ask questions, and share your experiences! 

The Apache Foundation is one of my favorite examples when I explain how open source works because the Apache projects have been wildly successful - as a volunteer, non-commercial entity. Not all open source software projects need to follow the Apache model, but it is proof that an entirely volunteer, democratic, open source organization with many projects can be successful. This year, the Apache Foundation released some very interesting numbers. Some highlights quoted from Ross Gardler's post:

• 1765 committers
• 662,663 changes submitted to Subversion
• 65 world class projects
• an expenditure of only $181,202 in the 2007 fiscal year
• no ties to any commercial bodies (note: some of the committers are employed by companies)
• documentation, user support and bug reporting are equally valued alongside coding

Twenty years ago nobody would have believed this was possible. It's still an amazing story.

When I saw this quote in twitter from Michael Chilson, I had to laugh: 

"using open source software is like driving a car with a million mechanics who have each had a turn." 

One of the problems people have with open source software is too many voices and too many choices. When you buy proprietary software, you have one clear choice. And you can go to that vendor and they'll give you a nice brochure (or web page) that describes your options and often they'll even help you figure out which option is best for you.  As Matt Asay says "the industry knows how to buy proprietary software".

But when it comes to open source software, not only do you have lots of choices but you have to figure them out yourself and often it seems like there are no guiding voices or a million guiding voices. You can support the thing yourself (using the mailing lists), hire an expert, purchase commercial support (maybe) and if you purchase commercial support you have to figure out which company to purchase it from. Oh, and if you're a typical company, you use 50-100 open source software products so now you have 50-100 unusual support decisions to make. Wait, there aren't even commercial options for most of those … it's a whole new world and sometimes it's easier to just go back to the easy, known model. Which I suspect was Matt's point.

Of course, this is why OpenLogic is providing one stop, commercial support for 400+ open source software products. Let's make it easy for people to use open source software. 

I've been trying new presentation and communication techniques. I've started twittering, I've moved to Presentation Zen model slides, I've given talks to small groups, given keynotes to rooms of 700 and been on a panel in front of 3000 people. Now I'm going to try a live text chat - I think it's seriously going to challenge my typing skills but I invite you to come join me! (Maybe some of you could help answer questions in your questions like you do at talks …)

Join me 2 p.m. – 3 p.m. ET, Thursday, May 15 on Network World for a live text chat. I will answer your questions about open source and its changing role in the enterprise, or anything else you want to talk about. (Within reason - and no, I still don't know why my parents decided to call me Stormy.)

No registration necessary. Just login at 2pm ET on Thursday at www.networkworld.com/chat.

See you there! 

You can build communities but first you have to understand them, enjoy them and play in them and one of the key things is to listen at least as much as you talk. The transition from traditional business and marketing to Web 2.0 is a tough one. This cartoon shows the confusion some companies have with social networking. I'm going to add it to my Would you do it again for free? talk.

From Geek And Poke:

I had a great day at CommunityOne yesterday - Sun did a great job of putting on a good community conference. It started out with the community panel - I was a bit nervous as not only was Matt Asay moderating (and he likes to stir the pot) but it was in front of 3000 people!

The day ended up being about Twitter. We had the audience Twitter us during the panel (I did see the comment about women!)  

the_contrarian @communityone Only one woman on the panel. Is that a sign of a dysfunction in the open source community? about 21 hours ago

And although we didn't get to their questions in the panel (they came a bit too fast to read!) it was fun seeing that the audience was listening and interested. Afterwards I answered all the Twitter questions in Twitter and made some new Twitter friends: @zalez, @Ryan_Singer, @the_contrarian, @rayval.

Then I went to the RedMonk unconference - they did a great job getting lots of conversation going. If anybody could keep a conversation going in the middle of a noisy cafeteria where 3000 people are swarming around you trying to get their lunch … well, it could only be the RedMonk guys. One of the discussions was around Twitter, what you hate, what you like, what you want to see, best practices … @monkchips said he'd blog it all. His theme of the day was definitely "listen more than you talk"! Another concept I found interesting was do you see Twitter as a river or a pond? It changes whether you follow lots of people or just a few … oh and don't be offended if someone doesn't follow you. It probably has to do with the river/pond idea or they might be your boss and they just really don't want to know that about you!

I met a bunch of my Twitter friends face-to-face for the first time: @SaraD, @twleung, @tmolini, @cote, @monkchips, @imurdock, @IanSkerrett, @gstein, @aglick35, … any body I missed? And I saw a bunch of my old Twitter friends: @johnmark, @webmink, @sogrady, @jzemlin, @Silona, @DivaDanese, and I saw @laurencooney several times and never got to say hi.

Now I'm off to JavaOne.