The document discusses RTI's "Open Community Source" business model for its data distribution service (DDS) middleware. It provides the full DDS source code and binaries for free under an open license for use within a customer's "infrastructure community." However, additional tools, platforms, advanced features and commercial support require a paid commercial license. The model aims to balance open adoption with supporting the vendor's financial needs through low-cost commercial offerings.
We are *not* trying to redefine open source.We are not advocating that OSI change anything.I am relating the results of a deep investigation of what customers really want and need in one particular industry. And I think it’s more than what the OSS model brings.
Free beer => no cost => no vendor biz modelFree speech => can hack code => get yourself screwed,unfair competition, stifles innovation biz modelFree puppy => branch! => huge cost to users, version explosionFreemium =>Open source restricted product,Paid “better” product => hard balanceLet’s face it, nobody has this figured out.60+ OSI-compliant licenses. Something’s wrong.
This is an architectural view of the product line. Again, all of the products are built around the RTI DataBus.Another beauty of a data-centric architecture is that services can be plugged into the bus in the same way that a customer’s application can be. So, in addition to just providing the core messaging capability, we can also offer value added services and tools that customers can take advantage of in both their development environments as well as in deployed systems.
(You can thus build other binaries if you're a masochist, but we won't help you.)
The only real limit is the IC scope.All open source models have practical restrictionsThat limit allows RTI to offer much more value to you, to control our revenue from various segments, to limit competition,and to offer a more competitive product.Critical to openly acknowledge that it’s not “real” open source (or “Free Software”)
Talked to 100s of sites. What do you want from OSS?Drafted a LGPL strategy. Nope.Apache? Modified Apache? Nope.Read every OSI license. Studied biz models. Corporate counsels, OSS lawyers, analysts, Program managers.Green: important to user (not other developers).Yellow: psychologically important, although practically valueless, even negative value. Irrational paranoia; you’re dependent on the vendor anyway. We’ll see why.Light green: Useful, but not for what people think.No arrow: irrelevant. Either it just doesn’t really happen (community), or you don’t care (other apps).Credit IC concept to OSD sponsor. Wanted an “acquisition community”. Grew from that.What they want is clear: reduce risk & control cost.
So…why does this really happen?First time I’ve put my name on a slide (other than title slide). Stand behind this. Ask any software manager: losing even one key team member is expensive.Branching is easy, but amazingly expensive. 2x the cost! Grows fast.Implications!Software reuse is a misnomerStable teams imply continuous investmentCode repositories are expensive branchesEven more expensive to revive“Government purpose rights” are irrelevantThe IP without the team is inefficient“Community development” is a mythAt least for emerging products, there is no stable external teamThe best structure for large projects is team/code pairsModularize by reducing team/code size => define interfaces and architectureThe innovations in iTunes store is a way to pay stable teams, not an online code repository
What’s important to the USER?Generate low-friction viral adoptionFree use for early projectsNo legal & operational red tapeSupport healthy vendorsLimit unfettered competition from services companies that don’t drive the product. (And may be foreign, undesired.)For those who can pay, provide good reason to payEncourage speculative vendor investmentBuild product the broad market needsInvest in features, accessibility, usability, qualityRetain IP controlNo forced copyleft of customer codeEnable a mechanism to ensure code provenanceDrive efficiency and low costEncourage single code base and stable teamStop the “free puppy” syndrome; no local branchesFree puppy is the big problem. Innocent start; No surprises.
Leave out key featuresNasty license: GPL, LGPLE.g. an old version, without support. Really, no support?Community development is a myth; this assures it.Even if the “community” creates new IP, it’s lost Few updates, missing features, poor/no support. This is no way to build a quality system.Why would anyone do this? Stale beer model. Get drunk. Why would the vendor do it?Old version: limits competition for latest versionNo support: encourages people to upgradeAnd what happens when you need better?This is the vendor’s goal, after all (!)Free beer: Don’t even check prices.Drunk people fall into traps. You don’t know you’re in trouble until late in the game.Unclear pricing model. They depend on your failure. Struggle for “on ramp” rate. 1% kind of numbers.This is no way to run a relationship.
Hourly for support, guidance. But also features, bug fixes, standards work, account mgmt (troubleshooting, escalation, etc.), even product mgmt.Greater fool model. Nickle & dime image; but really $250k trap. Hobson’s choice. Caught between a rock and a hard place: live with critical flaw, or fork over $250k. This is where they make money.Relies on mythical “community development”For emerging products, there is no stable external teamBottom line: software vendors need higher margin license fees to reward features, usability, quality, accessibility. Build things a few big customers want, not what the market wants, or what you need.Usability, quality sufferThe model must reward more than hours.
Why would we do something so crazy?Retain price control. Main value is DDS. Long term, maybe we don’t need IC restrictions.Limit competition from service firms & hacks that don’t drive investment. Everyone qualifies. We’re just dividing up the market.Get chance to engage sales up front (!) Honest exposure of pricing, greater value. Increase onramp rate.Creative, risky.But…a great deal for you!
OSS is about Freedom.What is the price?Which Freedoms are worth the price?
Access to source codeDebugging usefulWhen do you want free speech? When your vendor isn’t saying what you want. Musttrust your vendor to keep the code base current. But hack your core infrastructure? => No support, updates. Escrow last resortEven a minute old is too old if it causes a branch.SharingNeeded as part of infrastructure packagesShare changes? => Commit to maintaining code base for othersCommunity contributionsProperly vetted & integrated contributions push progressMust control: provenance, quality, direction
GPL has hundreds of dense legalese paragraphs (!)Everyone worries about copyleft, and with good reason.Patent licenses; limit sharing cuz you risk *your* patentsSubtlties galore. Most corporate paper precludes this license.There’s a bigger problemWe found literally *hundreds* of files in the ACE/TAO/CIAO source code distribution with copyright claims by many different authors and companies. The (relatively new) policy of the ACE/TAO/CIAO group that in principle they will not accept any source code submission containing property right claims. RTI has strict policies: check with legal before you download anything. Examine licenses. Search for viruses on google. We offer full indemnification for our products. We stand behind provenance.Palamida makes a killing investigating this.
Freedom from SurpriseCrisp, reasonable, understandable, upfront, open pricingBounded, known costSimple metricNo royaltiesCharge support only to those who use itSupport costs are inversely proportional to team size (!)
Our customers count on us for weighty things: The core of multi-$b product lines. The success of critical programs. The survival of their compatriots. Infrastructure middleware is a responsibility, and one that we at RTI take very seriously. Our product quality, performance, and reliability are covenants with our customers.We also consider both our license and our pricing as fundamental covenants with our customers. We are fully dedicated to an open, honest, successful relationship. There will be no surprises. We will walk that extra mile, with you, to ensure success.That is also freedom; maybe it should be called freedom from loneliness. Because, in the end, selecting and using infrastructure software is a long journey. It’s a trip you don’t want to take alone.
What’s important to the USER?We believe the Open Community Source model is best for you & best for us.
Free beer, but you have to drive home (build a reliable system)Free speech, to those you care about. No branches. Supported.No free puppyNot real open source. Not “free software”.Zealots will not like IC restriction, mix & match restrictionHave great respect for these models.Unfortunately, they don’t fit this growing, emerging, critical infrastructure market.We can do better. We must do better.Questions?