This post originated from an RSS feed registered with Java Buzz by Geoffrey Wiseman. Original Post: Sales Pitches: Open Source and Commercial Feed Title: Furious Purpose Feed URL: http://www.jroller.com/diathesis/feed/entries/rss Feed Description: Thoughts and experiences on technology and software. Latest Java Buzz Posts Latest Java Buzz Posts by Geoffrey Wiseman Latest Posts From Furious Purpose

A month or two ago, someone commented that developers respond in very different ways to news postings or seminars that amount to thinly-veiled sales pitches for products when those products are commercial vs. open source. (I believe that comment was on TheServerSide, but I haven't been able to locate it.)

Since then, I've had a lot of opportunity to think about it, and I'd meant to comment on it in more detail. Dion's post on natural selection in open source today reminded me to do so.

Although some people support open source for reasons that verge on religious zealotry, I think the vast core of the support comes from developers who realize that open source projects, especially those with liberal licenses, can make their lives better, and do so right away. The reasons for this are twofold: natural selection and barriers to entry.

Natural Selection
Open source projects, to a greater degree than commercial products, stand or fall on their own merits. If it helps you do your job, do it better, or do it faster, you'll use the software in question. If it doesn't, or some other project does it better, you won't. That's pretty much as simple as it gets.

By comparison, a whole host of other factors are much more likely to apply to commercial products. Cost, licensing terms, support contracts are all a bigger deal in the commercial world. Vendor lock-in becomes a bigger factor, corporate standards, and so forth. This is the natural selection that Dion Almaer is talking about. Not all open source projects are the result of natural selection, and few commercial projects are entirely immune to the effects of that selection, but I believe this weighs in the favour of open source.

Open source software doesn't "want" anything from you per se. They have less to gain from you, other than market share, which is best achieved by fulfilling your needs, as a customer. Yes, eventually, that can lead to sales of support services and professional documentation, but it often doesn't.

For the most part, the people who are using open source software are using it because it solves a problem for them, rather than because it's a mandated part of their organization, or because they paid a lot for it, and thus, feel they have to get their value out of it by using it.

Barriers to Entry
Another reason that developers are more comfortable listening to a pitch for open source is that they believe that making use of the pitched product may be easily accomplished. A new open-source API with liberal licensing terms can make my job easier right away. A useful commercial product would have to be paid for, which would often mean justifying the need, evaluating alternatives, purchase orders, and all of the organizational ballet that that entails.

Exceptions to the rule
These are often subtle distinctions that become blurred as the marketshare of the projects grow, and I'm not saying that it's a black-and-white difference. Some people are using Struts because it's popular, not because they really value its capabilities. And some people are using WebLogic because it really is the best tool for their particular need. Some people can't use an open source tool without having it approved by their organization's software approval board, and others have no trouble getting their employers to purchase the commercial software that they need.

Vibe, and How to Get a Good One
When it comes down to it, the underlying vibe of a commercial sales pitch is, "Let me take some of your money". The vibe beneath an open source pitch is, "Let me help you".

So what can you do, if you're a commercial vendor? Be open. Help developers learn how to use your product. Provide free development versions. Be up-front about what your product costs (e.g. Caucho's Resin). Offer liberal or copyleft terms to non-profits, educational institutions and open-source projects (e.g. Clover). Participate in the community (e.g. Tangosol's Cameron Purdy).