How to explain Open-Source to your boss?

Question

My boss was in the past not really interested in Open-Source. He always was fine, if we developers used a library or framework, that came at no cost. But he was never interested in details.

But some customers talked about Open-Source and so he got the idea, that such a thing exists. Recently he surprised us, because he wanted to make a talk to us about open-source and a open-source-strategy for our company.

So he told us about a system for licensing our software in the future. This system included registering for downloads and that nobody was allowed to give the code to third parties and really no one is allowed to change the code without our permission. So I said that's fine but not open-source and he was a little unhappy about that.

The problem was, that he had really no idea, what open-source is. How do you would explain the concept of open-source to your boss?

Edit: I think my boss has a real problem to understand, that a community of developers without the strong lead of a company. As I see it, he thinks people working in private cannot produce some useful software. Consequently he believed the Apache webserver and Linux were products by Sun. And he looked confused, as I explained that I could take the code from the Apache webserver, change some bits and release this changed webserver as an own product (with other words: make a fork).

I'm sure he don't really wants to release open-source, but he doesn't understand the idea of it, so I look for a way to explain it.

Answer 1

The problem was, that he had really no idea, what open-source is. How do you would explain the concept of open-source to your boss?

We ship software so that every user can get under the hood, fix the things himself and post us a solution — for free.

Answer 2

Let him read the wiki page about open source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_software

Answer 3

The Magic Cauldron by Eric S. Raymond helped me to understand the value of contributing to and/or starting an open source project. It may help you explain the value and decision variables to him.

Edit: The actual paper rather than just the abstract may be found here. Please respect the Copyright notice.

Answer 4

Try and get them to The Cathedral and the Bazaar.

Answer 5

3rd-party access is one of the main purposes for open-source. The remaining distinctions deal with user notification, original author crediting, availability for sale, and some finer points I'm sure I've forgotten. ;)

There are licenses that limit who and how edits can be made -- particularly study licenses, that allow the source to be seen and studied but not altered.

But, regardless, limiting 3rd-party access is defiant of the definition of open-source -- openly available source code.

---

Alternatively, you may look into Shared Source, instead (sounds more like what your boss is wanting).

It still involved 3rd-party access, but this has more of an allowance for denying unregistered access.

Answer 6

It sounds like your boss was describing a source license for your customers. This does have value of course, because it can give customers assurance that the code is high quality. They can do their own code inspection, security auditing, etc.

It can also be an alternative to putting source code in escrow. Some companies put copies of their code in storage, held by a third party so that in case your company goes bankrupt and disappears, the customer has some access to the code so they can take over maintenance in that event. The agreement between your company and the customer should include a clause for this. If you grant a source license to the customer, you can eliminate the third-party escrow service. You just include in the agreement that if your company evaporates, the customer has non-exclusive license to use and modify your code.

Open-source is different, in that everyone has a non-exclusive license to use and modify your code, as soon as you publish it. Your company continues to be healthy in the meantime. The users have to adhere to the terms of the license of course, which could add conditions for usage. GPL for example says any of the customer's modifications must also be made available under a compatible license. BSD, on the other hand does not require this.

Open source does not necessarily mean free. You can charge for code, even though it remains open source. Even GPL permits this. But it's a legitimate question, how can you control or enforce the license if the code is open source?

The best solution is that your business value is based on service or access, instead of simply the code. That is, if the customers are paying a subscription to a news feed, why not make the software that displays the news open source? In that business, maybe you even want the software to distributed widely for free, because it will entice more people to subscribe to your service.

Answer 7

I think your boss might be suffering from buzz-word syndrome without understanding the goals (except "please the customers").

I think that what you should do is not try to explain open source, but rather talk to him about his business strategy (assuming he has control over it and you're a small shop).

If your business model relies on selling proprietary code that gives you a competitive advantage and is never shared with customers, then there is no reason to go open source.

If what you are developing has benefit for others, and your business can make revenue from offering services associated with the code, or if the product might be more successful if others can change or extend it, then open source might be relevant.

Answer 8

Tell him it's a socialist idea and helps undermine "the man."

Answer 9

Here you can find a great EBook that explains how Open-Source works.

It helped me to understand why to spend time/work and how they finance those projects.