Open Sources | Rodrigues & Urlocker » The semasiology and onomasiology of open source (r0ml redux)

January 23, 2006 | Comments: (0)

The semasiology and onomasiology of open source (r0ml redux)

TAGS: Open Source

At the recent SDForum executive open source event, the morning panel included a discussion of the meaning of "open source business." Tim was the first to push back on the traditional definition of an open source business, suggesting that Amazon.com, Google, and others who integrate open source into their businesses should (or, at least, could) be considered open source businesses. And Microsoft, because it contributes code, can be, too. Simon Phipps of Sun, for his part, noted that they have six (or was it seven?) categories of open source companies, one of which includes the Web 2.0 company that merely uses open source.

This is a way of conducting semasiology (r0ml redux): Start with an expression or word, in this case "open source," and try to figure out what we mean by it.

Now, despite the fact that I've been guilty of "mashing up" the definition of open source with Web 2.0-ish companies (like RightNow), I think I was wrong to do so. If we stretch the definition of open source business that far, then its meaning (and utility) becomes meaningless (and drops to zero). We use language to identify, among other things, and "open source business" means essentially nothing if it's used to define everything.

What we need to do, as a complement to semasiology, is engage onomasiology, wherein we start with the meaning of the word or expression and then look for the proper way to name it. (Else, Tim will end up squeezing the Web 2.0 conference with OSCON, and OSCON 2.0 and a lot less money. :-)

Open source implies more than mere use or integration of open source code into one's closed product. To me, "open source" implies liberty with the source, and not simply cost savings by free riding on open source projects. The right expression for this sort of Web 2.0 integration is "Borrowed source" or "Layer IP on top of the source code and forget about it". "Open source" really isn't a good fit, because the code isn't open (Google isn't releasing its Linux modifications, last time I checked) and isn't fundamental to how the customer acquires and interacts with the product.

Now, following the OSI open source definition, I'd like to propose a meaningful definition based on the words themselves and what we've traditionally associated with open source. At its core, the OSI definition speaks to the value of source code access and redistribution. I'd therefore define an open source company as one that has distribution, modification, and evolution of (open access) source code core to its business model and to its financial success.

Does this mean that all of its code must be open? No. Does it mean that it can't be a Web 2.0 company that heavily borrows open source code? No.

What it means is that there must be an integral, active component of contributing back source code in a publicly-accessible manner. That give-and-take of source code must be fundamental to the product and the distribution model - it cannot be an afterthought or pro bono. Or, to put it more succinctly (as Scott Dietzen says), an open source company "is a company that's business model fundamentally depends on delivering open source software."

Agreed.

However, let's also be clear that the fact that one is open source is not a magic elixir that somehow makes the business special. It just means that we've accurately defined it. Whether it's a dog of a business that deserves to implode is another matter entirely....(I only say this because I think we need to be careful to not use "open source" as a label that conveys intrinsic value. I like open source, but I don't like all open source projects or companies simply because they're open source.

Posted by Matt Asay on January 23, 2006 10:15 AM

RATE THIS ARTICLE: