Speech vs. Beer: Why All Open Source Projects Are Not Equal

September 12 2009 6:48 PM by Adam
filed under ColdFusion

Adam Tuttle wrote up a really insightful entry on what "Free" software really means to market adoption (and how it relates to ColdFusion). I think his gig at the Wharton School of Business might be rubbing off on him. This is a subject I spend a lot of time discussing/researching (too much if you ask my wife), so I wanted to add a little bit of color of my own. My comment is a bit off topic so I figured it would be best to spin-off my own entry.

Go read Adam's article first.

Wow. You're a fast reader! Did you really read that whole thing? Ok, well… it's your loss if you are just skipping ahead.

---

In response to Matt's comment:

Calling OpenBD an "unwanted stepchild" completely dismisses the massive amount of work happening with OpenBD

I have to agree with Matt regarding the "unwanted stepchild", it does undermine the incredible amount of work people are putting into the project for _zero_ financial gain. However, at the same time, I don't think Adam was making that claim himself, but remarking on the general opinions of this community (which is very unfortunate).

I'm a really big fan of open source when it's "free as in speech" but I find myself becoming more and more critical of professional open source or "free as in beer".

Speech vs. Beer

"Free as in speech" and "free as in beer" is often a common analogy when talking about the different flavors of free open source software (FOSS). The definition of free is very different based on its relation. "Free as in speech" refers to the freedom you have to say whatever is on your mind without censorship. "Free as in beer" uses the term in relation to costing no money. If you see me at Adobe MAX, I'll likely buy you a beer (gratis) while I listen to you speak your mind (libre) about what features need to be added in ColdFusion 10.

On the "speech" side you have Apache/Eclipse/IBM-types and on the 'beer' side you have RedHat/Jboss/SpringSource1 side. The "speech" side isn't controlled by a single vendor; it's usually a committee that is driven by a clear 'open' mission often to obtain several goals. On the "beer" side you have a single company who has complete control of the project (usually to so they can extract financial gain).

The projects on the "speech" side are nearly restriction free. You can pretty much do whatever you want with a "speech" project, including repackaging and selling for financial gain. On the "beer" side they are tons of little "gotchas" put into place to support financial objectives. The great thing about "speech" projects is that they can even become "beer" projects. IBM, a contributing member to Geronimo, added some additional enterprise-focused features to create WebSphere Community Edition. Of course, it doesn't always end up open source as Unix set the foundation to everyone's beloved OSX.

The "speech" projects have published road maps and access to nightly builds. The "beer" products have NDAs and release builds on their own private schedule (usually to insulate financial objectives).

Where CFML Comes In

The reason I bring this difference up is because I think OpenBD could change a lot of opinions if they truly endorsed the "speech" side of OSS. Right now, it seems OpenBD is straddling the middle. Matt mentioned several new features, but it seems like they are a secret (even to the OpenCFML board). OpenBD also has an incredibly limiting license (GPL) that only permits its use in certain scenarios. If the OpenBD team brings value to CFML, the license prohibits Adobe and Railo (or anyone who isn't under GPL themselves) from leveraging that hard work. Railo is clearly on the "beer" side following in the footsteps of their beloved JBoss, so that leaves a big opportunity for OpenBD (and the CFML community) on the "speech" side.

So my open question to the OpenBD Team is:

Is the motivation of the OpenBD team based in raising the quality of CFML, or is it a conscious effort to take CFML market share from Adobe? The latter is the type of objective I'd expect from the "beer" side, but not the "speech" side.

This isn't meant to be a shot across the bow towards a CFML competitor, but more of a rally call to the team behind it. Based on discussions I've had with some of the OpenBD team members, I really believe there are some who are truly motivated by "speech", but I suspect there are others who go well beyond "beer" and into the realm of "anti-Adobe/ColdFusion".

In my opinion, keeping the name/brand BlueDragon while New Atlanta runs Google Ads aimed at moving CFML applications to .NET doesn't help alleviate the false perceptions most have of OpenBD. Honestly, the New Atlanta homepage is so over-the-top anti-CFML, that I can't even believe guys like Matt are even involved with a project that shares a name.

---

As a side-note: Please don't think my OSS opinions are purely in regards to OpenBD/Railo and the ColdFusion community. We include a ton of open source software in ColdFusion so I've gotten to deal with all different flavors of projects/teams. I have to say, I'm really attracted to the passion of the "speech" guys. They are usually happy to contribute and honored we want to share their work with our community. The "beer" side tends to feel hassled and more concerned with support contracts and financial gain. Of course, we are committed to include only the best in ColdFusion. Sometimes that means we pay for proprietary code (DataDirect), sometimes we leverage "speech" projects (Axis) but sometimes we go with "beer" projects (Hibernate).

1 To be fair to SpringSource, they use a very "speech" friendly license (Apache), but SpringSource/VMWare controls the roadmap and project direction so I qualify Spring as "beer".

Comments

Adam Tuttle

Adam Tuttle wrote on 09/14/09 10:02 AM

Hey, thanks for the shout-out. It seems like you did a much better job of explaining what I was trying to say than I did. I'm going to have to link you now, but I hope people don't get caught in an infinite loop. ;)
Mike Brunt

Mike Brunt wrote on 09/14/09 2:14 PM

This along with Adam T's article is so very well articulated. My thought point, as stated elsewhere, is that we should be attracting PHP (and other) developers to CFML and that openBD and Railo could be arbiters of that simply because they do "afford" a low cost entry into CFML, low cost and capable in terms of some true usable capabilities, whereas the ColdFusion developer edition has limitations in terms of user usage. However, it is of absolutely no benefit to the CFML community if all that happens is that clients change from one version to the other. I also have another controvertial opinion, that if Adobe decided to can ColdFusion completely, that CFML would eventually die.
Adam Haskell

Adam Haskell wrote on 09/14/09 5:04 PM

Short answer: Our motivation is not taking market share from Adobe.

Long answer and additional thoughts:

http://cfrant.blogspot.com/2009/09/openbd-is-free-as-in-speech.html
Jeff Gladnick

Jeff Gladnick wrote on 09/14/09 5:15 PM

Can't agree more with Mike. Railo/OpenBD are perfect for attracting college kids where 10$ is too much money, or php developers or people who prefer open source. Adobe cannot do that as long as its charge for CF and its closed source, so I think its quite complimentary.

I tend to prefer Railo if I have my choice, but I do quite a bit of work in CFMX 7/8 for various clients. I also have one client running BD.net, and another running bluedragon jx.

So adobe is doing the right thing with the cfml roundtable group and working on full features. for someone with a foot in each sector, i highly appreciate this.

As for soliciting feedback, allow me to put <cfset var ... > statements anywhere inside of a cffunction (can i do this in 9?). Feel free to treat me to a beer! :)
rob

rob wrote on 09/14/09 5:38 PM

I don't think you understand the spirit of "free as in speech" vs "free as in beer". All the projects you listed, if they are offered under an open source license, are free as in speech. Winzip, on the other hand, is "free as in beer".

I think you are confusing the ability to take other peoples code and sell it as your own as "Free as in speech" which is really perverting the concept IMHO.

I'd recommend checking out the four points listed on the FSF page on what constitutes free as in speech: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Jordan Michaels

Jordan Michaels wrote on 09/15/09 12:35 PM

I can honestly say that "taking CFML market share from Adobe" has never even entered my mind as a member of the OpenBD Steering Committee. Nor has any discussion I've ever had with any other Steering Committee member led me to believe that anyone else on the committee even thinks about that sort of thing when working on OpenBD. The question itself is just silly.

I am a member of the committee because I love CFML. I want the masses to embrace it like I have. Any work I contribute to OpenBD or to Railo for that matter, is purely an effort to make CFML more accessible to everyone in the hopes that they will come to appreciate the CFML language like I do.

I applaud Adobe's efforts with what they're doing with CFML. I was incredibly excited when I heard about Adobe's educational initiatives when they were announced at 2008's CFUnited (How's that going btw?). I've always believed CFML in schools was a GREAT idea.

I think commercial engines and free engines can prosper side-by-side. We're all on the same side really - trying to grow the CFML community. Let us help you. =)
Vince Bonfanti

Vince Bonfanti wrote on 09/15/09 2:30 PM

RE: "...the New Atlanta homepage is so over-the-top anti-CFML..."

I understand why you choose to think that, but there's nothing on the home page (or anywhere on New Atlanta's web site) that says, "CFML sucks" or "you really should switch from CFML to ASP.NET". What is says is, "If you're looking to migrate from CFML to ASP.NET, then we have a solution for you."

I know it's difficult for you to comprehend that there are people who want to migrate from ColdFusion to ASP.NET, but they are. We're supplying a product and services to meet that demand, we're not creating that demand (in fact, it's clear to me that Adobe--and Macromedia before them--have done more to create that demand than New Atlanta has). And, we're providing a solution that allows them to continue using both CFML and ASP.NET; while you may choose to interpret this as anti-Adobe or anti-ColdFusion, it certainly isn't anti-CFML.

You also seem unaware that "the incredible amount of work people are putting into the (OpenBD) project for _zero_ financial gain" is being done primarily by New Atlanta employees who are being paid to work on OpenBD. That's hardly anti-CFML.

Finally, your main complaint about the GPL license is that it "prohibits Adobe...from leveraging that hard work (for no cost to Adobe)." Yes, absolutely it does, and that's not going to change. We--and the GPL authors--believe in "share and share alike" or "no taking without giving." If you'd like to leverage the hard work that went into OpenBD, I'm absolutely certain the copyright owners will grant Adobe a commercial-friendly license after negotiating the appropriate financial terms. You have my email address.

Regards,

Vince Bonfanti
New Atlanta Communications, LLC
Adam Lehman

Adam Lehman wrote on 09/16/09 6:53 PM

You know Vince, the intent of this post was to try and change public opinions about OpenBD for the _better_. However, I think you've done the opposite with your comment.

The ColdFusion community seems to think that multiple open source engines are redundant, and that Railo holds most of the value in the space. What I was trying to do was explain that open source projects are different so having multiple isn't necessarily a bad thing. The "beer" or professional open source products have revenue and a dedicated engineering and support team which means they can innovate faster and deliver solutions that better meet the needs of their customers. The "speech" side has the disruption effect. Since they aren't tied to anything, they can innovate in any direction and don't have to worry about bottom lines. Both have benefits of their own, so both could bring their own value to the same community.

You of course just re-aligned OpenBD right next to Railo... a competition in which OpenBD is clearly the lesser. Further more, NAs involvement is the primary issue most have with OpenBD. However, you just underscored that extemely well. I'm sorry to hear that you lack so much support for the project that you have to pay people to work on it.

You know, time goes by, the dust settles and you start to change your opinions. Then *BAM*. Vince is back on your blog reminding you why NA is the worst thing that ever happened to CFML.