Microsoft deserves to make money with open source

Is it possible for open source to be too successful?

If you talk to someone working at a company where the majority of their revenues come from software with an open source license, you'll more often than not hear the same thing, even though it is possible, it isn't easy to make money with open source. A new trend has established itself, one in which large firms use open source components for the commodity building blocks to develop their software. They can then spend less on these areas, more on areas that differentiate them, and thus be more competitive. This has much goodness, but there are potential risks. Read on.

Some companies such as IBM, Intel, HP, Redhat, Novell, Google, and even Oracle have been progressive in their thinking and recognized the potential for open source. This is evident when considering the contributors to the Linux kernel. The potential remains for large firms to take without giving back thus sending chills down the spines of the smaller firms working to make a living with open source software. Matt Asay describes this scenario using Microsoft in his blog.

This scenario reminds me of FUD spread about open source back in the mid 90's. That FUD implied open source would fork itself to death. That so many variants would emerge that community effort would be spread so thin that it could not compete and there would be no clear variant worth targeting for application development. I recognize the threat as well, however I am a firm believer in trend data and more than a 15 years later, I see a much stronger open source business world than the one from the 90's. I also see a strong evolutionary model where weak open source projects have been replaced by stronger ones.

Perhaps I am being naïve, but I think Microsoft getting involved with open source is a good thing. They deserve their tarnished reputation for ruthless business practices over the past couple of decades. However, perhaps Microsoft too will move to collaborating on commodity components and thus the open source community grows that much larger. At the very least open source is validated when one of the staunchest detractors starts supporting it - even in a limited manner. I'll go out on a limb to make the bold statement that Microsoft should have the same right to make money from open source as Redhat, Google, IBM, or others. Yes, this sounds weird, almost blasphemous, but I think it's true. Maybe in time they'll contribute back on the same level as Google, IBM, and others.