Saturday, May 19, 2007

OSS Middleware License Sort

I spend a lot of time on next generation architecture. This includes technical analysis, POC work, pilot projects, and then taking the tech mainstream. I am most interested in architectures that are simple that will result in far fewer defects than what we have today (e.g., excessive mapping, translation, co-mingling various state etc.).

I have stated my license preferences before.

They remain the same. I am not opposed to commercial proprietary software if it brings tremendous value to the table and simply can't be done without a more flexible & innovation friendly licensing alternative.

But in terms of middleware, I have come to a recent conclusion. I sort based on license type. I no longer look at commercial proprietary middleware. I have had too much angst in the past due to it and the commercial oss middleware today is fantastic.

For next generation middleware, I see no reason to perpetuate the inferior commercial proprietary model.

All FOSS projects are not alike of course. You have to be very diligent in accessing the accessing the health of the community etc.


Sarge said...

Middleware seem to be becoming like operating systems: enough of a commodity that there isn't enough differentiation to stand-alone as a commercial product.

But I think there is room for both open- and closed-source software. Owning the software you wrote follows from the basic principles of owning the product of your work.

fuzzy said...

Hi Sarge,

Well I think there is plenty of room for commercial oss products in middleware. I need training and support & the software doesn't write itself.

Like I said, I'm not a zealot - I am not against all forms of commercial proprietary software. For example, I don't see how OSS really would work in your industry (Electronic Design Automation) where there are so few customers and the software is so expensive to write.