Closed, open and ajar

Aliaksandr Valialkin at VictoriaMetrics compares open and closed source software licences

Open source software underpins huge portions of the internet. The world’s largest mobile phone operating system and everything that runs on Linux are built with open source software at the core.

Open source represents the ideal of the internet. In the early days of file transferring, there was an argument that online piracy wasn’t stealing because when stealing something, you deprive the original owner, whereas when something is downloaded on the internet, there are simply more in existence. The courts did not care for this argument, and the ability to enforce copyright on the web soon followed. 

Closed source was the default format for software for a long time, and the security benefits were obvious. It’s easier to make something secure if the specifics of the code are concealed, which was valid reasoning until more recent times.

In between these two philosophies, there are a few other kinds of licence that businesses are employing, such as copyleft or dual licences.

Interestingly, firms that have traditionally made closed source software are implementing more open source features. While firms that started as open source projects are locking parts of their offering behind a more restrictive licence to appease shareholders. 

Open source

Open source is an easy sell, it’s free! The main challenge is that it has no commercial support or guarantees and therefore the cost to a business is the time and expertise it takes to set it up. However, most significant open source projects have large communities that are often more helpful than a corporate support line.

Equally, when hosting infrastructure, it’s easy to retain control of data, meaning that responsibility lies with the business when it comes to cyber-security, any service level agreement (SLA) is internal, and any further support will be new hires or a temporary agency.

Alternatively, some companies that offer open source products unbundle support from the product itself. For many firms this allows them to purchase only the level of support they will need. In addition to this, on an open source licence there is no obligation to run the very latest patches: this can be useful for maintaining integrations in many industries. 

Open source managed

The open source managed solution seems to be the best of both worlds. A fully open source platform needs the knowhow to make it run, and comes with the downside of a lack of support. It’s nobody’s job to make sure the stack runs smoothly. One way a business can mitigate these issues is by buying a managed version of open source software.

This adds some fixed costs, but in exchange for a direct line of communication with the developer team. The support is often the same or better value than hiring the expertise required in house, with fewer obligations for the business. It still has the same risks - bad actors editing the code etc. But in the case of something going wrong, not only is there help on hand, but internally there is somewhere to point the finger when things go wrong.

Additionally, open source projects benefit from the passion and free time of some of the best engineers on the planet. Their features are shaped directly by their users who ask the right questions, and provide direct experience of the software. This results in a more flexible and robust product, ready for the real-world in practice, not on paper.

Business source licence

The BS licence is positioned as the solution to financing when developers want to give away a product for free. By restricting only the commercial use of the product, it is possible to finance the development of the tools. Small firms and individuals still have access and in theory, but only at the point where it would be affordable does a business need to start paying for its use.

The reason that a business source licence is considered in the same world as open source, is because the source code should be accessible, allowing users to modify and distribute the software as they see fit. The idea is then that over time the project transitions to open source, or at least avoids the issue of vendor lock in.

However, this has still caused consternation because BS licence products often associate with open source, but without the same degree of altruism. If someone has to become a customer in order to use a product in a commercial capacity, then what’s really being offered is a generous free trial.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to make a living from an invention, but that’s why open source developers are held in such high regard, and BS licences seem to many an attempt to steal that thunder. 

Closed source

The industry standard, closed source software, is a normal corporate entity. The source code is inaccessible or at least unmodifiable (without breaking the EULA), and firms cannot distribute or modify the software without permission. Users are tied to one vendor which collects a retainer in exchange for maintaining a facility that the business uses.

This philosophy underpins the massive SaaS market, and the benefits are obvious. An SLA can be established to insure against downtime. For management there’s someone to hold accountable for loss of revenue  if things go wrong.

However, the strength of closed source is also its main weakness. If there’s a challenge the engineering team cannot handle, you’re out of luck. The resources to handle outages are constrained by the capability of the firm providing the licence. 

Decision time

Deciding what kind of tool a business should deploy is not as simple as ranking options as better or worse. Each licence should be thought of as its own market. Firms and users alike generally don’t have the same expectations of open or closed tools, which makes an apples to apples comparison difficult.

Overall, the main constraints will be budget, something where open source is hard to beat. However, for firms with lots of budget, or those that want to help develop proprietary tools, closed source might be a better option as it does offer legal recourse against unlawful use of a product. It’s important to temper the word of the law with the reality of its implementation.

If a company thinks that making a closed source option will protect it from having years of hard work cloned by a larger business, don’t hold your breath: that hasn’t been supported by recent history. 

Aliaksandr Valialkin is CTO and Co-Founder of VictoriaMetrics

Main image courtesy of iStockPhoto.com