I want to offer elaboration on some of my points. My starting premise is that the battle of open source vs proprietary is over. It's now accepted within firms that open source software has a place: it's not whether (to use open source), but how and when.
But with this maturity and acceptance of open source, a new set of considerations have entered into the picture. These considerations were just nore relevant and worthy of consideration for open source projects as late as even a year ago. The maturity of "open source" means that we have entered the "market" completely and inexorably with all that it entails.
Now, let me come back to my distinction between trivial vs professional open source projects. I admit that it was a poor choice of words. The distinction I had in mind is the difference between a project that meets hobbyist's needs vs a a project that aspires to meet market demand. That's not to belittle hobbyists because there might be open source projects that are extremely innovative and push the envelope with new technology or approach. At the other end of the spectrum -- and it is a continuum I believe--might be other projects that not only beautifully fit a market demand but are able to *sustain* their competitive advantage.
One of my principal points is that the rules of the adoption has changed and will continue to change as open source becomes more and more mainstream. The threshold is much higher for adoption. The criteria that we (e.g. MIT Sloan) used four years ago for adopting open source is not the same criteria we would use today. For example, intellectual property and liability is a big issue for firms as they consider open source. If we aspire to play in the "market", then there needs to be a real story on how we are handling this issue. And that story can't be just, "hey we are GPL".
Moreover, the same types of pressures that firms face in trying to maintain competitive advantage also now confront open source projects. Let me quote Michael Porter (Harvard Business School): "Being 'all things to all people' is a recipe for strategic mediocrity and below average performance, because it often means that a firm has no competitive advantage at all."
Now, I am assuming that OpenACS aspires to meet a market demand. I know .LRN certainly does. There are essentially two ways in which firms maintain competitive advantage: low cost or differentiation. For OpenACs and .LRN it's probably not low cost. So, what is our differentiation and what is our strategy for maintaining that differentiation? What are we unique in that buyers value?
I don't want to imply by any means that we (".LRN") have the answers. I wish to suggest that these are some of the questions we should be asking and trying to answer jointly.
Let me come back to the "brutal competition" bit. The good news is that markets are looking to and are now open (no pun intended) to open source products filling the need. The bad news is that we are in a market, which means that we are faced with competition. And, therefore, survival.
Will OpenACS survive as an activity for hobbyists. If that's what the community aspires to, then it's a good bet that it will continue to survive as an obscure and relatively unknown project. If, however, OpenACS aspires to fill a market need, then the jury is still out. But if we find ways to strengthen the partnership between OpenACS and .LRN, while finding our true differentiation, then I am confident that we will have a very combination to play in the market.
