Update to “good regulation”….

Wow. Talk about precient timing.

At the Linux Foundation Conference happening right now, one of the most successful companies to figure out how to work within the Linux community AND commercialize was scolded: “IBM, the first and biggest IT vendor to champion Linux, has been gently rebuked for initially tolerating the community to further its own interests.”

In my original post I had asked “what is success going to be measured by?” stating that “‘If success’ is measured by profitable installed base, it could be hard to achieve in such a unpredictable blend of pragmatism, commercialism and ideology with no clear single unifying decision maker setting direction”

James Bottomly: The biggest success of Linux was drawing on more than just a core set of contributors, he said. “It’s almost the lifeblood of the OS,” he explained.”

IBM, like any company that is ‘for-profit’, is going to attempt to figure out how to justify the commercial value of their employee contributions and efforts. “Return on investment” is not inherently evil, it’s simply what is rational to expect from them as a corporate entity. In a sense, it’s what they are “paid to do” by the market.

The Linux Foundation objective appears to be to get more community contributions. Pragmatically, statements are made implying an understanding that contributors contribute because it allows them to contribute as it benefits them.

Ex quote from another blog by Gerrit Huizenga who was taking notes at this event: “James Bottomly states ‘If your itch involves contributing in the Peer to Patent project, that adds value to you and thus to the community that you are a part of’ “….

And: “some people are predisposed towards certain strengths, such as python programmers or documentation writers or graphics artist”

However, when a corporation contributes as it benefits the corporation, there seems to be some discomfort.

 It’s phenomenal to develop the Linux product and the skills of the individuals within the community. Realistically it’s very difficult to find a large number of individuals who do not work for a corporation (so they are free to develop to individual interests and skills) OR to find a corporation that sponsors a large set of individuals to contribute as their interests,  not the corporate needs guide them….

I’m not sure what the right strategy is here, but it is interesting to watch the ‘debounce’ fluctuating between “get more commercial partners contributing” and the  continued disappointment when commercial partners contribute as it serves their commercial ends first and foremost.  

What could  convince the reluctant and uncertain to do more contributions? Perhaps more clear boundary lines around what specifically  ‘community member benefit’ refers to. Just be clear whether it refers to only individual developers or could also refer to a corporation as a whole. Maybe that one slight clarification can encourage  newcomers to increase their use of  and contributions to Linux.  In a business environment already fraught with risk, definition in either direction can only help clarify the environment by making the risks and decision points clear and manageable instead of murky and unknown.

My opinions are my own and do not reflect those of Intel Corporation.