IBM, Microsoft and open source citizenship

While reading this post on zdnet, I was struck by the fact that IBM has managed to position itself extremely well in the eyes of both the general public and the IT community. How is it that everyone has succumbed to the same delusion – that IBM and Microsoft are two different beasts with two different modi operandi?

This is simply not the case. Both companies are intensely protective of their core business. They both happily apply for software patents (some of them ludicrous) and are fiercely protective of their source of revenue, utilizing all avenues available. And both companies cooperate with the open source community – or not, if that suits them. It seems that IBM is just better at hiding its non Open Source friendly activities.

I’m sure you’re thinking that this can’t be right but the truth is that they hide it well). Just look at the mainframe market. And before you ask, no I am not concentrating on some minor part of IBM’s business. Proprietary mainframe software, hardware and related services constitute nearly a quarter of IBM’s annual $100 billion revenue. You cannot, as some have done, judge IBM’s open source commitment by looking at markets that are adjacent to its core business or where they have no share – we need to look at areas, where it would hurt them to change their business model.

If we now apply the author’s statement “But when was the last time IBM sued an open source vendor or even threatened to do so?” to this area, suddenly things are in a different perspective. IBM controls all aspects of the mainframe and there is no discussionabout sharing code here. The last time someone tried to produce mainframes that interoperated with the IBM system (PSI), IBM sued them rather than sharing, or even licensing, the code., IBM have also aggressively blocked Open Source mainframe solutions such as Hercules from running on their platforms allowing them to maintain their dominance in the mainframe market. Hercules, for example would have allowed customers to run mainframe workloads on alternative platforms, effectively allowing mainframe software to be run on PCs. “

This uncompromisingly tough stance, in comparison,  with the other beast discussed here  who seem to have been beaten into licensing their family jewelry. So why does no-one in the OSS community pick up on this? If we are calling for open source software, why not open architecture?

 

Regards, Per

Comments

[software development london]

Nice post,

Nice research on open source citizenship

Keep up the good work