Just when I began to contemplate if the bigger industry players had lost a fundamental understanding of the importance of the long tail and its effect on technology...I hear about IBM stepping into the Web 2.0 / REST / AJAX / Scripting conversation. In this case, IBM has demonstrated an appreciation of the opportunity offered by Web 2.0 and its corresponding long tail. Thus far during the company's launch and promotion of Project Zero it is evident that they are fluent in the language of participation and Web 2.0 quite well.
However, what remains to be seen is if IBM can transition Project Zero out of its infant stages and into general use without relying on a license which resembles an open source software license. Ironically, the task of ramping up and scaling a newly-on-the-scene product is where open source proves its weight in gold, by doing things like knocking down barriers to acquisition and participation. Yet, as Mark so accutely highlighted, Project Zero comes across looking a bit more like 'Corporate Gibberish Generator meets Web 2.0 Bullshit Generator'...not exactly a positive characterization.
Am I insinuating that IBM can't make Project Zero a success without an open source development model? Not at all. However, I am saying that considering the nature of the project (right smack in the middle of the web application development domain) an open source model would have probably drawn more initial traction for and attention to Project Zero. Instead IBM has placed its bets on the Community Driven Commercial Development (CDCD) while making it plainly clear that "Project Zero is a Commercial endeavor and write access is restricted to IBM approved committers." And honestly, it's their prerogative to run the effort regardless of what people like myself might think about. Nonetheless, I believe an open source approach here would have been most prudent over the long haul.
Do I believe that by going this route IBM is essentially putting makeup on the pig with Project Zero and Jazz, all in the hollow attempt to avoid releasing under an open source license? Not totally, but I do question the overriding strategy behind the move right now, considering IBM's diverse involvement with the open source community as well as the overall climate for open source [see: accepting]. So even though I'm of the perspective that open source beats proprietary, hands down when it comes to stimulating growth of a community around any given project, I'm keeping a watchful eye on how this turns out...if anything it will intimate the demand for and efficiency of closed source software communities.
About the blogger: Alex Fletcher is lead industry analyst at Entiva Group Incorporated, a research and analyst firm which concentrates exclusively on the open source software industry. His main focus is working to help clients of all sizes formulate strategy and policy surrounding their use of open source software within the enterprise. Alex has prior experience as a consultant, software engineer and start-up founder. He can be reached at alex dot fletcher -at- entivagroup dot com.
Leave a comment