Businessmodels

FLOSS-based business
models

Carlo Daffara
Conecta

quot;Open source software is the most significant all-encompassing
●

and long-term trend that the software industry has seen since
the early 1980squot; [IDC]
This is one of the conclusions of a recent IDC report [IDC 06],
●

and shows how much the perception of free/libre/open source
software has changed in the recent years. Right now, the
majority of developers in the world are using open source
software [Forr 07], and open source platforms are used by the
majority of companies
This change in attitude comes after the recognition that there
●

are sustainable business models, based on FLOSS, that are
capable of providing a commercial basis to open source
activities
In 1999, Tim O'Reilly, founder of a popular open source-oriented
●

publishing house, gave a keynote speech to an audience of
Fortune 500 executives called quot;ten myths about open source
softwarequot;. Myth #8 was quot;There is no money to be made on free
softwarequot; and it is still sometimes believed today

OpenTTT 1st review
Open-source based business models

Even many researcher have proclaimed in a way or the other
●

that the freely available nature of the code precludes any
potential commercial exploitation. For example, in [Hahn 02]:
quot;The GPL effectively prevents profit-making firms from using any
of the code since all derivative products must also be distributed
under the GPL licensequot;. This of course collides with the economic
results obtained by companies like HP (that in 2003 reported
more than 2.5B$ in Linux-related revenues), or the 400M$
revenues reported in 2006 by RedHat. In [Gosh 06] it is
evaluated that:
FLOSS-related services could reach a 32% share of all IT services
●

by 2010, and the FLOSS-related share of the economy could
reach 4% of European GDP by 2010.
FLOSS directly supports the 29% share of software that is
●

developed in-house in the EU (43% in the U.S.).
FLOSS potentially saves industry over 36% in software R&D
●

investment that can result in increased profits or be more
usefully spent in further innovation

OpenTTT 1st review

The notional value of Europe’s investment in FLOSS software
●

today is Euro 22 billion (36 billion in the US) representing 20.5%
of total software investment (20% in the US).
Similar measures are predicted by independent consulting group
●

like Gartner: in [Gar 06] it is predicted that two years from now,
around 25% of the total software market will be FLOSS-based
(either through external providers, or by internal developments)

OpenTTT 1st review

One of the first categorization of potential business models was
●

designed in 2001 in the work of the European Working Group on
Libre software[DB 00]. The taxonomy, adapted to the recent
developments of the market, is:

Externally funded ventures
●

● Public funding

● `Needed improvement' funding

● Indirect funding

Internally funded or revenue based
●

● `Best knowledge here'' without constraints

● `Best knowledge here' with constraints

● `Special' licenses

Unfunded developments
●

OpenTTT 1st review

Externally funded ventures: We consider in this category
●

groups or companies which develop open source software
through the initiative (at least in the financial sense) of some
external organization. Usually those external entities determine
how the funds are to be spent, and where the development
efforts are headed. The developer entity just follows those more
or less strict guidelines. In some sense, it could be said that the
external entity ‘sponsors’ the development of some given open
source software. In this category, we can distinguish at least
three models, according to who funds the project and why. We
have called them public funding, ‘needed improvement’ funding,
and indirect funding.

OpenTTT 1st review

Public funding: Working groups or individuals receive funding
●

for the development of a good software product, documentation,
test cases or whatever. Usually, the only constraints imposed by
the funding entity are that funds must be used to complete the
project. This is typical of large computer science projects, and
the funding usually comes from universities or from national
science grants. In fact, many large projects in radioastronomy,
computational chemistry, and biology are funded this way. In
addition, some consortium for the development of Internet tools
and technologies have (or have had) such a funding structure. It
is important to notice that in these cases the funding institution
is not expecting to recover the investment, or to directly benefit
from it. Usually, some expectation of social improvement is the
reason for the funding.

OpenTTT 1st review

quot;Needed improvementquot; funding: A company or organization
●

may need a new or improved version of a software package, and
fund some consultant or software manufacturer to do the work.
Later on, the resulting software is redistributed as open source
to take advantage of the large pool of skilled developers who
can debug and improve it. A good example of the advantages of
this model can be found in an article written by Aari Jaaksi, open
source manager at Nokia, describing the experience of designing
the Nokia N770 and N800 products, based on Linux: quot;The
biggest cost savings came from the utilization of already
available components. We utilized several free components ...
with no modifications. We also improved several components to
better meet our requirements. Such improvement is cheaper
than creating the needed functionality from scratch. Some two-
thirds of the code of the Nokia 770 is licensed under an open
source license. These components made it possible for us to
build the software cheaper than we could have done using
closed and proprietary technologiesquot; [Jaak 06] (use of FLOSS can
bring an estimated reduction of 36% in R&D costs)

OpenTTT 1st review

Indirect funding / Loss-leader: A company may decide to
●

fund open source software projects if those projects can create a
significant revenue source for related products, not directly
connected with source code or software. One of the most
common cases is the writing of software needed to run
hardware, for instance, operating system drivers for specific
hardware. In fact, many hardware manufacturers are already
distributing gratis software drivers. Some of them are already
distributing some of their drivers (specially those for the Linux
kernel) as open source software.

OpenTTT 1st review

Internal use: Some projects can get started as a lower-cost
●

alternative to proprietary systems. In this case, the developer
company does not have (at least in the beginning) any plan to
get external income related to the sale of the software or
services related to it. The company develops some system
because it is useful for them, and later decides to make it open
source, and distribute it widely, just to benefit from the open
source development source. Probably they will get some
contributions, improvements and bug fixes from external
developers interested in the software, and some bug reports.
Later on, the product may even reach some market acceptance,
and the developer company could even get some economic
benefits from it.

OpenTTT 1st review

quot;Best knowledge here'' without constraints: In this model,
●

a company works as a paid consultant, with contracts granted
on the basis of the higher level of knowledge of their employees.
Any company can implement this model, as there are no
limitations that prevent a competent technician from gaining an
arbitrarily deep experience of open source software systems. Of
course, this also means that any firm using this model is
exposed to the risk of being superseded by someone else, if the
level of competence is reached but not maintained. This is one
of the pure quot;service basedquot; models, that will be further refined
later on in this chapter.

OpenTTT 1st review

quot;Best knowledge herequot; with constraints: To prevent
●

competitors from quot;stealingquot; customers, a firm can place
arbitrary limitations on the process of knowledge sharing,
through patents or through additional copyrights that are not
conferred in a direct way through the FLOSS license. It can be
implemented by placing under a more restrictive license just a
small (but fundamental) part of the code, usually considering it
as a quot;black box'', or by adding a set of copyrighted materials not
freely redistributable, and adding in the license an obligation to
show them to the end-user (quot;badgewarequot;), thus preventing
others from appropriating the code.
As a special case, there may be a need for external, non-code
●

related conditions (like code certifications) that can be
inherently costly to reproduce, and those can be added to a
code distribution to create a non-transferable asset. An example
is the CODE*ASTER FEM package, or security-certified software
systems.

OpenTTT 1st review

quot;Best code herequot; without constraints: In this model, a
●

company develops some open source code, and sells consulting
and maintenance services on it. This is similar to quot;best
knowledge herequot;, but with an additional advantage in terms of
time, since a competitor needs some months to create a similar
code, or to understand all the intricacies of someone else's
source. This gives a time advantage to the company or group
that creates the software in the first place.
quot;Best code herequot; with constraints/Time-decaying
●

licenses: An interesting twist in licensing for OSS is that of time-
decaying licenses, where a software artifact changes license
with time or with some specific event (for example, the release
of a new version of the code). This model is especially suited to
rapidly changing software or other material (for example,
security and virus signatures) and less practicable for software,
because the old version becomes a basis to create an improved
product that may be competitive with the one under the
commercial license.

OpenTTT 1st review

Dual licensing: One of the few models that have no
●

counterpart in the commercial software world, Dual licensing is
used by companies that want to profit from the companies that
want to use or leverage an open source package without
standing the redistribution conditions of the OS license. For
example, the MySQL database has two licenses, one GPL (for
OSS usage) and a commercial one. The customer that wants to
use MySQL in a commercial product without distributing the
code pays for a commercial license.
Unfunded developments: If there is enough `network effect',
●

there may be no need for funding, just a minimal effort for the
organization of releases and patches. Examples of these kinds of
open source projects are GNU/Linux distributions like Debian,
BSD-based operating systems such as FreeBSD, NetBSD, or
OpenBSD, and the Mesa OpenGL-like library.
Commercial-on-open: a proprietary component on an OSS
●

larger project
Mediation services: interaction with the community
●

OpenTTT 1st review

Specialized Service-based business models: Service-based
●

business models are based on the idea of optimization, that is
the capability by a specialized company to provide a service at
an overall price for the customer that is less than the one the
company would incur in if doing it by themselves.
● software selection (if Off-the-shelf components are used)

● installation

● integration

● technical suitability certification

● legal certification

● training

● ongoing maintenance and support contracts

● at the end, migration from old system to the new one

The FLOSSMETRICS project prepared a survey of 120 OSS
●

companies, and the model used.
6 main cluster were identified:
●

OpenTTT 1st review

Main revenue generation
Main Licensing model
OSS and multiple
Company dual licensing commercial Badgew are Pure OSS packages selection ITSC Subsc ription licens ing
v ersions covered

Funambol l l l

dual lic .
Lustre l l
MuleSource l l l l
Mysql l l l
OpenClovis l l
Pentaho l l l
sleepy catdb l l
A daptiv e Planning l l
A lterpoint l l l
A ltinity l l l
Codew eaver (WINE) l l
Coupa l l
Digium (A sterisk) l l

Split OSS/commercial releases
Enormalis m l l
EnterpriseDB l l
GreenPlum l l
GroundWork l l
Hy peric l l
Jas perSof t l l
Know ledgeTree l l
OpenCountry l l
Open-Xchange l
NoMachine NX l l
rPath l l
Sc alix l l
Sendmail l l
Smoothw all l l
Sourcef ire (SNORT) l l
Splunk l l
SSLEx plorer l l
SugarCRM l l l
TenderSystem l l l
V irtualBox l l
V yatta l l l
XenSource (Xen) l l
Zend (PHP) l l
ZIMBRA l l l
1bizcom l l
Badgew are

CA TS applicant tracking l l
EmuSof tw are/Netdirec tor l l l
Jbilling l l
OpenBravo l l
OpenEMM l l
OpenTerracotta l l
SocialText l l
A lf resc o l l l
Babel l l
CentraV iew l l
CleverSaf e l l
product specialists

Compiere l l l
Ex adel l l
Jitterbit l l l
Mergere l l
Mindquarry l l
Mirth l l
Of BIZ l l
Qlus ters (OpenQRM) l l
Sy mbiot/OpenSIMS l l
Talend l l
UltimateEMR l l
V ISTA l l
vTiger l l
Zenoss l l
platf . Provid.

Jboss l l l l
RedHat linux l l l
Sourcelabs l l l l
SpikeSource l l l l
SUSE Linux l l l
WSO2 l l l
s elec tion –
consulting

ay amon l l l
Enomaly l l l
navica l l
openlogic l l
Optaros l l l
x-tend l l l
CiviCRM l
Other

Ec lipse l
Mozilla l
OSA F Chandler

OpenTTT 1st review
l

Sourcef orge

Dual licensing: the same software code distributed under the
●

GPL and a commercial license. This model is mainly used by
producers of developer-oriented tools and software, and works
thanks to the strong coupling clause of the GPL, that requires
derivative works or software directly linked to be covered under
the same license. Companies not willing to release their own
software under the GPL can buy a commercial license that is in a
sense an exception to the binding clause; by those that value
the “free as in speech” idea of free/libre software this is seen as
a good compromise between helping those that abide to the GPL
and receive the software for free (and make their software
available as FLOSS) and benefiting through the commercial
license for those that want to maintain the code proprietary. The
downside of dual licensing is that external contributors must
accept the same licensing regime, and this has been shown to
reduce the volume of external contributions (that becomes
mainly limited to bug fixes and small additions).

OpenTTT 1st review

Split OSS/commercial products: this model distinguish
●

between a basic FLOSS software and a commercial version,
based on the libre one but with the addition of proprietary
plugins. Most companies adopt as license the Mozilla Public
License, as it allows explicitly this form of intermixing, and
allows for much greater participation from external
contributions, as no acceptance of double licensing is required.
The model has the intrinsic downside that the FLOSS product
must be valuable to be attractive for the users, but must also be
not complete enough to prevent competition with the
commercial one. This balance is difficult to achieve and maintain
over time; also, if the software is of large interest, developers
may try to complete the missing functionality in a purely open
source way, thus reducing the attractiveness of the commercial
version.

OpenTTT 1st review

Badgeware: a recent reinvention/extension of a previous
●

license constraint, that is usually based on the Mozilla Public
License with the addition of a “visibility constraint”, the non-
removability of visible trademarks or elements from a user
interface. This allows the company to leverage trademark
protection, and allows the original developers to receive
recognition even if the software is resold through independent
resellers.

OpenTTT 1st review

Product specialists: companies that created, or maintain a
●

specific software project, and use a pure FLOSS license to
distribute it. The main revenues are provided from services like
training and consulting (the “ITSC” class) and follow the original
“best code here” and “best knowledge here” of the original
EUWG classification. It leverages the assumption, commonly
held, that the most knowledgeable experts on a software are
those that have developed it, and this way can provide services
with a limited marketing effort, by leveraging the free
redistribution of the code. The downside of the model is that
there is a limited barrier of entry for potential competitors, as
the only investment that is needed is in the acquisition of
specific skills and expertise on the software itself.

OpenTTT 1st review

Platform providers: companies that provide selection,
●

support, integration and services on a set of projects,
collectively forming a tested and verified platform. In this sense,
even linux distributions were classified as platforms; the
interesting observation is that those distributions are licensed
for a significant part under pure FLOSS licenses to maximize
external contributions, and leverage copyright protection to
prevent outright copying but not “cloning” (the removal of
copyrighted material like logos and trademark to create a new
product)1. The main value proposition comes in the form of
guaranteed quality, stability and reliability, and the certainty of
support for business critical applications.

OpenTTT 1st review

Selection/consulting companies: companies in this class are
●

not strictly developers, but provide consulting and
selection/evaluation services on a wide range of project, in a
way that is close to the analyst role. These companies tend to
have very limited impact on the FLOSS communities, as the
evaluation results and the evaluation process are usually a
proprietary asset.
The remaining companies are in too limited number to allow for
●

any extrapolation, but do show that non-trivial business model
may be found on ancillary markets. For example, the Mozilla
foundation obtains a non trivial amount of money from a search
engine partnership with Google (an estimated 72M$ in 2006),
while SourceForge/OSTG receives the majority of revenues from
ecommerce sales of the affiliate ThinkGeek site; it is possible to
classify those as “indirect funding” following the EUWG
classification.
This set of common models will probably change in the future,
●

as more and more companies migrate the main revenue stream
from quot;productsquot; to quot;servicesquot;.

OpenTTT 1st review

Thanks

Carlo Daffara
cdaffara@conecta.it

OpenTTT 1st review

Businessmodels

Related slideshows

More Related Content

Businessmodels