Should You Evaluate Open Source Projects Any Differently?

When we recently updated our "Vendor Subway Map" to include our latest research streams -- Digital Marketing and Broadcast/Media Asset Management - there was some comment as to how we place open source projects amongst commercial vendors. The term "vendor" sometimes causes consternation among open source adherents, yet it's the best single term to describe all those software providers that we cover within our research, regardless of how products/projects themselves are licensed.

Indeed, this is something that we've covered in depth in the past; when we evaluate technology, the license model is certainly on the list -- but nowhere near the top of the list -- of our priorities. We are far more interested in function, institutional intangibles, and potential fit. And from our experience, so are our customers. 

Segregating technology on the basis of how it is licensed is not only backwards, but also makes the mistake of assuming that there are only two license types and two options. Pay or free, open or closed. The reality is far more nuanced than that, as anyone who has had the misfortune to try and compare the plethora of license types in the Open Source world will attest.  Meanwhile, the rise of cloud-based solutions is also transforming license models in the commercial arena.  

Somewhere, someone reading at this point will be shaking their head and saying "...but Matt, you're missing the point. It's not about being free from cost, it's really about having open access to the source code of the technology and the community that maintains it" and they'd be right. Indeed the community bit is particularly important since it both underpins the viability of a project -- something we are very interested in discussing in our research -- and has had the effect of coercing many commercial vendors into bolstering their own user communities. Which can only be a good thing.

Yet, despite all of that, it is the notion of "free" that persists. That persistence perhaps relates to the different economic models at work here. The traditional vendor/systems integrator bifurcation gets muddled with open source. For example whilst Drupal the technology project might not be a commercial exercise, Acquia the company certainly is. The same for Solr and LucidWorks, as well as Hadoop and Cloudera. The reality is that whilst you can download the bits for free and attempt an implementation yourself, to do something really serious you're going to need expert help and you'd better budget accordingly.  

It is true that traditional analyst firms do not cover open source in sufficient depth, not least of all because the open source economic model means that widely-deployed projects fly below the the revenue limits that have traditionally defined whether a particular technology is worthy of consideration.

Our approach has always been different in this respect and will continue to be so. Whilst it is certainly not easy to compare the various ways in which technology gets licensed, supported, and maintained, at least trying to create as level a playing field as possible when evaluating is the fairest way that we know to provide impartial advice.


Our customers say...

"The Web CMS Research is worth every penny!"


Gil, Partner, Cancentric Solutions Inc.
iStudio Canada Inc.

Other Web Content & Experience Management posts

Whither Sitecore Now?

It seems time for an answer to the question: what is Sitecore, really, circa 2023?

TeamSite Marriage Counseling

Some TeamSite implementations linger on, like a really bad relationship you can't seem to end. Maybe it's time for a clear exit?