Mark Wilcox's Forum Nokia Blog

Random musings on mobile software development...

An Open Mobile Software Foundation?

Sorcery-ltd | 14 April, 2008 22:30

I'd like to get some feedback from the developer community on something I've been thinking about lately. This post is going to be quite long so please bear with me...

What I like about open source software

A lot of people have written about the benefits of open source software. If you haven't read it, "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" by Eric Raymond is a real classic (he's also expanded it to a book). Much more open development models with more direct and continuous user engagement can only help make better products. Software systems are becoming more and more complex and I don't think it makes much sense for a number of companies to put enourmous resources into developing completely separate competing versions. However, as I think Microsoft have proved - it isn't good for anyone (except the bank balances of a few!) if one company has a near monopoly on a certain type of system. Also, business models need to evolve for digital products that cost almost nothing to reproduce and distribute. I believe the open source model is taking us in the right direction.

What I don't like about Free Software and the GPL

The problem with Free Software is it's free. I know the intention is that it's free as in speech, not as in beer. The trouble is it almost invariably ends up being free as in beer as well (yes I know there are exceptions). This assigns zero monetary value to something which could well be extremely valuable. The main problem with this is that it strongly discourages investment in open source development. Surely open source development would be even more widespread and successful if it had both freedom and more money?

I imagine giant corporations like Nokia (who have always added a lot of value to their products with their software) embracing open source like a small child embracing an elderly female relative - part of them loves the thought and is thinking of the sweets (or cost savings and benefits) while another part is scared of big sloppy kisses (or losing competitive advantages).

For a corporation like FIC semiconductor, with their OpenMoko platform, I can completely see the motivation for investing in free software. Much more than half of the complexity of a mobile phone is in the software - however, if the software is free then all the value for the product goes to the hardware. FIC aren't too great at software but they're really good at making cheap hardware. Free software is perfect for them. I don't feel that the industry converging on a battle to produce the lowest cost hardware is going to be the best thing for users (or the planet) in the long run, although I expect some will disagree.

In a recent speech at OSiM, Ari Jaaksi has fairly openly said that the open source community will need to compromise if they want Nokia to invest in their development and put their code in it's products. Now I'm something of a pragmatist and think there's room for some compromise. I know some will disagree and that is how it should be. Indeed there are many prominent members of the free software community who I would regard as anarchists - I don't think they'd be offended by that either. I'm also not saying it's a bad thing. We need a bit of anarchy to balance the excesses of capitalism (capitalism for running the world is like exams for testing learning & understanding - we know it's not a good way of doing things we just haven't come up with anything that isn't worse yet!).

A Compromise

Now I've laid out my philosophical position (you can wake up now) I'll make my suggestion for a compromise. Do we need an Open Mobile Software Foundation (OMSF) - an independent non-profit organisation created to own the intellectual property generated by open source mobile developers? If all contributors to an open source project assign their copyright to the OMSF then it can use a multi-licensing strategy to both keep the software open AND generate income to pay for testing/signing expenses & most importantly, further open source development. I expect many great developers aren't just in it for the money but rather their interest in the technology and would love to be paid to develop open source software.

The compromise is that not everyone has to open all their source code but those that don't have to pay for the development of more open code. For middleware I think this would work with the GPL and a commercial license. To make it work for applications too though I'd suggest another compromise on the four freedoms. If you don't allow people to distribute OMSF owned applications in source or binary form FOR PROFIT without paying for a commercial license then they can be sold (cheaply) by the OMSF to generate income.

I see this situation not just benefitting open source developers but also innovative independent software vendors with a closed source model. They would get a stable and maintained set of middleware and applications with very reasonable licensing fees that they can use and customise to add value. Hopefully that reduces the up-front investment required to create a product and lowers the risk - encouraging more investment in mobile application development in general. Another potential beneficiary are the networks who get a larger catalogue of applications (which they could also license and sell if they think they can add value through marketing and easier download/installation) and greater uptake of data services.

The general idea would be that anyone could license the software below the cost of developing it themselves and the cost of licensing would depend on the license required (are they going to contribute changes back to the community?) and also the contribution the licensee makes to the community (businesses that contribute code or sponsorship get cheaper licenses).

It would hope that device vendors and networks would see the potential benefits and even sponsor such an initiative. Then again I may just be dreaming...

I've had some early feedback on this idea to say that a foundation model needs a large community but I think that's a bit of a chicken and egg situation (which did come first?). I'd see the foundation as an enabler for the community.

What do you think? Anyone interested in setting such a thing up? Who'd like to work for such an organisation? I'd love some feedback - I've opened a thread on the discussion boards in case there's a lot of debate.

Thanks for reading!

Mark