Jonathan has an interesting blog where he engages the topic of commoditization of software. He rightly points out that the elements of true commoditization as outlined in Ross Mayfield's blog do not really exist in software. And Jonathan has pointed out before that it really isn't about open source, it's about open standards.
Well, if Jonathan's right (and I believe he is), why is Sun involved in open source at all? For that matter, why is anybody?
I think first it's important to define the term "open source". The Open Source Initiative has seen fit to create a rather lengthy and specific definition of what constitutes "open source". The Free Software Foundation prefers to define similar concepts as "Free Software" rather than "open source", but is clear that "open source" means:
1) access to source and
2) rights to create and distribute modifications free of charge.
The OSI even goes so far as to create a list of "approved licenses" that it has determined meet this criteria. But for my purposes, since the discussion of what is or is not "open source" always boils down to the license itself, I'd prefer to simply refer to "open source" as any licensed technology that generally meets the above 2 criteria.
But remember that these are licenses generally executed by developers and the commercial companies that employ them, not the end users and consumers of the products built by these developers. End users of products based on open source typically execute some sort of end user agreement rather than an open source license directy. So clearly, "open source" is about developer adoption more so than end user adoption (although the two are quite clearly related).
Which brings me (finally :) to my point - it's not about open source or even open standards, it's about "open development". Open development is not simply making code available via one of the OSI approved licenses. It's about creating a community of developers that represent varying interests (commercial and non-commercial), harnessing their interests and efforts and advancing the technology based on collective priorities and requirements. Open development is hard work. It requires significant investment on the part of an original contributor and a set of project leads and maintainers that keep the project moving forward and meeting customer requirements. It is really no different than traditional commercial development from an overall effort standpoint, but it is open to all (not just a particular commercial interest) and it is controlled collectively rather than autocratically. Also, it tends to be an "early and often" process (i.e. code is made available early in the development cycle and is contributed continuously as the code is developed).
There are many examples of successful open development, the most notable of which is Linux itself. Notice that what I'm getting at is that Linux and its components are successful because of open development, not open source (although the former depends on some form of the latter). Sun execs - pay attention.
This is not to say that only open development projects will be successful. OpenOffice.org, MySQL and Ximan's Evolution are all open source projects that have arguably been very successful in their respective markets with little or no contributions from anyone other than the original contributors.
Nor is it to say that all open development projects will be successful. But I believe that increasingly the success or failure of new initiatives will focus on the ability of companies to create and harness open development communities that are enabled by open source. This is at the heart of Sun's recent decision to open source Project Looking Glass. And the nature of Sun's focus on "Network Computing" means that we will continue to drive the infrastructure and ubiquity of open, collaborative networks on which these communities are based. If we can figure out how to harness open development as well, there's no stopping us.
