http://port25.technet.com/archive/2008/02/01/does-selling-mean-selling-out.aspxAs an open source business strategy lead here at Microsoft, I am particularly interested in community reaction following acquisition waves like the one we have seen recently (Sun/MySQL, Nokia/Trolltech, SpringSource/Covalent, etc.). While I am interestedenCommunityServer 2007.1 (Build: 40109.1145)http://port25.technet.com/archive/2008/02/01/does-selling-mean-selling-out.aspx#22591Sat, 20 Dec 2008 02:27:49 GMTaf7480c4-26b7-468d-87b0-2acebabb473d:22591electronic commerce<p>Nice blog man! I will definetely bookmark it and read it more often</p> <img src="http://port25.technet.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=22591" width="1" height="1">http://port25.technet.com/archive/2008/02/01/does-selling-mean-selling-out.aspx#4543Sat, 02 Feb 2008 01:40:11 GMTaf7480c4-26b7-468d-87b0-2acebabb473d:4543jkewKey positives of corporate OSS include (in order of value): 1. Resources for QA 2. Better focus on development goals 3. Resources for development Key negatives of corporate OSS (adoption) include: 1. Corporate interests can divide developers: When developers work at competing companies, such as JBoss and Covalent, competitive angst can retard development. Depending upon company culture it could also retard flame-wars, but bussiness pressures creep silently around the code. All in all, this may not be bad, but it can encourage forking in the short-term (See Glassfish). Large projects are subject to more turmoil in this area than modular or mature projects which may not need a large developer base. 2. External developers can end up treated like customers: While you can develop an ivory tower in any project, the corporate ivory tower is less permissive than the community ivory tower. Projects which are complex enough to have natural divisions will not be improved by adding corporate guidance.<img src="http://port25.technet.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=4543" width="1" height="1">