• Michael Tiemann — Chief Technology Officer, Red Hat Software
  
• Jim Ready — Founder and CEO, Montavista Software
  
• Jean Labrosse — Senior Technical Staff, Dynalco Controls, author
  
• Bill Gatliff — freelance embedded developer
  
• John Fogelin — VP Technology, Wind River Systems
  
• Don Chouinard — Windows CE Product Manager, Microsoft

The event began with opening statements from the panelists.

Turley (session moderator) — Maybe the the purpose of open source software is this: “What the hell. Why not write code, give it away (as open source), and let other people debug it for me?” What do you think . . . ?

Gatlif (freelance developer) — Open source is what works for me. The tools work better. I make my living using the GNU tools, so that's important. Also, as a developer, I feel strongly that nobody knows more about my system than I do. I can't afford to leave it to a proprietary RTOS/OS vendor to solve my problems. That's why open source is so essential to me in my work.

Chouinard (Microsoft) — If you're looking for, fast time-to-market, low cost, long term viability, support, foot-print modularity, continued technology innovation, and OS scalability, then we at Microsoft have what you need. If source code is an issue, we'll even provide you with access to the source of the OS (unspecified Ts & Cs) — however, for reading only (not for modifying).

Tiemann (Red Hat) — Open source = read, modify, share. Open source implies constant peer review. Open source isn't something done by a company; it's a community process. Red Hat software is 100% pure open source. I've noticed, lately, that I'm not hearing so many complaints about VxWorks and pSOS now that the talk has begun to focus around using embedded Linux. EL/IX offers a new standard that provides open source OS/RTOS capability accross all levels of application on a broad spectrum of post-PC hardware.

Labrosse (Dynalco Controls) — I design embedded systems using open source software and have written two books on the subject. I give source away to everything I've written.

Fogelin (Wind River Systems) — Let's face it. The really important questions, that you as a developer need to consider, are . . .

Ready (MontaVista) — As the cofounder of the world's first proprietary RTOS company (Hunter & Ready; VRTX), and now the founder of MontaVista Software, I strongly believe that wave of the future is 100% pure Linux — royalty free, and open source. My goal with MontaVista is to take Linux where VRTX went, generating income from support and subscriptions, not from royalties.

Next came the audience Q&A session . . .

Q: Member of audience — How can a company make money if it gives away its product?
A: Ready — Of course we need income. But we just don't get it from royalties. Instead, we sell subscriptions to our customers, based on how many developers are working with the product we supply, and on what level of responsiveness they require.
A: Tiemann — In reality, complex customer relationships are not readily represented by royalties, anyway.
A: Chouinard — If you do the work, you should get the money for it.

Q: Member of audience — How will I eat, if I write open source code?
A: Tiemann — Red Hat will hire you!
A: Ready — MontaVista, too!

Q: Member of audience — What is the incentive to perfect/improve your open source code, if you don't get paid to do it?
A: Ready — Don't forget, not everything associated with an open source kernel (e.g. Linux) must itself be open source. There are also tools, which can be licensed and proprietary.
A: Gatlif — When you contribute to the open source pool, you get back from that community in many ways. For one thing, you're likely to receive bug reports. Also, of course, you get to take advantage of open source from the pool.

Q: Member of audience — Would Microsoft lose any competitive advantage if they published their source?
A: Chouinard — Face it: it's cheaper to file a bug report (and have us fix it) than fix it yourself. We hold a lot of patents and copyrights that restrict what can be done with our source. Incidentally, we do make a policy of providing source to device drivers, where there isn't the intellectual property issue to be concerned about.

Q: Member of audience — Does the publishing of source code force developers to meet a higher standard (because the whole world can study what you've done)?
A: Tiemann — Absolutely!

Editor's conclusion . . .

All in all, the audience seemed relatively confused and uncertain about the definition and benefits of open source software — both before and after the session. Neither the moderator nor the panelists were very crisp at communicating the key issues or their positions on them. Instead, the session quickly degenerated into a couple of hours of marketing hype and mud-slinging, with opposing sides taking sharply worded pot shots at each other.

Maybe at the next ESC, we could have a more focused debate. Hey, how about a pair of two-person teams, with well thought-out positions, judged by a panel composed of members of the press? In short: a real opportunity to debate the significant issues of open vs. proprietary software.

See you next ESC!

 
This article was originally published on LinuxDevices.com and has been donated to the open source community by QuinStreet Inc. Please visit LinuxToday.com for up-to-date news and articles about Linux and open source.