8 ms·

It's even more interesting to observe the dynamics in this increasingly open source world of software. By deciding to sponsor Spark, I think IBM is becoming pr

by itaysk 11y ago

It's even more interesting to observe the dynamics in this increasingly open source world of software. By deciding to sponsor Spark, I think IBM is becoming practically it's owner, without having to do anything prior to this move. Does it mean it is possible today to "acquire" technology a project by naming your own price?

dlandis 11y ago
> I think IBM is becoming practically it's owner Hmm, why do you think this makes IBM the technology's "owner"? What do you mean by owner exactly?
- itaysk 11y ago
  Maybe owner is not the right word. But IBM is definitely going to be associated with this technology in an exclusive manner. Like when you say Bootstrap or Storm you have to mention it's by Twitter, or when you talk about AngularJS you'd mention it by Google. They are all open and open source, but the main sponsor is always taking over the mind share. In this case I suggest that IBM can become to Spark what Google is for Angular without even being there from the start. Dumb idea? maybe...
DannoHung 11y ago
Doesn't Databricks actually employ most of the core committers for Spark?
- agibsonccc 11y ago
  https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SPARK/Committers https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SPARK/Committers
sixdimensional 11y ago
Really great observation. This is a really interesting phenomenon - existing enterprises taking lead roles in open source projects in such a way that they almost look like they "own it". Not the first time, I mean, RedHat did exactly this with Linux in some ways, for example. Teradata recently made a similar move with PrestoDB - which had Facebook as the owner but no hardcore platform technology development supporter. And MapR did the same with Apache Drill. I have been telling everyone I know my opinion for a long time - open source is not just a movement - it is a strategy. It is amazing the potential for change and/or disruption that open source causes. And, that potential may not always be good - just look at Hadoop fragmentation as an example (although there is a lot of good in that fragmentation as well).
lmm 11y ago
Yes and no. You can steer an open-source project up to a point, but if you turn too far away from what the community wants then they will take matters into their own hands - see e.g. Joyent / node.js / io.js.

by itaysk 11y ago

dlandis 11y ago

> I think IBM is becoming practically it's owner Hmm, why do you think this makes IBM the technology's "owner"? What do you mean by owner exactly?

itaysk 11y ago
Maybe owner is not the right word. But IBM is definitely going to be associated with this technology in an exclusive manner. Like when you say Bootstrap or Storm you have to mention it's by Twitter, or when you talk about AngularJS you'd mention it by Google. They are all open and open source, but the main sponsor is always taking over the mind share. In this case I suggest that IBM can become to Spark what Google is for Angular without even being there from the start. Dumb idea? maybe...

DannoHung 11y ago

Doesn't Databricks actually employ most of the core committers for Spark?

agibsonccc 11y ago
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SPARK/Committers https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SPARK/Committers

sixdimensional 11y ago

Really great observation. This is a really interesting phenomenon - existing enterprises taking lead roles in open source projects in such a way that they almost look like they "own it". Not the first time, I mean, RedHat did exactly this with Linux in some ways, for example. Teradata recently made a similar move with PrestoDB - which had Facebook as the owner but no hardcore platform technology development supporter. And MapR did the same with Apache Drill. I have been telling everyone I know my opinion for a long time - open source is not just a movement - it is a strategy. It is amazing the potential for change and/or disruption that open source causes. And, that potential may not always be good - just look at Hadoop fragmentation as an example (although there is a lot of good in that fragmentation as well).

lmm 11y ago

Yes and no. You can steer an open-source project up to a point, but if you turn too far away from what the community wants then they will take matters into their own hands - see e.g. Joyent / node.js / io.js.