There was a blog post complaining about IBM stripping functionality out of a blog platform for Lotus that they bought to keep the source code closed. The author laments that IBM is inconsistent in its support for open source.

I was unfamiliar with the software, so I scanned through IBM’s technote on the release to get a feel for how many features were stripped out and why.

IBM listed 5 reasons why they had to make changes:

  • remove Open source code
  • ease support of the template
  • simplify use of the template
  • change the user interface to fit in with IBM standards
  • make Language translation easier

Of the dozen or so features removed or amended in such a way as to prohibit backwards compatibility, two were admittedly due to open source restrictions:

  • Trackback
  • Web Rich Text Editor

Of the others, several were purportedly removed because they were little used and would be too much trouble to port the code. I’d probably be disappointed if I’d been using a blog platform that was acquired by a company and then had features stripped from it. To quote from the aforementioned post:

… it’s a compelling illustration, I think, of the fact that IBM is
only going to use open source where IBM deems it strategically useful
for competitive purposes (i.e., to compete with Microsoft).

But to all the activists who are continually trumpeting about how IBM
has embraced open source software, well, guys, it’s not quite as
ideological as you would like people to think. Most of IBM’s code is
proprietary, especially the stuff they think they can make money at,
such as Websphere. If you really look at IBM’s products, they are going
with open source in those cases where they think they can’t win the
competition with Microsoft.

Those are stinging words. It does seem that IBM’s open source initiatives align well with their strongest competitors. One shouldn’t get too idealistic when trumpeting the virtues of a publicly traded company. IBM’s loyalty and commitment necessarily lie in maximizing shareholder’s wealth. Corporate officers get in trouble when they lose site of that. IBM is a benefactor to the open source community but it is necessarily to their own benefit, both in developing in-house expertise and in altering the competitive landscape. Perhaps they
should at least be consistent across all their divisions so as to not deflate the goodwill they build up through billions of dollars in commitment to the open source community. That would keep criticism like this from ringing so true. I guess IBM has made the decision that they
are more profitable long term by keeping some products and systems closed while opening others and embracing open platforms as needed. Profitably trumps technical ideology even if the closed and proprietary systems don’t get trumpeted by the PR dept.

Tags:No Tags