Aligning Open-Source and Business Goals with Tobie Langel
The Business of Open Source28 Okt 2020

Aligning Open-Source and Business Goals with Tobie Langel

This conversation covers:

  • Laying the groundwork for a successful open-source program office (OSPO).
  • Why legal and engineering are usually the two main stakeholders in open-source projects.
  • Why engineering teams tend to struggle at articulating their perspective on open-source. Tobie offers some improvement tips.
  • How Tobie defines open-source strategy. Tobie also explains the risk of not having an open-source strategy, as well as his process for helping organizations determine the best strategy for their needs.
  • Common challenges that businesses face when deploying open-source software.
  • The secondary — or non-code — benefits of open-source, and why many organizations tend to overlook them.
  • Tips for engineers in non-technology organizations like pharmaceuticals or finance to approach business leadership about open-source.

Links

Transcript
Emily: Hi everyone. I’m Emily Omier, your host, and my day job is helping companies position themselves in the cloud-native ecosystem so that their product’s value is obvious to end-users. I started this podcast because organizations embark on the cloud naive journey for business reasons, but in general, the industry doesn’t talk about them. Instead, we talk a lot about technical reasons. I’m hoping that with this podcast, we focus more on the business goals and business motivations that lead organizations to adopt cloud-native and Kubernetes. I hope you’ll join me.


Emily: Welcome to The Business of Cloud Native. Today, I am talking with Tobie Langel from UnlockOpen, and I wanted to start, Tobie, by just asking, you know, what do you do? Can you give us sort of an introduction to what you do, and how you tend to spend your days?


Tobie: Sure. So, I've been back into consulting for a number of years at this point. And I essentially focus on helping organizations align their open-source strategy with business goals. So, it can be both at the project level—so sometimes helping specific projects out—or larger strategy at the corporate level.


Emily: So, I actually recently had Nithya Ruff, who's the head of the OSPO at Comcast on the podcast. For listeners who don't know, that's an open-source program office. So, are you sort of an outsourced OSPO for companies that aren't Comcast’s size?


Tobie: So, that's a really good question. My answer would be no, but it tends to happen that I help companies build that capacity internally. So, I would generally tend to come up before an OSPO is needed, and help them figure out what exactly they need to build. For OSPO, my pet peeve is companies building OSPOs like they need to tick a checkbox on the list of the things that they have to do to be up-to-date with good engineering practices, if you will.


In general, if you want to be successful, with an OSPO, it has to meet the particular needs of your company, and that's usually kind of hard to figure out if you just leave it to whoever in the organization is more interested in driving that effort. And so essentially, I sort of help in the early stages of that by bringing all of the stakeholders at the table, and essentially listening to them and making sure that what they want out of an OSPO is aligned between the different stakeholders and matches the overall strategy of the company.


Emily: And who are the stakeholders that you're generally talking to?


Tobie: So, essentially, open-sources is strange, for one reason, in terms of how it was adopted in companies from a historical perspective. Adopters have always been essentially engineers who just wanted better tools, or the package or the software that best fitted their current intention, and there's a very, very grassroots process by which companies start using open-source. And what happened at some point is companies sorted to see all of the software, and got concerned, and started trying to assess the risk. And so companies just tended to bring in the legal arm and lawyers at this point. And so to fulfill compliance questions, you bring in lawyers, and then the responsibility of grown-up open-source kind of falls on to lawyers, which tends to be problematic from the perspective of good engineering practice and velocity that you want from your engineering and product side in a company.


And so clearly, the two stakeholders or the two main stakeholders tend to be legal and engineering, and there tends to be a tension between these two sides. And in lots of companies this tension, instead of being resolved to some degree, tends to be won by the legal side that understands business concerns better and is better able to praise or explain what they do in terms of business impact and business risks than the engineering side. And so this equilibrium tends to create OSPOs which are legal heavy, process heavy, and don't really give engineers the kind of freedom that they would need to be effective in their daily engineering practice. And the reason behind that being essentially over exaggerated risk perception of open-source because, to be frank, open-source is not well taught in legal school and clearly not part of the curricular that most lawyers are familiar with when they move into helping tech companies out. So, essentially, I sort of tried to bridge these two worlds.


Emily: I can imagine that being an open-source lawyer, that's a niche, that's a very specific niche.


Tobie: Yeah, actually there's a running joke in that community, which is, “As soon as you get your law degree and you’re an open-source lawyer, you’re one of the 25 best open-source lawyers in the world.”


Emily: [laughs]. That's awesome. Why do you think engineering teams are so bad at clearly articulating their perspective on open-source, and what can they do to improve?


Tobie: So, there are clearly multiple reasons why engineers aren't the best at articulating how open-source matters. So, I think one of the key ones, it's just, it's something that's part of their daily practice, and they don't really understand and never have been taught the actual intellectual property—IP—impact, that open-source has on their company, and they don't really understand how others in the company might perceive this IP impact. So, I think, one part of it is, essentially, this is just how engineers work. Like, you want to use a piece of software, you put it in it, right? If you want to fix something, well, you do a pull request. This is sort of, like, a common practice. And it's always hard to articulate things that are essentially part of your, like—you know, like a native language, like part of your culture. It's really hard to describe, why you would do this, and why it matters. So, I think that's one reason.


The other reason, I think, is that there is a lot of overlap between the way legal works, and the way business works in general. Few examples of that are, engineers tend to think really like in binary way, like, you know, something is true or false, something is on or off, whereas business and law a much more spectrum thinking and into the gray area of things. Similarly, law will share with executive manager’s schedule, versus a maker’s schedule. So, there's lots of cultural artifacts of law culture in corporat...

Avsnitt(267)

ATO special episode with Peter Farkas

ATO special episode with Peter Farkas

In this special episode recorded at All Things Open, I talk with Peter Farkas, CEO and co-founder of FerretDB. We talked about about MongoDB and the license change fiasco and why Peter wanted to build an open source company and never considered building a non-open source company. The biggest 🤯 in this episode was about enforcing what it means to be open source; in particular, FerretDB positions itself as a truly open source alternative to MongoDB, and has received threatening letters from MongoDB as a result. How do you enforce it when a company claims to be open source but does not use an OSI-approved license? How well do the average users actually understand the license implications, and if a big company says they have an open source license even though it’s source-available, not open source, how much will people understand the difference? If you want another perspective on the enforcement of advertising around open source licenses, listen to the episode I recorded with Stefano Maffulli, also at All Things Open.

12 Nov 202416min

Selling Peace of Mind with Bhaskar from YottaDB

Selling Peace of Mind with Bhaskar from YottaDB

This week’s full-length episode is with Bhaskar, founder of YottaDB. This episode was recorded on-site at All Things Open last week, and we covered a wide range of topics. Including:How the open source ecosystem, and the open source business ecosystem, has changed over the past 30+ years.Who can responsibly self-support an open source database, and who really needs to have someone to call if things go wrong. The spectrum of professionalism among open source developers How YottaDB started out as a project developed inside a larger company that was in financial services; and Bhaskar decided to spin it out as it’s own company.The challenge articulating the value of support contracts, especially for software that is reliable. Bhaskar says he is selling peace of mind more than anything else; and he works with customers to avoid incidents — because ultimately avoiding an incident is a better outcome for everyone than a quick recovery from an incident. How to convince people that they are actually not as good at managing open source databases as they think they are. We also talked about conference strategies: according to Bhaskar, the way he’s decided which conferences to exhibit at is a series of trial and error — and by the way, this is something I’ve heard from many people. Yes, you have to think about where your customers are, not where your friends are, but sometimes you don’t know ahead of time which conferences are going to have the best ROI. I’m working with YottaDB right now on how to differentiate themselves in the crowded database market — and we talk about that process a bit right now. If you’re having trouble standing out in a crowded market, you might want to work with me.

6 Nov 202429min

ATO Special Episode with Tatiana Krupenya of DBeaver

ATO Special Episode with Tatiana Krupenya of DBeaver

This special episode of The Business of Open Source with Tatiana Krupenya, CEO of DBeaver, was recorded on site at All Things Open 2024. It’s a short conversation, so we addressed one main question: What is the difference between running an open source company versus as proprietary software company? Tatiana says the difference is big — and it’s complicated. The bottom line: Your OSS can be your main competitor, and your customers have to really see the value in your commercial offering if you want to make sales. ## If you aren't sure how to talk to your potential customers are about why they should use your commercial offering, you might want to work with me.

5 Nov 202413min

Behind the Scenes of the Open Source AI Definition with Stefano Maffulli

Behind the Scenes of the Open Source AI Definition with Stefano Maffulli

This week on The Business of Open Source, I spoke with Stefano Maffulli, Executive Director of the Open Source Initiative, about the definition of open source and… the definition of open source AI. We recorded this episode on-site at All Things Open, so there’s a little bit of background noise. We talked about why OSI felt like it needed to develop a definition of open source AI, how “open source” is enforced, and the thought process behind the definition that the OSI ultimately published. We talked about open data quite a bit — different kinds of data, what kind of information and data is important to researchers and professionals in the AI space, and if there’s a way to include AI models that are trained on proprietary data in the definition of open source AI. If you are interested in open source AI, definitely check out this behind-the-scenes discussion of how, and why, this definition was published — and what the future likely holds for defining open source AI.

30 Okt 202432min

Price Anchors of Zero Dollars with Anais Concepcion and Paul Fitzpatrick

Price Anchors of Zero Dollars with Anais Concepcion and Paul Fitzpatrick

This week on The Business of Open Source, I spoke with Anais Concepcion and Paul Fitzpatrick , the co-CEO of Grist Labs and CTO of Grist Labs. We talked about managing growth of users versus growth of revenue, moving to an open source approach for technical, not technical, reasons, and open-source related product management questions for open source companies. Some really interesting themes we talked about:Moving from a SaaS first approach to also focusing on enterprise sales. Why they did that, what other sales channels that opened and what questions it also forced the company to addressUser personas versus buyer personasThe situations in which Grist is the best option — which incidentally I could not understand from the website or the project documentationThe relationship between the open source project and both enterprise sales and SaaS sign-ups. How open source has been critical for a strategic relationship Grist has with the French government, which has been important for increasing product development velocityGiving up ‘darlings’ or features that they really want to develop but that they don’t think would drive revenueThe difference Anais sees between running Grist and running non-open-source companies — one of the most interesting differences is that users often have a sense of ownership over the project that you just wouldn’t see in a fully proprietary How open source true believers often work in large companies and control budgets, and should not be underestimated. Why trying to sell based on features — including telling yourself that if you just had one more feature, you’d unlock all the sales — was a big mistake. Are you struggling with price anchors fixed around zero dollars, or can’t figure out how to manage the push and pull of developing open source and building a business? You might want to work with me.

23 Okt 202442min

Getting people to use the features you already have with Eric Holscher

Getting people to use the features you already have with Eric Holscher

This week on The Business of Open Source, I spoke with Eric Holscher, co-founder of Read the Docs. We had a really far-ranging conversation that included talking about why documentation is often so bad, why documentation should be a priority, but also Eric’s experience building Read the Docs and Write the Docs. This episode was interesting because it’s both about building an open source company and also about the importance documentation for software projects in general and open source projects. Some things we covered included: What is documentation? Is it a marketing effort, is it a part of the project itself? Eric talks about how good documentation for an open source project is a clear signal of a level of seriousness for the project. How Read the Docs was really started to support open source projects, and that is part of why there’s no enterprise installs — either you use the open source code on your own, or you use the hosted product.How Eric sees building in the open as a way to help other people become better software engineers, but that ‘helping companies use Read the Docs for free’ is not the reason he wanted to build an open source company, and he’s still not sure how to feel about the fact that this happens. You don’t get bonus points for being open source or bonus points for being bootstrapped — it won’t prevent a potential customer from using a competitive product because it has a feature that Read the Docs doesn’t have. How open source in general — and even documentation in general — can help build brand value, but it is super hard to quantify and put in a slide in a board meeting to justify an investment in open source. The decision to build Read the Docs as a business stemmed from the pressure that Eric got from having a successful open source project. How they tried very hard to avoid accepting advertisements, but they should have started doing so much sooner because it turned out advertisements is well-aligned with the things they want to be working on. The difference in risk between being open source for a database company versus an app-level open source project like Read the Docs; for Read the Docs one of the risks is the brand damage associated with people running the OSS on-prem and doing a bad job. Are you the founder of an open source company and struggling with figuring out how to manage the relationship between the project and product? You might want to work with me. Enjoy the show? Help it reach more people by leaving a review and sharing with your friends.

16 Okt 202445min

Open source companies' reputation problem with Chris Holmes

Open source companies' reputation problem with Chris Holmes

Today on The Business of Open Source, I spoke with Chris Holmes, co-founder and CEO of Greymatter. Greymatter is deeply involved in the open source ecosystem and maintains the Go Envoy Control Plane, but Chris is adamant that it is not an open source company. We had a great discussion about why that is, what it means for the company and the conversations he ends up having around open source with his customers and partner companies. Some particularly interesting points that came up:Customers worry that buying Greymatter could force them to buy enterprise versions of open source software — and Chris thinks that this could be a symptom of the fact that many users expect that they’ll end up being forced to pay for something they don’t want to pay forHow open source companies, and open source projects in general, can be viewed as risky if they are only backed by one companyWho is gonna pay for open source? How if you are going to get away from open source projects being aggressively monetized, big companies have to put their money where their mouth is and pay for open source development directlyWhy and how to get started selling to governments. Yes, the sales cycles are longer but the deals tend to be very sticky once you get in — and why Chris actually finds it easier to sell to the military than to large enterprises. What benefits Greymatter gets from being a maintainer of the Go Envoy Control Plane. Struggling with how to get your product strategy right, and find the right balance between your open source project and your commercial offering? Not sure how your user audience and customer market relate to each other? You might want to work with me.

9 Okt 202444min

Building your product with your customers with David Höck

Building your product with your customers with David Höck

This week on the Business of Open Source, I spoke with David Höck, co-founder of Vendure. We talked about switching licenses from MIT to GPL, the ways that Vendure is different from it’s competitors and how architectural decisions can be a powerful differentiator for an open source company. Favorite quote: “You need to build your product together with your clients.” Some specifics we talked about that you should pay attention to: Why they switched to GPL in order to encourage more people to reach out to them and get more visibility into who was using their open source projectOn the other hand, they wanted to make sure that big companies building commercial platforms on top of Vendure’s platform are forced to pay for a commercial license. They also wanted to choose a less-permissive license, but something that was still well-known and wouldn’t cause a lot of confusion among users or potential customersThe difference between being happy with people using your software for free, and being happy with competitors using your software to build a competitive product, without offering any support to the underlying software. Do your customers care about whether you are VC-backed or bootstrapped? We had an interesting conversation about this, because Vendure is bootstrapped. I think we settled on a real important nugget — if your technology is really critical to the company, they will care about your long-term sustainability. Being bootstrapped can help convince potential customers that you are independent and will be sustainable for the long term. The top advantage of open source, David says, is the ability to get fast product feedback from a community. —> I just was talking with someone yesterday about this advantage of an open source strategy, I think it is under-discussed but extremely important. If you’re the founder of an open source company struggling with your product strategy — uncertain how to differentiate between project or product or how to differentiate the entire company in the ecosystem; don’t know what your project is supposed to do for your business; aren’t clear on the target market for your project or product — you might want to work with me. Find out more here.

2 Okt 202440min

Populärt inom Business & ekonomi

badfluence
framgangspodden
varvet
rss-borsens-finest
svd-ledarredaktionen
avanzapodden
lastbilspodden
rss-dagen-med-di
borsmorgon
uppgang-och-fall
affarsvarlden
fill-or-kill
rss-svart-marknad
rss-kort-lang-analyspodden-fran-di
rss-inga-dumma-fragor-om-pengar
rss-en-rik-historia
tabberaset
rikatillsammans-om-privatekonomi-rikedom-i-livet
kapitalet-en-podd-om-ekonomi
rss-badfluence