Subject: Re: Successful FSBs
From: Brian Behlendorf <brian@collab.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 19:47:36 -0700 (PDT)


ActiveState sells non-Open-Source software packages, as does CollabNet.
I'd seen statements here that imply that this would disqualify AS and us
as an FSB, than an FSB needs to be one whose revenue comes from anything
but commercial software licensing.  It's understandable - if you stretch
the definition of a FSB in this way, IBM and Sun are FSBs as well.
Perhaps even Microsoft, if you consider their Unix Services for Windows
(if I'm not mistaken, it includes ports of various open-source utilities?)

So, anyone care to define 'FSB'?

It might also be interesting to index economic performance with the %age
of developer time spent writing code that is given away, versus code that
is kept in-house or sold only under a non-open-source license.

	Brian

On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
> In my role as perl.com editor, I'm researching a piece on FSBs that are
> actually Doing OK. ActiveState have recently started turning a profit,
> and are well-known in the Perl world, so I'm going to be doing some
> interviews with them, but I'd also like to run some interviews with
> representatives from any other FSBs that are in the black.
>
> If you're up for that, please contact me off list.
>
> Many thanks,
> Simon
>
>