Subject: Re: Successful FSBs
From: Adam Turoff <ziggy@panix.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 10:44:17 -0400

On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 05:05:09AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Rich Morin:
> > If we get too picky with our definitions, we may find that the only
> > businesses that make real money off Free Software aren't actually FSBs!
> 
> To me, the possibility of that conclusion makes it vital that we do
> examine this properly. If it turned out that the "para-Open Source"
> companies such as AS and O'Reilly were on the whole profitable and 
> the "pure Open Source" companies which support and sponsor development
> on the whole weren't, that would speak volumes about FSB strategy.

Rich's conclusion is that there is no such thing as an FSB.

Zope Corp and MySQL AB disprove that conclusion, even if you completely
discount the lifestyle FSB.

If I understand your point, Simon, then "para-Open Source"
organizations like Oxford, UC Berkeley, CMU, MIT, O'Reilly,
ActiveState, Apple, IBM and Sun are more important to the long-term
health and viability of Open Source.

Lifestyle FSBs are still an open issue, given their mixed history
and short life (c.f. Cyclic, Cygnus, and countless others).

Z.