I think we are coming to an important turning point in the evolution of OSS (which is way beyond the 'its free and its cooler than all those suits' analysis still favored by some OSS advocates):

Either Open Source vendors such as your own organization will demonstrate their ability to innovate *and* make money out of it

Or OSS will become dominated by the industry giants - just like the closed source industry is increasingly - and we will see innovation and choice reduce.

If OSS vendors are going to be successful, the first step is to clearly explain the value they bring - just as you have done here.

Ronan

I couldn't understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting

Maybe that has something to do with the product being commodities and the sales/distribution network thats providing the real value in convinience and accessibility?

I don't think Spring is a commodity (yet). But if does become one, it probably means that the creators are not improving and challenging themselves and allowing the market(third party vendors) to catch up. If that is the case, is it fair to whine at being out competed?

However I think third party providers should be encouraged. If they are able to provide (really … not just claiming) as good service, credit should be due to them as well… They certainly would have contributed some blood and sweat to go that far, indirectly even if not directly. They may not be in such a strategic position (again fair exchange for not being the ones who pump the most effort) but they still do earn an honest living by providing value.

If there is no competition, creators may very soon get complacent and degrade in their quality of service and their support would lose the extra advantages they warrent.

In addition, Open Source regards bug reporting and usage as contributions … not to the same scale as contributing code but still…. so I don't think its fair to say third party vendors are profiteering from other's hardwork.

It's just that they seem to hope that open source, as a new market, allows the notion of a supermarket that keeps virtually all the money and doesn't reimburse suppliers. That's a destructive model that can't survive in the long term.

As can be plainly seen by the large number of UK farmers who are finding it harder to survive - apparently somewhat due to the supermarkets driving a hard bargain.