Arm Chair Discussion: Is Open Source like Communism?

So we were sitting in our arm chairs, watching some show on Discovery (probably Dirty Jobs, which is hysterically funny and makes me grateful for the fairly safe job I have. Although sometime later I will tell you about the time I tried to electrocute and crush myself in my Adventures of Server Girl).

He speaks up during a commercial, "you know, I think that Open Source is like Communism."

I am shaken from my TV haze..."Huh?"

"Yeah, there is no real way that Open Source will be able to sustain itself long-term, look at what happened in Russia."

And so the conversation starts...

Let's first look at the definition of communism:

classless political system: the political theory or system in which all property and wealth is owned in a classless society by all the members of that society (MSN Encarta)

Hmm interesting...now let's look at the definition of Open Source:

Open source describes practices in production and development that promote access to the end product's sources. (WikiPedia).

In technology, WikiPedia goes on to describe open source as "...software whose source code is published and made available to the public, enabling anyone to copy, modify and redistribute the source code without paying royalties or fees. Open source code evolves through community cooperation."

OK so communism and open source, by loose definition, sound similar. So there are several questions that I would like to explore with discussion that are interesting. Can there be true innovation using Open Source from a technology perspective? Can Open source be truly sustainable or will it fall apart like communism has?

Let's look at the innovation question first. Yes, I think that you can be truly innovative using Open Source, it is after all, open for everyone to see and contribute to. Sounds like a developer's utopia. A couple thoughts here: If it is open for all to see and contribute to (like the community farm), no one gets paid for the innovation they put into it. All that innovation goes into the collective. Sure, it feeds your creative beast, but it doesn't feed your family. Eventually, one takes priority over the other (hopefully the family!), and innovation begins to decline.

Why? In my opinion, it is because there are a lot of hidden costs to supporting an open source platform. If it is free, the deal looks great on paper. Do more with less! But supporting something like this is problematic, and very expensive. Large organizations have grown their business around supporting open source platforms (think IBM). Or you have that group of people within your org that are solely dedicated to supporting all of the updates, bugs, etc. of the platform, and then get all of those changes back out to the collective, because your org doesn't truly own the code.

So where is the time to innovate? It shrinks, because you have a business to run.

Is it sustainable? Will large enterprise companies truly bet their mission critical systems on open source? In my opinion, probably not. What's in it for your org? Let's face it, your CxO isn't out to contribute to the collective, they are out to keep their business running and making a profit, remaining competitive (which means, my edge isn't free for all to see and copy).

I think that open source will continue to exist, but in niche spaces, like small business solutions. Developers and technologists will continue to contribute to open source as enthusiasts, but will have a day job to keep the food on the table and a roof over their heads. Large businesses will not use it for mission critical enterprise class apps because it hinders their competitive edge and profitability.

So what do you think?