Why is that? Because what software publisher do, including in open source, isn\u2019t something you improvise,<\/strong> and these organisations wholly underestimate <\/strong>what it involves. Let us tell you about this still little known and unsung line of business that, in fact, produces 90% of open-source software<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For the purposes of this article, and to understand open source in general, it is important to make the distinction between:<\/p>\n\n\n\n This article discusses the latter category.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bounty hunter-like behaviour, \u201csell more\u201d rather than \u201csell better\u201d, unbalanced commercial relations, technological and contractual lock-in practices, failure to comply with GDRP, extraterritorial rights\u2026 the list of reasons why public and private organisations are seeking alternatives<\/strong> to monopolistic software solutions, in particular American ones, is endless.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But some IT departments that resort to open source tend to turn what may be legitimate wariness towards a few major vendors and their outrageous behaviour into a wariness towards software publishers<\/strong> at large, who they view as parasites.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We also find this wariness \u2013 although increasingly less so as open-source software matures \u2013 in people who simply can\u2019t comprehend that you\u2019d have to pay for open-source software<\/strong> and translate this as \u201copen-source software must be restricted to providing a service\u201d or \u201cend users must decide what they should pay\u201d!<\/p>\n\n\n\n These organisations choose to \u201cbuild\u201d their solutions in-house and commission open-source service providers for development or support activities. This is appropriate when no off-the-shelf solution is available to address their particular issue or meet their specific business requirement. But this makes no sense and it is unfailingly counterproductive<\/strong> when a standard, industrialised solution meeting this need already exists. You can\u2019t develop a standard solution through services or support<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Carrying out a project isn\u2019t writing software<\/strong>! The cost and actual tasks<\/strong> involved in developing and maintaining standard software bear no comparison with what is required to carry out a project. As time goes by and the software evolves and the number of versions increases<\/strong>, the difference is greater still. To maintain existing software, continuous and growing effort has to be put into testing and quality assurance. Technological baseware evolutions and technical debt quickly become the most time (and money) consuming tasks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The above chart illustrates the costs distribution in software development – Chart source<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n At the other end of the spectrum, the vision of what a client is prepared to buy as a service (new feature development and support) bears no comparison <\/strong>with all the work needed for a publisher to provide a high-quality, lasting solution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When you develop your first software commissioned by your first client, things are straightforward. You have just one task to perform: developing features. But this only works for your first version and your first client<\/strong> \u2013 the first one!<\/p>\n\n\n\n Typically, the starting point for a project involves developing a program or putting together a few components to resolve a particular task for an end user. Unsurprisingly, they are happy. They are given a solution to their specific request<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The developer or provider then thinks: \u201cHey, this is something others might find useful, and I have ideas for features I could add. I\u2019m going to turn this into a product! I\u2019m going to get a few colleagues together to pool our resources and help finance this.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n That\u2019s a huge mistake<\/strong>. The gap between a given project and software is usually a hundred times bigger than expected. Moving from \u201cjust a\u201d prototype<\/strong> to an industrialised solution<\/strong> is infinitely more complex that most people think. This is just as true in software as it is in manufacturing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Just because you\u2019ve managed to build a car in your garage with a few hammer strokes here and there that you can become Renault, with industrialised production<\/strong>, the same guarantees and its network of maintenance and repair partners!<\/p>\n\n\n\n Beyond new feature development and the complexity of software scaling<\/strong>, a larger number of clients has multiple consequences on a project:<\/p>\n\n\n\n These questions \u2013 or rather the lack of a satisfactory answer to them \u2013 also illustrate the limits to the service-based<\/strong> open-source software development model<\/strong> and explain why most organisations who believe they can free themselves of software publishers to fulfil a standard need ultimately fail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A solution isn\u2019t source code. <\/strong>It\u2019s a reliable, supported, high-quality product people enjoy using, with reliable, transparent pricing.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The role of a software publisher is to design, maintain and enhance a lasting product that meets end users\u2019 needs<\/strong> in terms of features, ergonomics and performance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n You don\u2019t become a software publisher out of the blue. It requires long-term commitments, effective governance, significant vision, anticipation, development, quality and maintenance capabilities as well as an entire organisation<\/strong> to respond to clients\u2019 and partners\u2019 requests and needs for a solution!<\/p>\n\n\n\n Open-source publishers typically sell offerings that complement or facilitate a solution\u2019s use and operation<\/strong>, for example with add-ons, extra features, support provided by \u201cultimate software experts\u201d and guaranteed responsiveness. This includes subscriptions, <\/strong>a Software as a Service<\/strong> solution (providing the solution as a hosted service), freemium\/open core additional modules or features, or other services.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These offerings are usually well thought-out and bring a good balance between value added and return<\/strong>. We find \u2013 in France specifically \u2013 clients who want a solution but not its publisher\u2019s offering. They are even prepared to pay (a little) but want to outline the offering themselves! A classic example of software-publisher hostility translates as \u201cI\u2019m happy to pay for support but I don\u2019t want to pay per user\u201d \u2013 including when it is the fairest, most relevant and simple<\/strong> metric.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It’s a little like playing couch coach! Software publishers\u2019 offerings are part of their business model, its readability and the equation as a whole. There is no point in trying to force them to redefine their offering \u2013 in particular by applying principles that don\u2019t work, for example \u201cfinancing the software through support\u201d \u2013 it must be respected<\/strong>!<\/p>\n\n\n\n Working with an open-source publisher rather than trying to work around them means maximising your chances of success, having a better solution, ensuring the software\u2019s continuity, enjoying the best expertise<\/strong> while saving money<\/strong> and promoting the open philosophy<\/strong> that ultimately benefits everyone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Whether they\u2019re a company, an NGO or a foundation, whether they are for profit or not, software publishers are the champions of the future of open-source solutions<\/strong>. They have an organisation, employees, a roadmap and financial challenges to face. Open-source software doesn\u2019t live off thin air!<\/p>\n\n\n\n One thing is for sure: complaining that there are too few quality open-source solutions for end users is in contradiction with harbouring hostility towards open-source software publishers!<\/p>\n\n\n\n For BlueMind, the path is clear<\/strong>: to be a true sovereign alternative to major US solutions, we must first and foremost have a good product! As far as email is concerned, having a good product means providing a well-grounded answer to four key market requirements:<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n BlueMind\u2019s open-source business model<\/strong> is what enables it to meet to all four requirements! Developing high-quality, lasting, user-centred software is what a software publisher<\/strong> does. And this cannot be achieved through a service-based model, including an open-source one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Being a software publisher means that we are 100% focused on building our solution<\/strong>: the product and all the tools and resources around it, such as migration<\/a> tools, documentation<\/a> (technical, functional and commercial), as well as our ecosystem<\/a> (integrators and technological partners, among others). The overall, long-term vision and governance we bring is what ensures our solution\u2019s well-roundedness<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is the level of quality end users expect and what enables BlueMind to offer a credible, sovereign alternative and most importantly, one that users and clients embrace<\/strong>!<\/p>\n\n\n\n #TheChoiceIsHere<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Whether they\u2019re a company, an NGO or a foundation, whether they\u2019re for profit or not, software publishers are the champions of open-source solutions. Let us tell you why.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":4158,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[179,1],"tags":[192],"class_list":["post-4196","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-solution-en","category-non-categorise","tag-featured"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nKey premises<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
The wariness Tech Giants leave in their wake<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
So, you\u2019re saying that my project is\u2026 a product!?<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/bluemind.purpl-web.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/illu-travail-editeur.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/bluemind.purpl-web.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/couts-dev-info-1024x612.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nSome client want to buy software by only paying for services<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/bluemind.purpl-web.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/slide-iceberg-uk.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nThe machine that builds the machine!<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/bluemind.purpl-web.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nGovernance, beyond the first client<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
An open-source software publisher, what for?<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Open-source software publishing: BlueMind\u2019s vision<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/bluemind.purpl-web.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-1.png\")