Still care what constitutes an 'open-source vendor'?
We used to care about carving out a definition of an open-source company. No one used more digital ink on the topic than I did. But the distinction makes less and less sense.
I opened my RSS reader today and was swept back to 2007, when I and others fussed about what constitutes an open-source vendor.
But do we care anymore?
No one wasted more digital ink on the topic than I did, but even I don't care anymore. Open source is bleeding into the way everyone does software, including Microsoft. It remains critically important, but I suspect that it won't even be able to support a marketing campaign in the near future.
Today we talk about Pentaho and Jaspersoft as "open-source business intelligence vendors," for example, but three years from now, I doubt that we'll call out the open-source aspect. It won't matter--or, at least, it won't matter nearly as much. Their competitors, from IBM's Cognos to SAP's Business Objects, will also incorporate aspects of open source into their businesses. They'll have to.
The open-source debate is over. We won. Now it's just a question of building (or continuing to build) superior products and ensuring that we get paid for doing so.
Follow me on Twitter at mjasay.