You’re absolutely correct. There is much to be discovered in terms of implementing an OS/SaaS model with support being one of the “gotcha’s” from the support liability standpoint, particularly if the hosted versions are open to extensibility.

To address point 2, a service delivery platform that eases deployment, identity and profile management, hosting, etc. is precisely what my company, Apprenda, is working on in SaaSGrid.

Thanks
Kamlesh

Spot on with the notion that open source is at a transition point. I’d stretch and say most of the software industry is, and it seems to be a transition where we try to meld different models/strategies to create something unique to capitalize on.

I am not sure if I saw anyone post a definite response supported by a list of exceptions that do / don’t support your original premise. Great topic for a Sloan type review. I am doing some of my own research for a paper. I do believe we are at a transition point in open source. I like to call this first generation vs. second generation. In initial wave (first gen) we saw pure open source initiatives with no real business model or strategy. Many of these organizations subsequently were acquired by larger organizations. Now with Web 2.0 and other viable SaaS models, we are seeing a wave of start-ups trying to leverage the open collaborative community development model as part of their go to market strategy. I think we need to delineate the needs and participation level of the overall community. Moreover, not lump them all together. For instance, the development community is an early participant and has a very different interest in participation. That individual is very self-contained. Then you have the end user community. The latter needs a complete solution / application that is self contained. Most non-technical end users will gladly pay a nominal fee for the solution. By carefully constructing the legal language around (FOSS distribution language), you can meet the needs of the development community while maintaining the interest of the commercial side (SaaS). For the most part, it looks like a dual license model. I am seeing companies like Zimbra redefine what is possible. They had a clear strategy to create an open source commercial initiative from the get go. They are unique in that unlike Salesforce.com or other SaaS, they are not creating a Zimbra branded SaaS offering. 70% of their sales will come from other service providers who will enable the SaaS. I strongly suspect companies like Zimbra realize the limitations of the defacto distribution agreements, and end up writing a slightly modified version that serves the interests of these various communities. Just some thoughts. Great topic.

Kameran Ahari
http://gotastrategy.typepad.com

Chris, although an open source is SaaS platform is valuable, I don’t think it’s the *only* way to dodge proprietary lock-in. Extreme lock-in (Force.com w/new language) can be avoided even through a closed SaaS platform.