SaaS vs. Open Source
September 24th, 2008 | Published in Open Source, Software | 8 Comments
I just finished writing a post for the Idealware blog about choosing SaaS vs. Open source. I said in that post:
At one level, whether or not the software underneath the SaaS is open source is not relevant. You are not obtaining the software, and whether or not you can see the code, or modify it, is really not the key issue here.
And, at the level of most nonprofits choosing software, this is, in fact, correct. But the real story is much more complicated.
SaaS is not, by definition either proprietary or open source. There are a few examples of SaaS that are based on open source projects, although most SaaS are proprietary - the code is never meant to be released.
One of the most important things to understand is that SaaS is primarily built upon open source tools such as Apache, MySQL, and MySQL. It would not be as cost-effective (and thus, not produce as much profit) if these SaaS developers had to pay license fees for the software they use (besides the fact that these are the most stable and robust platforms to build upon.) So SaaS vendors are taking good advantage of open source software, and, in many situations, not giving a whole lot back. This is not uniformly true - some SaaS vendors give back in a variety of ways - contributing code back to those projects, having their own programs to give back in some way or another (like Google Open Source, or Salesforce.org)
Bur in any event, SaaS based on proprietary software violates the basic software freedoms - you can’t use it freely, you can’t see the code, you can’t modify it, and you can’t release the modifications to others. And, in some situations the existence of SaaS can inhibit open source development in the spaces in which it is popular, especially if the SaaS is cheap or free (how many good open source webmail clients are there, for instance?)
From my perspective, the key is openness. Some SaaS, like Salesforce.com, and increasingly the nonprofit CRM SaaS vendors, are open platforms. From my perspective, it’s all about balance, and having an active ecosystem, with healthy open source options present. The more SaaS vendors can contribute to and not detract from that ecosystem, the better.
September 24th, 2008 at 8:02 pm (#)
I agree that openness is the key. Sometimes ‘open source’ is the most important kind of openness. (But it is annoying when something is trumpeted as open source but hasn’t been architected or documented in a way that would allow others to make practical use of the code). Other times it is more important to have an open API or an app that is properly designed for plug-ins or extensions. There are multiple ways to ‘play well with others.’
[Your captcha is asking me to type a slightly naughty word)
September 25th, 2008 at 9:36 am (#)
Ha ha, I want to know what the naughty word is!!
Personally I love open source and think it’s part of what the web’s about. But there are other ways to be collaborative; really SaaS is built on collaboration. The company I work for, TheWebService.com”, has created a new form of data storage, called “MyTables” - it’s not open source, and it doesn’t use MySQL, but it is a very convenient and quick way of uploading and managing your own data. SQL is a bit fiddly at the best of times, and if we move past SaaS to DaaS (Data as a Service) it frees up a *lot* more time to share ideas on the functionality front. And with mashups becoming more and more popular, there’s a kind of meta-collaboration at work now too.
September 25th, 2008 at 9:44 am (#)
You said:
“One of the most important things to understand is that SaaS is primarily built upon open source tools such as Apache, MySQL, and MySQL”
I don’t think that’s quite correct. It’s my understanding that none of the major non-profit SaaS players use open source tools.
For example, we (DonorPerfect Online), use Microsoft SQL Server 2005 for the database engine. Yes, there are licensing fees, but they pale in comparison to what it would cost if we had to rely on an open source product and maintain it ourselves.
Other companies in the NP space are similar. I believe eTapestry runs on a database package called Versant. Constant Contact (a SaaS provider of email delivery) uses IBM DB2. Kintera uses something proprietary, as well as Convio.
I absolutely agree with your call for more openness. Non Profits should never feel that their data is being held hostage. Furthermore, all of the vendors should commit to a policy that if the front-end or API is unable to download or connect to their data- typically because of performance problems- then the vendor should provide the data or access for free.
It’s very frustrating to see vendors fall over themselves offering ‘open’ tools when it’s impossible to use for many clients because of these performance problems and/or capacity controlled API functions.
In the end, the vast majority of non profits simply do not have the technology resources to use most open source solutions. Even if they do, the cost to implement is never trivial, and requires investment in consultant fees that typically dwarf the cost of using a SaaS solution, or even purchasing a traditional installed solution (such as our desktop version of DonorPerfect, or other installed packages such as Exceed, Sage, etc.)
For example, for typically less than $1000 / year, most average sized non profits can depend on their vendor for UNLIMITED support. For open source, that translates into 10-15 hours of a consultant’s time- less than 2 days- where a vendor can provide unlimited support for an entire year.
There’s the true value of Vendor provided SaaS and installed solutions that is very difficult for the open-source community to match, even though the open source software is ‘free’.
-Jon Biedermann
DonorPerfect CRM Fundraising Software
800-220-4411
September 25th, 2008 at 4:31 pm (#)
[...] Zen and the Art of Nonprofit Technology… SaaS vs. Open Source Michelle Murrain discusses the sometimes conflicting nature of the relationship between SaaS vendors [...]
September 25th, 2008 at 6:45 pm (#)
[...] SaaS vs. Open Source [...]
September 26th, 2008 at 3:23 am (#)
I think your definition of SaaS is aspirational rather than factual. The Wikipedia definition -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_as_a_Service - suggests in fact that the opposite is true, “From the software vendor’s standpoint, SaaS has the attraction of providing stronger protection of its intellectual property and establishing an ongoing revenue stream”. I don’t think Jon Biederman would disagree with that or the folks at Etap.
I think you are going to have to coin a new term for ‘open source software free at the point of delivery available as a service’. Good luck!
September 30th, 2008 at 2:44 am (#)
Speaking about Open Source SaaS, I think people do not think of it as about being able to tinker with ‘open source codes’ but more about lower cost of obtaining the tools simple enough to be efficient for the users as against the pricey proprietary alternatives.
Best.
alain
mor.ph
October 7th, 2008 at 11:01 am (#)
[...] Original post by Pearlbear [...]