Has Google Become a Good Open Source Citizen?

With its open source release Thursday of its Closure JavaScript tools, Google (GOOG) is starting to suggest that it may eventually become a good open source citizen.

The newly released tools include a JavaScript compiler, a very broad JavaScript class library, and Java/JavaScript-friendly templates. All are released under the Apache 2.0 license, a very permissive license that essentially lets outsiders do whatever they want (rather than a viral or semi-viral license like EPL or LGPL).

Sure, Google has released other code before. Some of it has been experimental (beta quality) examples. Much consists of libraries (or example code) to get at Google’s APIs and thus provide complementary products that increase the value of Google’s services. Even Android would fit in the latter category — albeit at a larger scale — since it helps make handsets that access Google services.

However, the Closure Compiler, Closure Library and Closure Template are production level code that’s been used for years. These are the same tools that Google uses to implement gmail, Google Docs and Google Maps. Theoretically, a competitor could use these tools to make web-based services that compete with Google: Microsoft (MSFT) and Yahoo (YHOO) are unlikely to do so, but I would be surprised if some of the foreign portals (without large internal R&D staffs) don’t quickly adopt the technology.

Of course, Google’s not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, and the ultra-secretive company has not said why this release now of this code. Perhaps it doesn’t think rivals will use it, perhaps it has a huge head start, or perhaps it’s just non-strategic commodity code. Conversely, perhaps it’s trying to shape de facto industry standards for JavaScript (now that Netscape and AOL are gone), either to influence complementors or assure a supply of well-trained newby programmers.

Still, this is only one step of openness from a semi-open company leading the race for Total World Domination. Even if — as blogger Matt Asay and Google spokesperson argue — Google is a leading (if not the leading) contributor of open source code, that doesn’t mean that they have become good open source citizens.

Revealing code is only one part of sponsored open source openness, which also includes shared authority over the future of the code and governance of the community, providing both transparency and permeability to outsiders. This has proven impossible for many companies — both big, powerful, autocratic ones used to throwing their weight around, and smaller so-called “open source” startups that use OSS as teaseware for their real (commercially licensed) product.

IBM was the first and one of the few companies to prove it was serious about open source — but then it could sell hardware and services if the OSS commoditized its software offerings. Its Eclipse Foundation remains the largest and most successful multi-vendor sponsored open source community.

Five years ago, HP (HPQ) had a similar business model and comparable principles (if not level of investment) in Linux and other open source efforts. However, under its new penny-pinching CEO, it seems to have cut back on many R&D and community oriented efforts, and the former Linux Systems Division (later Open Source Business Office) now seems to be just a web page.

Apple (AAPL) isn’t normally considered an open (or open source), but its WebKit library is perhaps one of the most successful and most cooperative firm-sponsored efforts after Eclipse. Google, Nokia (NOK) and now even RIM (RIMM) are working to make the library suitable for the industry’s wide range of mobile devices.

Meanwhile, Nokia got off to a bad start last year — following the model that Sun (JAVA) used for so long — of a nominally open project that’s completely controlled by the sponsoring company. Maybe both will get better someday (and to be honest I haven’t checked Sun recently), but letting go is clearly hard for big companies to do.

So will Google ever let go on strategically important code on projects? Or will it always require that it retain control of such efforts? My crystal ball can’t see through all the walls of secrecy erected by the Monster of Mountain View, so I refuse to hazard a guess. But I suppose anything’s possible.

Hat tip: Matt Asay’s Twitter® feed.

Comments

[JamesApple:]

Google's long term goal is to get millions of open source programmers to lock onto its libraries in debugging and improving the Google library will become the dominant standard for Java and JavaScript development, much like the early Windows beta program which allowed many early adopters to freely debug and enhance the Windows OS saving Microsoft millions of dollars and R&D while providing an OS that came from the public itself, it's sort of a repeat of the tried and proven Microsoft strategy.

Google will certainly open its codes and even allow outsiders to free modify the code base. Don't forget the Android is free.

The end result will be a lightning fast eradication of opposing OSs starting with the Rim OS. How can Rim fight against an open source OS this is constantly modified and enhanced by millions of IT professional software practitioners who work in the very enterprises and corporations that are licensing Rim products and services? Android will totally destroy Rim's enterprise businesses within a year or two with massive support of millions of IT professionals who themselves have a hand in the Android OS they will embrace into the companies they work for.

iPhone on the other hand, has insurmountable lead in its webKit library which is also open source technology and platform but without being offered to the open source community allowing Apple total control and freedom from consensus enabling Apple to enhance and modify the OSX (look at the speed of execution with total control on how Apple executed and delivered its Snow Leopard OS!! That's something Android can never achieve and is really leagues out of Rim OS's reach).

Android will allow its implementers like Motorola to complecult crush Rim with rapid fire vastly advanced and superior handsets leveraging vastly superior Google apps and awesome capabilities to be used by quickly developed Java/JavaScript enterprise services which would make the current crop of Rim blackberrys pitifully inadequate and obsolete, plus hard to maintain.

Like the well informed Wall Street analysts know, Android is the beginning of the end of Rim blackberrys.

Nov 06 04:27 AM

[JamesApple:]

Apple's webKit is open but the OSX is not open to customization by open source community like Android.

Nov 06 04:41 AM

[JamesApple:]

webKit is iPhone's web app side, but the core iPhone development strategy is the iPhone SDK using Objective C, which is magnitudes more powerful than Java. C is a computing language that writes operating systems and compilers etc, the power of C allows the iPhone to be magnitudes more powerful and versatile than Java.

Nov 06 04:46 AM

[Chris DiBona:]

Ultra-secretive is not how I'd categorize our open source programs.

We train a thousand students a year to work on open source programs via the summer of code (now in our fifth year), we've released massive amounts (20m lines of code+) of code, including Android, Chrome (both hugely strategic) and 600+ other projects on google code, some api examples, most not.

To learn more, see code.google.com/openso... and search for "google and open source" on google or youtube.

Nov 06 03:36 PM

[mieses:]

Android is not entirely open source and is becoming more closed.

See androidandme.com/2009/.../

The Closure release is a nice gift but there are many existing competing javascript frameworks with similar functionality. What Google does with Android is more interesting.

Nov 07 04:22 AM