Enterprises refrain from using open source components for liability reasons. One main reason enterprises pay so much for commercial products is because they get a throat to strangle when liability questions arise. When do you think this trend would change?

Not in the real near future. Enterprises must answer to their customers and shareholders. So they need to have a plan for when things don't go well. They also need to be able to guarantee uptime or response time.

It seems like there's resistance to open-source solutions because of perceptions that open source means more difficulty to manage, fewer techs and engineers know it, etc. Thoughts on that perception?

One of the big strengths and perceived weaknesses of open source is it's modularity. It's really easy to customize solutions, integrate them into your environment, etc. But when something goes wrong, enterprises are now faced with figuring out which component is responsible. (And maintaining relationships with all those vendors/communities to fix it.) I think it's just a new model and that the strength of modular solutions outweighs the "pain" of having lots of components.

Does usage of open source components to build something also mean giving the (new) developed code back to the community? Or is it based on the specific open source license used?

It depends on the license and whether or not you are distributing the software. Most licenses that require open sourcing are triggered by distribution - sending it outside the company. It also depends on how you "build" it. If you are just linking at runtime to LGPL licensed software, that's different than if you actually copy LGPL licensed code into your product. Distribution usually means shipping outside your company but with some licenses like AGPL it also can mean creating a Web service.

Do you think open source, and Linux in particular, could benefit from an increase in Mac market penetration?

I'm not sure Linux benefits from Macs but open source runs on just about every platform out there. There's a surprising number of open source developers using Macs!

In terms of so much open sourced based software coming into the enterprise, there are more companies (it seems) that want to insure that the code is what it is supposed to be. One way to insure this is to "escrow" the account in the event there are any questions that appear down the road. Hence I was curious if this is starting to come up more and more.

I know that one of the advantages that people see with open source software is that the code is there and they aren't dependent on a particular vendor. (Even if they never exercise the freedom to fork and use it themselves, that freedom helps keep the vendor "honest".) That said, I did hear about one agreement (secondhand) that an enterprise wrote in a clause that said the code would become open source if anything happened to the vendor.

"Escrow the product" has been happening for a long time. I've done a lot of them, and never really believed the customer was getting a buildable escrow. But with O-S based products, there's a better chance the escrowed stuff actually could be built.

And even with open source you should make sure you can build it. Open sourcing the code and open sourcing the build process are always not the same thing!

To what extent do OpenLogic customers move up from consumers to contributors to committers?

We have customers that give us code to check in because they want to remain anonymous - that makes them a contributor. I see this a lot more on our Expert Community side though. I see a lot of people who would like to become committers and they see OpenLogic as a facilitator to that - answer questions for OpenLogic's customers, fix some bugs, gain credibility with the community, become a committer. [Editor's note: A committer is a member of the OpenLogic Expert Community that is under contract with OpenLogic to help enterprises solve complex issues with open source projects.]

Many public schools only use Microsoft software for instructional purposes. When the use of open source is brought to their attention, they reply that employers need people who can use Microsoft software. How can open source software advocates make their case with public school officials that open source software should also be part of their instructional program?

I heard from a country in Africa that couldn't use open source because there wasn't enough documentation and the end users were teachers and medical staff in small towns. (This was a number of years ago.) I think the answer now is that OpenOffice is completely usable to anyone who is used to Microsoft Office. My ASUS Eee PC (Linux desktop) was extremely easy to use. I ordered it from Amazon.com. It came the next day. I opened it up and it just ran on my wireless network. Everyone from my 7-year-old stepson to my dad could use it with no problem. Except the keyboard was too small for adult males!

What are the benefits for enterprises in looking at the open-source Android platform for mobile phones vs. going with other devices that aren't open-source? Or is it still too early in this market?

I think by going with an open source platform you are more likely going with a platform that will ultimately have more resources behind it and will have a better chance of becoming the standard - just because it's open.