David grapples with issues of openness with ELGG: Do you really care if a service is commercial or not?: "Our idea was to build integration with standards not specific services, in order to ensure longevity. However, you can stand on a moral high ground for so long but ultimately, does anyone really care?"
Personally, I care. I want control. I want learners to have control. But yes, more and more, the Google model (build excellent tools with low entry barriers) are replacing open source models. Part of the problem is the lack of ability for many open source projects to generate revenue. Many people use it...very few contribute. When I was in Oxford last month, I met with the kingpins of ELGG. Our discussions turned to the role of commercialization of software platforms. My stance: I would love for ELGG to have a profitable, commercial arm...because nothing ensures the long term success of an open source product as does a revenue stream (plus dedicated users and programmers). ELGG has committed to always being open source. I encourage them to build a profitable model to ensure that they will always be able to commit time and effort to updating the platform (while "monetizing" their expertise to clients who are willing to pay). Many people don't seem to understand the sheer labour of love open source developers commit to...a tool can be used by millions of people, and the developers still have trouble making personal financial ends meet. It shouldn't be that way.