Here's the key quote: "rather than asking if or when, organizations are increasingly focusing on how".
Interestingly, the article then goes on to talk about licensing and intellectual property management. I suppose those count, but they're fringe issues, only relevant to lawyers.
Here's the two real issues:
- Configuration Management
- Quality Assurance
Many organizations do things so poorly that open source software is unusable.
Many organizations have non-existent or very primitive CM. They may have some source code control and some change management. But the configuration of the test and production technology stacks are absolutely mystifying. No one can positively say what versions of what products are in production or in test.
The funniest conversations center on the interconnectedness of open source projects. You don't just take a library and plug it in. It's not like neatly-stacked laundry, all washed and folded and ready to be used. Open Source software is more like a dryer full of a tangled collection of stuff that's tied in knots and suffers from major static cling.
"How do we upgrade [X]"? You don't simply replace a component. You create a new tech stack with the upgraded [X] and all of the stuff that's knotted together with [X].
Changing from Python 2.5 to 2.6 changes any binary-compiled libraries like PIL or MySQL_python, mod_wsgi, etc. These, in turn, may require OS library upgrades.
A tech stack must be a hallowed thing. Someone must actively manage change to be sure they're complete and consistent across the enterprise.
Many organizations have very weak QA. They have an organization, but it has no authority and developers are permitted to run rough-shod over QA any time they use the magic words "the user's demand it".
The truly funny conversations center on how the organization can be sure that open source software works, or is free of hidden malware. I've been asked how a client can vet an open source package to be sure that it is malware free. As if the client's Windows PC's are pristine works of art and the Apache POI project is just a logic bomb.
The idea that you might do acceptance testing on open source software always seems foreign to everyone involved. You test your in-house software. Why not test the downloaded software? Indeed, why not test commercial software for which you pay fees? Why does QA only seem to apply to in-house software?
Goals vs. Directions
I think one other thing that's endlessly confusing is "Architecture is a Direction not a Goal." I get the feeling that many organizations strive for a crazy level of stability where everything is fixed, unchanging and completely static (except for patches.)
The idea that we have systems on a new tech stack and systems on an old tech stack seems to lead to angry words and stalled projects. However, there's really no sensible alternative.
We have tech stack [X.1], [X.2] and [X.3] running in production. We have [X.4] in final quality assurance testing. We have [X.5] in development. The legacy servers running version 1 won't be upgraded, they'll be retired. The legacy servers running version 2 may be upgraded, depending on the value of the new features vs. the cost of upgrading. The data in the version 3 servers will be migrated to the version 4, and the old servers retired.
It can be complex. The architecture is a direction in which most (but not all) servers are heading. The architecture changes, and some servers catch up to the golden ideal and some servers never catch up. Sometimes the upgrade doesn't create enough value.
These are "how" questions that are more important than studying the various licensing provisions.