The question seems to imply an all-or-nothing approach to open source, which is certainly not how I think of it that way, nor do I think most people think of it that way. When BMC explores whether open source is an appropriate vehicle for releasing a certain piece of technology to the marketplace, one of the questions we ask is whether this would mean we're releasing something we consider proprietary or whether the value of that technology would be best delivered to the market as open source. We certainly don't think we shouldn't distribute ANYTHING as open source, nor do we believe we should distribute EVERYTHING as open source. I know that some readers may want to believe that open source is an all-or-nothing proposition, but I'm not sure this is true, even in the so-called open source community.