Open Source > Linux > LQ
May 1, 2007 Leave a comment
I’ll be attending the IT 360 and LinuxWorld Canada expo in Toronto tomorrow. If you’ll be there and would like to connect, drop me a line and we can work out the details. LQ is once again a sponsor for the event. Information on how to get a discount to this, and other events that LQ sponsors, can be found here.
–jeremy
April 30, 2007 3 Comments
I’m just booking some upcoming conference travel (in this case OSBC). As you may know, LQ is a sponsor of quite a few fantastic Linux and Open Source conferences. As a result of that, we’re able to offer you some discounts. Here’s a partial list – as I get more I’ll bump this post. If you run a conference that LQ doesn’t sponsor, but you think should, drop me a line. Without further ado and in no particular order:
The 2007 MySQL Conference & Expo: 10% off using mys07lqt
Ubuntu Live: 10% + $150 off using ubu07lqt
OSCON: 10% off using os07lqt
LinuxWorld Canada: 25% off if you register before April 11th
If you’ll be attending any of this conferences and would like to meet up (I’m attending most, but not all), let me know.
–jeremy
April 19, 2007 Leave a comment
It looks like the Novell Patent deal isn’t the only one Microsoft is pursuing. From a recent CBR post:
While Microsoft’s patent covenant deal with Novell has grabbed all the headlines, it is not the (only) patent deal Microsoft has done recently regarding Linux and open source software.
Back in March in struck a patent deal with Fuji Xerox, while over night it announced a broad patent deal with Samsung.
What have these deals got to do with Linux? A lot, according to Microsoft’s representation of the terms.
Neither of which actually state that Linux contains Microsoft’s intellectual property, but they continue to associate the open source operating system with Microsoft’s intellectual property.
It’s a fair assumption that maintaining the association is the main reason for mentioning Linux in the announcements, given that must be countless other technologies involved that do not get a specific mention.
Only Microsoft and Samsung/Fuji Xerox know how much the deals actually relate to Linux.
So what is going on here? Given the vague nature of the patent sharing agreements it remains to be seen, but the argument put forward by Matt Asay recently following a conversation with Mark Shuttleworth certainly makes a lot of sense:
“Microsoft’s patent game is designed to force open source to compete on its terms. Mark made a hugely salient point on this: Microsoft has been a disruptive force in the software industry by building complex software and essentially giving it away for peanuts.
In turn, it is being challenged by open source, which is free. The difference, as Mark said, between $0.00 and $0.01 is huge. And that difference is not flattering to Microsoft, even despite its lower price points than its fellow proprietary competitors.
The assertion is that Microsoft is attempting to basically levy a tax on Open Source software. It does seems odd the Linux is specifically called out, while no other technologies are. As the article indicates though, only Microsoft and Samsung/Fuji Xerox know how much the deals actually relate to Linux. These deals certainly snuck under the radar when compared to the Novell deal, but neither of the other companies involved here are “Open Source” companies and deals like this in the industry are quite common. Where Microsoft is planning to go with these deals is anyones guess, but it’s certainly something worth keeping an eye on. I’d definitely agree with the general consensus that Microsoft is looking to create doubt and not looking to actually sue anyone. We’ll see.
–jeremy
April 18, 2007 Leave a comment
I was surprised to see that Michael Dell Officially uses both Ubuntu and Firefox on his home laptop. Not surprised that he uses it, mind you…just surprised that it’s so authoritatively posted. Great to see!
–jeremy
April 16, 2007 Leave a comment
If you’re looking into starting a commercial Open Source company, here’s an in-depth look at the various current business models.
Within the context of the FLOSSMETRICS project we are performing a study on the business models adopted by companies that are leveraging FLOSS source code, and how the model changes with respect of licenses and commercialization approaches.
In this post I present a draft of the result of 80 FLOSS-based companies and business models, conducted using only publicly available data. Feedbacks and suggestions are welcome!
It still seems to me that we haven’t found the ideal commercial Open Source play, but this is still a relatively nascent industry. It’s remarkable how far we’ve come so fast. There’s still a lot to figure out, which is part of what makes it so exciting to me,
–jeremy
April 15, 2007 Leave a comment
Doc Searls recently posted his last SuitWatch. It’ll be sad not to see the email every other Wednesday, but the reasoning does make sense. The form and flow of a text email newsletter really aren’t congruent with Docs strengths. It’s good to hear that we’ll get to see even more writing from him on the LJ site as a result of this though, so I think it will be a net win. On to the content of the last SuitWatch, the following really struck me:
That’s the gauntlet I want to throw down on this, my last SuitWatch. I want to challenge the big hardware OEMs — Dell, HP, Lenovo, Sony and the rest of them — to break free of the only form factors Microsoft will let them make, and start leading the marketplace. Make cool, interesting, fun and useful stuff that isn’t limited by the Microsoft catalog of possibilities. Stop making generic stuff. Grow greener grass beyond the Windows fences.
A few weeks ago I was talking with folks who worked inside one of the large hardware OEMs. Somewhere in there they told me about their “Linux strategy”. I told them they needed a “Linux strategy” about as much as a construction company needs a lumber strategy”.
If you’re going to have a Linux strategy, make the strategy about getting past an OS-bound view of the world. Because the big difference between Linux and Windows is that you can build anything you want with Linux. With Windows you can only build what Microsoft lets you build.
Think about it…. Does Microsoft tell HP how to make printers? Does it tell Sony how to make camcorders or flat displays? Hell no. Then why do those companies let Microsoft tell them how to make desktops and laptops? Another way of putting it: Why should the choice of personal computing hardware form factors be limited by the things Windows can do? Why wait for Microsoft to provide the base designs for desktops, laptops, notebooks and hand-helds? Why not let your engineers’ imaginations run wild? Why not listen to customers who want personal computers that do stuff Windows can’t? (Or Apple’s OS X, for that matter.)
The short answer is politics. “All technical problems are political as well as technical”, Craig Burton once told me. “And the technical problems can always be solved”. The politics of OS-choosing is the politics of marriage. The big hardware OEMs have been acting for decades like they’re married to Microsoft, which is why they act as if putting Linux on boxes with Microsoft logos tattooed on their butts is like cheating on their spouse.
OEM adoption is a critical step in Linux crossing the next chasm. I’ve stressed this here too many times to remember. Looking back a couple years, I’d have thought someone would have broken ranks by now. The politics are proving quite strong. I thought the catalyst would be Apple. My thinking was that it would give other hardware vendors a glimpse of what could be accomplished with a unix-based system. That wasn’t enough. Whether huge numbers of Dell customers yelling loudly on the IdeaStorm site is enough remains to be seen. Having a hardware OEM look at Linux as the building blocks to innovation is a great analogy. The first one who’ll get that remains to be seen.
–jeremy
April 14, 2007 1 Comment
Allison continues her fantastic coverage of the GPLv3 process in this post.
A third possibility is that the Linux kernel developers will decide that it’s not worth the hassle and just accept the GPLv3. I suspect that this is what the FSF is hoping will happen. Depending on the changes in the next two drafts of the GPLv3, it still might. But, it’s not looking likely that the kernel developers will yield. Frankly, if I were in the kernel developers shoes, I wouldn’t either. The GPLv3 serves to further the goals of the FSF, but the current draft actually hinders Linus’ goals and the goals of Linux in general.
Another possibility, complete speculation on my part, is that the Linux Foundation becomes more than just a loose consortium of companies sponsoring Linux kernel development. It becomes the copyright holder for the Linux kernel, not taking copyright assignments from contributors like the FSF, but copyright licenses like Apache does, so the kernel developers still hold their copyright on the code. The Linux Foundation releases a license with basically the same terms as the GPLv2, but without the legal ambiguities, obscure language, and anachronisms. Like the GPL, this license is copyleft. Like the GPL, this license requires the release of modified versions under the same license. This license clearly defines the concepts of linking and modified works, making it easier for Linux distributors to be sure that their segmented distribution trees are in compliance. Over time, more and more projects currently released under the GPL adopt the Linux license, because it is more legally precise and more comprehensible to the average developer than either the GPLv2 or GPLv3. Eventually, Linux distributions switch over to the Linux license, leaving only a small branch of GPLv3 (or v4 or v5) code to be downloaded separately (if the user chooses to do so).
It had occurred to me that it might be nice if the FSF did a sort of updated draft of the GPLv2 that included very minor improvements while not introducing the major fundamental shifts of the GPLv3. It’s clear they wouldn’t do this now, as it would hinder the adoption of the GPLv3. I hadn’t thought of the possibility of someone else improving on the GPLv2. Seems unlikely, but maybe just the thought of it will smooth some things over in the GPLv3 process.
–jeremy
April 6, 2007 Leave a comment
I’m happy to announce that the LQ Radio Interview has finally returned. I’d like to thank Ilan and Orv of SCALE for being guests on the show. We covered a good amount of ground in 30 minutes. We used Gizmo to do the show and overall I’m happy with the audio quality. I have a few tweaks to make for future shows, but nothing major. More interviews will be on the way soon.
–jeremy
April 5, 2007 Leave a comment
Mike Olson, vice president of Embedded Technologies at Oracle, recently posted an interesting entry on his blog about Unbreakable Linux (via Matt). The article details why RHEL was chosen and how Oracle contributes to Linux. Keep in mind that Mike works for Oracle, but via the Sleepycat aquisition. He knows Open Source. Now, I never found it odd that Oracle chose RHEL. I’d have found it odd if they chose anything else in fact. In the Oracle Linux space, Red Hat dominates. I did wonder why the respun CentOS though. It just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. They’re directly competing with Red Hat with Red Hat’s own product. Sure the GPL allows that. I just don’t think it makes sense from a business perspective. Not when they could have partnered with Red Hat and gotten 95% the same thing. The 5% will make a real difference in the long run. As a major partner, they would have been providing real value to Red Hat. This in turn would encourage Red Hat to provide value to them. Early access to code, development road maps, etc. Enterprise customers would have gotten the proverbial one neck to choke (which the really do like) and Oracle would have been the single point of contact for Linux support on the RHEL product for their customers. The way they have it now, they will be in a perpetual state of playing catchup with new RHEL releases, with no help from Red Hat. In the end, what they wanted to do made a ton of sense… I just don’t think they went about it the best way. How it will play out long term remains to be seen.
–jeremy
April 4, 2007 Leave a comment
If you’re following the GPLv3 draft process (previous coverage) here’s an extremely informative post by Mark Radcliffe. From the post:
Mark Radcliffe joins us this week to give his expert opinion on the latest draft of GPLv3. Mark is a friend and one of the industry’s premier IP attorneys, especially with open source licensing questions. He is outside counsel for the OSI and chairs Committee C in the GPLv3 drafting process.
In other words, he knows his stuff.
Dave and I invited Mark to contribute to Open Sources on GPLv3. Here’s his response:
The most recent draft of the GPLv3 was released on Wednesday, March 28. This guest blog will summarize the legal issues in the draft and some of the open issues. I have been involved in the process since the beginning because I am the chair of Committee C, the Users Committee, and I serve as outside general counsel on a pro bono basis for the Open Source Initiative. These comments are mine alone and do not represent the views of any of my clients.
The draft is part of a year long process of preparing the first new version of the GPL in fifteen years. The existing version of the General Public License (“GPLv2”) is, by far, the most widely used open source license: more than 70% of open source projects on SourceForge are licensed under GPLv2. GPLv2 is used by many well known programs such as the MySQL database and the Linux operating system.
He then goes on to detail, at a high level, the changes that have been made in this draft. He also explains what the rest of the draft process will look like.
–jeremy
Jeremy's Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.