Is Microsoft Going to Start a Linux War?

November 9, 2006 Leave a comment

On the topic of misunderstanding the GPL, we have this doozy. From the article:
Microsoft has been leery of doing too much with Linux because of all the weirdness with the licenses and the possibility that one false move would make a Microsoft product public domain at worst, or subject to the GPL at best. As far as old-school software companies are concerned, the GPL—the GNU General Public License—is a ridiculous pain to deal with, especially if you have a unique invention that you want to bring to the party—and want to make money doing so.
Sharp operators have been playing with various ways to avoid bumping into the GPL while using Linux in proprietary applications.
Huh? How are we still running into things like this? For better or worse, a ton of proprietary code runs on Linux in a 100% legal and legitimate manner. Just ask Oracle or BEA or Veritas. I'm not sure where this misconception comes from, but we need to get rid of it. Porting your app to Linux in no way puts your application at risk of becoming GPL'd. As to where the “public domain” assertion came from, I won't even venture a guess. As for the “unique invention that you want to bring to the party”, plenty of companies have innovated, used an Open Source license and made money. Sleepycat and Innobase are two examples of innovative companies (neither really have any competition in their space even today) that used Open Source licenses exclusively, became very profitable businesses and then were seen as so good that a proprietary company acquired them and then kept them Open. There are many other examples of companies that are staying independent and making good money doing so. I've said it at least once before, but I'd really like it if the GPL had a Creative Commons style “human-readable summary”. It could go a long way toward clearing up some of these consistent misunderstandings.
–jeremy
, , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Novell, Open Source

Sun Set To Move On GPL License For Open-Source Java

November 8, 2006 Leave a comment

I looks like I may have been wrong when I said that the license for Java would probably be the CDDL. Much to my surprise, it looks like Sun will be releasing it under the GPL. From the article:
Sun Microsystems has talked a lot about putting Java into an open-source license. Now it's ready to move.
The company is very close to announcing that it will put the mobile (ME) and standard (SE) editions of the Java platform into the GNU General Public License (GPL), with the Java Enterprise Edition and GlassFish reference implementation (currently open-sourced under Sun's Common Development and Distribution License, or CDDL) to follow, several industry sources said.
So it would appear that both the J2ME and J2SE platforms will be released under the GPL. In a recent poll the most requested license by developers was the Apache license (a BSD derivative), but to be fair the comments show a fundamental lack of understanding about the GPL in a couple respects. In general, GPL misunderstandings seem to be fairly common and the cause of a lot of developer concern. When (if?) this announcement is made official, it will be interesting to see how the java developer community reacts. As for the actual license choice, I think it makes sense in a lot of regards. The GPL will prevent any closed source commercial forks and the trademark will give Sun full control of what is called “Java”. It will protect them from the embrace and extend tactic that has been tried before. Additionally, I'd guess they will dual license (a la MySQL AB) which could help add more revenue to the bottom line. If the license is indeed GPL I'd expect fairly quick uptake by the various Linux distributions. I'll post another update, including community response, after we get the official word from Sun.
–jeremy
, , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Open Source, Sun

Novell and Microsoft Collaborate III

November 8, 2006 1 Comment

Some additional information has been released since my last post on this topic, in the form of an 8-K filing from Novell. From the filing:
On November 2, 2006, Novell, Inc. (“Novell”) and Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) announced that they had entered into a Business Collaboration Agreement, a Technical Collaboration Agreement, and a Patent Cooperation Agreement. This set of broad business and technical collaboration agreements is designed to build, market and support a series of new solutions to make Novell and Microsoft products work better together for customers.
Under the Business Collaboration Agreement, which expires January 1, 2012, Novell and Microsoft will market a combined offering. The combined offering will consist of SUSE Linux Enterprise Server (“SLES”) and a subscription for SLES support along with Microsoft Windows Server, Microsoft Virtual Server and Microsoft Viridian that will be offered to customers desiring to deploy Linux and Windows in a virtualized setting. Microsoft will make an upfront payment to Novell of $240 million for SLES subscription “certificates,” which Microsoft may use, resell or otherwise distribute over the term of the agreement, allowing the certificate holder to redeem single or multi-year subscriptions for SLES support from Novell (entitling the certificate holder to upgrades, updates and technical support). Microsoft will spend $12 million annually for marketing Linux and Windows virtualization scenarios and will also spend $34 million over the term of the agreement for a Microsoft sales force devoted primarily to marketing the combined offering. Microsoft agreed that for three years it will not enter into an agreement with any other Linux distributor to encourage adoption of non-Novell Linux/Windows Server virtualization through a program substantially similar to the SLES subscription “certificate” distribution program.
The Technical Collaboration Agreement, which also runs until January 1, 2012, focuses on three areas:
* Novell and Microsoft will develop technologies to optimize SLES and Windows running as guests on each other's operating systems.
* Novell and Microsoft will work together and with independent software vendors to develop management tools for managing heterogeneous virtualization environments, which will enable each party's management tools to command, control and configure the other party's operating system in a virtual machine environment.
* Novell and Microsoft will work together on ways to make translators available to improve interoperability between Office Open XML and OpenOffice formats.
Under the Patent Cooperation Agreement, Microsoft commits to a covenant not to assert its patents against Novell's end-user customers for their use of Novell products and services for which Novell receives revenue directly or indirectly from such customers, with certain exceptions, while Novell commits to a covenant not to assert its patents against Microsoft's end-user customers for their use of Microsoft products and services for which Microsoft receives revenue directly or indirectly from such customers, with certain exceptions. Both Microsoft and Novell have payment obligations under the Patent Cooperation Agreement. Microsoft will make an up-front net payment to Novell of $108 million, and Novell will make ongoing payments of at least $40 million over five years to Microsoft based on percentages of Novell's Open Platform Solutions and Open Enterprise Server revenues.
As you can see, quite a bit of money is flowing in from Microsoft to Novell. As this article points out, that money may be coming just in the nick of time:
This news comes just one day following rumors, still unconfirmed by Novell, that the Linux company had laid off some employees. In addition, Novell announced on Nov. 6, for the third time, that it was extending its deadline to get the holders of its Convertible Senior Debentures to not demand immediate payment of the total $600-million owed in 2024.
Wells Fargo Bank N.A. demanded the early payment in full when it claimed that Novell had defaulted on its payment agreement by not turning in its July 31 quarterly earnings report to the SEC in a timely fashion.
This, in turn, had been caused because Novell, like many other technology companies, has delayed its financial reports while it audits its past stock option practices.
It should also be noted that this does not appear to be a patent licensing agreement as some articles were calling it, but a revocable covenant not to sue. That's a big difference, but it's still unclear to me whether the agreement violates the GPL. I'd guess we'll hear more on that issue soon. In the end, on the Novell side this may have just been a move to keep the company going. It's harder to tell the motivation on the Microsoft side. It could be a way to incent Novell not to sue (which it looks like could have been a very real possibility on multiple fronts), it could be a play into a few new markets such as virtualization for Microsoft, it could be an attempt to subvert the Linux community or a variety of other things. I don't think it will be clear for a little while what the motivation(s) are, but as you may have guessed I'll be keeping my eye on this one.
–jeremy
, , , , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Novell, Open Source

Is SugarCRM open source?

November 8, 2006 Leave a comment

An interesting question that I haven't seen a lot of talk about. SugarCRM, the “Commercial Open Source” company, now uses a license that is not OSI approved. Basically, it's the MPL with this additional restriction:
Additional Terms applicable to the SugarCRM Public License.
I. Effect.
These additional terms described in this SugarCRM Public License � Additional Terms shall apply to the Covered Code under this License.
II. SugarCRM and logo.
This License does not grant any rights to use the trademarks “SugarCRM” and the “SugarCRM” logos even if such marks are included in the Original Code or Modifications.
However, in addition to the other notice obligations, all copies of the Covered Code in Executable and Source Code form distributed must, as a form of attribution of the original author, include on each user interface screen (i) the “Powered by SugarCRM” logo and (ii) the copyright notice in the same form as the latest version of the Covered Code distributed by SugarCRM, Inc. at the time of distribution of such copy. In addition, the “Powered by SugarCRM” logo must be visible to all users and be located at the very bottom center of each user interface screen. Notwithstanding the above, the dimensions of the “Powered By SugarCRM” logo must be at least 106 x 23 pixels. When users click on the “Powered by SugarCRM” logo it must direct them back to http://www.sugarforge.org. In addition, the copyright notice must remain visible to all users at all times at the bottom of the user interface screen. When users click on the copyright notice, it must direct them back to http://www.sugarcrm.com
Now, I have no idea why they insist on you keeping the “Powered by SugarCRM”logo and the mandatory link seems to be a bit much. They make a killer product that stands on its own, so personally I don't think they need to resort to things like this. That's not the question at hand though. Since that is definitely an additional restriction, should they still be calling it “Open Source”. Additionally, will the OSI respond. It's a tough call and one I've not come up with a firm opinion on yet. What do you think?
–jeremy
, , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Open Source

Red Hat Response to Oracle and Microsoft/Novell Moves

November 5, 2006 Leave a comment

Here's a response from Red Hat on the recent upheaval in the Linux world. My take? Half really good points, half disingenuous and/or ridiculous. First, the good points.
Last time I looked, we were still in ring, and we are still standing. The big mistakes companies and employees make is to be focused on stock price in the short-term.
Think back to the Microsoft/Sun announcement from a couple years ago, and today, you haven't seen any of the promised technical collaboration from that partnership whatsoever.
Novell has fallen into the trap of allowing Microsoft to do exactly what it wants to do, which is to trumpet IP (intellectual property) solutions and promises.

He's completely right. These days, far too many people focus on short term stock price. Vision and long term planning is almost a thing of the past. In the end, I think this will be the undoing of many companies – Open Source or not. Second, the highly touted and much hyped Microsoft/Sun announcement from a couple years ago didn't really create anything substantial that I can think of. Whether the Novell/Microsoft deal will bear more fruit remains to be seen, but they both sure did draw a lot of media attention. The last sentence I think speaks for itself.
On to the bad:
Having said that, does Red Hat think either of them has taken the right approach, now that Microsoft and Novell have made 'Microvell'?
We still believe that we will be the dominant player in the Linux market, because by that time there won't be any other Linux players. We will have succeeded once again.
This is not about IP. This is about the freedom to meet customer needs and to create competition. That problem is, you can be either for freedom and collaboration, or you can take a different approach. These companies are trying to do both. I can at least respect Microsoft, because they don't pretend to be an open source company.
The first sentence is a bit disingenuous. This was a partnership (and a loose one at that), not anything close to a merger that would warrant a 'Microvell' moniker. Stating they will be the “only” Linux player is odd on multiple levels. First, they have always claimed that not being the only vendor was one of the big advantages for Linux. Second, in what world will every other Linux player disappear in the next 365 days? I'm not sure where he was going with this one, but this is the kind of hubris that gets companies in trouble. The last one is a nice backhanded jab, but he should have just come out and said what he meant – in his opinion Novell isn't an Open Source company, even thought they claim to be.
I remain interested in how this will play out, not only for Red Hat and Novell; but for Linux in general. As you may have guessed, I'll keep you updated.
–jeremy
Red Hat, RHAT, Novell, Microsoft, Linux, Open Source
Edit: There is now also a more marketing slanted official response on the Red Hat site.

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Novell, Open Source, Oracle, Red Hat

Novell and Microsoft Collaborate II

November 5, 2006 Leave a comment

The dust still hasn't settled, but this is a story everyone is keeping a close eye on. A few quick updates on my original posting. First, as you may have guessed, the general community reaction has been mostly negative. I'd guess that's a natural instinct response due to Microsoft's involvement in the deal. I'm waiting to get more information and read as much as I can before making my final decision. One thing I do know is that some of the media claiming this is the “death of Linux” are most certainly way off. Linux isn't something you can kill. That being said, it does seem like Microsoft may have some nefarious plans with this one. From this article:
The distributors of other versions of Linux cannot assure their customers that Microsoft won't sue for patent infringement. “If a customer says, 'Look, do we have liability for the use of your patented work?' Essentially, If you're using non-SUSE Linux, then I'd say the answer is yes,” Ballmer said.
“I suspect that [customers] will take that issue up with their distributor,” Ballmer said. Or if customers are considering doing a direct download of a non-SUSE Linux version, “they'll think twice about that,” he said.
However, Ballmer did not say whether Microsoft had any plans to file patent infringement suits against other Linux distributors.
That, to me, seems like a thinly veiled threat of litigation, almost like SCO tried to pull. It could be that Microsoft is using this deal to try to get other major distros aboard, so they can get a small piece of every commercial Linux license sold. It could also be a plan to launch litigation against Red Hat or Oracle. Since they now have an “industry partner”, they'd be much less likely to be blocked by a monopoly proceeding. Along the lines of “no no, we don't dislike Linux or competition – just look at our pals Novell. We just think these other guys are infringing on our IP!”. Of course, it could be simpler than that. Also from the article:
Ballmer said developing greater interoperability between Windows and SUSE Linux will actually increase the intensity of competition because it will make it easier for Microsoft to sell its technology into enterprise data centers with a mix of Linux and Windows server technology.
Microsoft has joined into this Windows-Linux collaboration projects because “customers want it” and because “if we're interoperable we are going to take more business from Linux,” he said.
That seems like a more honest statement. They are not getting the acceptance in the enterprise data center that they hoped for, so they are using this deal to get their foot in the door. From what I've seen so far, this deal probably isn't generally good for Linux. I'm still up in the air as to whether it's bad for Linux. As to whether it's good for Novell – that remains to be seen. Ask the long line of now-crushed previous Microsoft business partners what they think.
–jeremy
, , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Novell, Open Source, Red Hat

Responses from around the Linux Community

November 4, 2006 1 Comment

Here are some responses from around the Linux community on the recent Novell deal with Microsoft.
Eben Moglen thinks the deal may actually violate the GPL:
It's possible that Thursday's deal between Microsoft and Novell could conflict with a provision in the General Public License (GPL), according to Eben Moglen, the attorney for the Free Software Foundation that created and oversees the Linux license.
“If you make an agreement which requires you to pay a royalty to anybody for the right to distribute GPL software, you may not distribute it under the GPL,” Moglen told CNET News.com Thursday. Section 7 of the GPL “requires that you have, and pass along to everybody, the right to distribute software freely and without additional permission.”
Whether the partnership precludes Novell from distributing Linux depends on precise terms of the agreement that Moglen hasn't seen, he cautioned. But he found other aspects of the deal troubling, too.
Microsoft's pledge not to sue unpaid programmers is “no comfort at all,” given the quantity of paid open-source programmers.
If the deal will have a material impact on Novell earnings (and I'd guess it does), there will have to be a filing on this in the coming weeks, so Eben and others may get the information they need to make an informed decision on this potential GPL violation. If the deal does indeed violate the GPL, I'm not sure how Novell will proceed.
Bruce Perens seems to have similar concerns:
One of the questions yet to be settled is whether Novell will violate the GPL, the license of the Linux kernel and other important software, by offering patent protection that is exclusive to Novell customers. The press release pretty much stated that. On that topic, the preamble of the GPL says it best:
We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
Novell has clearly accepted that license. But it appears that they are now out to make patent protection a business differentiator.
also from Perens:
“This is actually really bad news,” said Bruce Perens, a well-known Linux advocate. “It sets up Microsoft to assert its patents against all commercial open-source users. The deal is going to be, ‘You have to buy Microsoft-licensed Linux distribution from Novell or there is an implicit threat that Microsoft will assert their patents against you.”
It should be noted that Microsoft has opened this offer up to other Linux distributors, but to me that's of little solace. I'd not expect to see Red Hat sign a similar deal with Microsoft in the near future. Other community members seem less worried. From Linus:
I prefer to be an optimist, and will happily take the option that not everybody needs to be enemies,” said Linus Torvalds, the creator of the Linux kernel, in an e-mail message. “Let’s see how it all pans out.”
Greg KH, a Novell employee, thinks the media hype is much ado about nothing:
I don't really think this is a big deal at all for the Linux kernel community and code. We are no worse off than we were last week before this announcement, and we actually might be a bit better off now, depending on the actual wording of the agreement (which again, I have not read.)
I've still not formed a final opinion and am reading everything I can get my hands on. I couldn't, however, agree more with John Terpstra:
Instead of judging the book by its cover, we should sit back to weigh the facts, discuss this announcement in rational debate and then formulate a well-thought-out and united response.
That is spot on! The one bit of information that I did miss in my previous post is this bit:
Microsoft will make a one-time upfront payment to Novell for the cross licensing deal. Novell will pay a fee for each SuSE support contract that it sells.
Whoa! A fee for each SuSE support contract that it sells?!? That seems like a really bad precedent and certainly something that could lay the groundwork for future Microsoft litigation. Novell has now inextricably tied itself to Microsoft. I wonder if 5 years from now they'll look back on this deal fondly. Writing a monthly check to Microsoft isn't something I'd want to do if I were a Linux company.
–jeremy
, , , , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Novell, Open Source, Oracle, Red Hat

CentOS: Oracle Linux Doesn't Measure Up

November 3, 2006 Leave a comment

An interesting Q&A with the CentOS team about their thoughts on Unbreakable Linux. From the article:
“Oracle [has] seen what has been achieved by projects such as CentOS, and [has] effectively copied the idea, as they are entitled to under the GPL,” said Lance Davis, one of CentOS's volunteer developers.
“There is evidence that in places Oracle is a rebuild of CentOS, rather than of Red Hat–again as they are entitled [to] under the GPL. [But] it would be polite for Oracle to acknowledge the fact that they are derived from CentOS and make a donation to the project.”
Johnny Hughes, a CentOS community member who is now testing the free version of Oracle's Enterprise Linux, told LinuxPlanet that the software is “poorly documented, extremely buggy, and of questionable security hardening.”
Lance was one booth down from us in the .Org Village at LWE UK and I still owe him an LQ shirt ;) The article also goes into some of the trouble users may have with the differences in Unbreakable and RHEL, including different patches and different build systems. I covered much of these in my previous posts on the subject, but I think it's good to get a perspective from a team that has built a respected RHEL clone for a long time.
–jeremy
, , , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Open Source, Oracle, Red Hat

Novell and Microsoft Collaborate

November 2, 2006 1 Comment

As if the recent Oracle Red Hat talk wasn't interesting enough, Novell today announced that they will be collaborating with Microsoft. While some people seem to think this may have been a reaction to the Oracle announcement, I can't see any way this was thrown together that fast. I'd guess talks on this were ongoing even as the Oracle rumors were starting. The open letter is missing financial details as you may have guessed, but it does include some brief information on the 3 deals that were part of this arrangement. From the FAQ:
Q. What are you announcing?
Novell and Microsoft are announcing an historic bridging of the divide between open source and proprietary software. They have signed three related agreements which, taken together, will greatly enhance interoperability between Linux and Windows and give customers greater flexibility in their IT environments. Under a technical cooperation agreement, Novell and Microsoft will work together in three primary areas to deliver new solutions to customers: virtualization, web services management and document format compatibility. Under a patent cooperation agreement, Microsoft and Novell provide patent coverage for each others customers, giving customers peace of mind regarding patent issues. Finally, under a business cooperation agreement, Novell and Microsoft are committing to dedicate marketing and sales resources to promote joint solutions.
The agreement would seem to be a tacit acknowledgment by Microsoft that Linux is the real deal, has changed the rules of the game and is here to stay. As to what was actually gained by both sides. For Novell they are getting some increased exposure, which they desperately need right now. They are getting a resale deal for SLES (Microsoft will distribute as part of a resale arrangement approximately 70,000 coupons for SUSE Linux Enterprise Server maintenance and support per year) along with the recommendation of SLES by Microsoft if you are interested in running Linux in a Windows environment (For customers who have a significant Windows investment and want to add Linux to their IT infrastructure, Microsoft will recommend SUSE Linux Enterprise for Windows-Linux solutions). Additionally, their customers get patent protection for Samba, Mono and OpenOffice. Microsoft gets increased exposure for .NET through Mono, which should serve to help them compete better with Java in the enterprise space, and broader acceptance of the OpenXML document format, which could help them keep some of the Government contracts they may lose if OpenXML isn't broadly accepted. The companies will be working together on Virtualization, which looks to be a huge market going forward and have also built a “Collaboration Framework” which will allow them to work together more easily moving forward.
Shares of NOVL spiked almost 15% on the news, but are down about 1% in after hours trading. RHAT dropped about 2% on the news, with an additional 3% dip in after hours. The news had almost zero impact on MSFT. It should be interesting to see how both Red Hat and Sun react to this in the coming days. It will also be interesting to see how the Open Source community reacts to the news over the next 48 hours. It's a group that can be fickle at times and certainly one that isn't overly trusting of Microsoft. It's something I'll keep you updated on.
–jeremy
, , , , , , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Novell, Open Source, Oracle, Red Hat

ACCESS to Release Open Source Application Framework

November 2, 2006 Leave a comment

ACCESS has announced it plans to release an Application Framework to the open source community under Mozilla Public License (MPL) v1.1. Security features that extend the Linux kernel are planned for release under the General Public License (GPL) v2. The Framework will be released before the end of the year and will be the industry’s first open source mobile Linux application framework for commercial use. From the article:
Developed as part of the ACCESS Linux Platform, the Application Framework has been designed specifically to meet the requirements of mobile phones and devices. In addition to providing a set of services to install and manage applications, the Application Framework from ACCESS can integrate communication between applications, enabling a seamless user experience for music, messaging and other advanced features. The Application Framework is also designed to enhance application security to prevent unauthorized use of phone services or tampering with critical system data.
As part of its efforts to help grow the mobile Linux market and foster a global ecosystem, ACCESS has decided to contribute its Application Framework to the open source community. By open sourcing the Application Framework, ACCESS’ goal is to help speed the development and adoption of mobile Linux phones and devices while taking the first step to help prevent fragmentation. The next step in preventing fragmentation will be to work with industry standards organizations, such as the Linux Phone Standards (LiPS) Forum and Open Source Developers Labs (OSDL) to determine how they may adopt the Application Framework.
I got a chance to play with ALP at a recent Linux world, and while it wasn't quite ready for prime time then, that was about 9 months ago. I'd be interested to see how far they've come since then. Motorola is already starting to release some main stream Linux-based phones and other companies are following. While I've not heard any definitive plans yet, it's very possible we may end up with a Linux-based Treo at some point. I'm really pulling for that one. I already like the Treo and having Linux and GTK+ on it would be fantastic. I'd expect a large amount of growth for Linux in the mobile space over the next 2-3 years and this move by ACCESS should help to foster an active developer community, much like the one the Palm OS has now.
–jeremy
, , ,

Filed under LinuxWorld, Main Page, Open Source, Treo

← Older posts

Newer posts →