Will The Real Open Source CRM Please Stand Up?

June 21, 2007 1 Comment

Michael has addressed an issue that has been stewing for a while (and one I have covered on this blog quite a bit). From his post:

Dana Blankenhorn’s story How far can open source CRM get? has finally pushed me to respond to the many people who have asked “When is the OSI going to stand up to companies who are flagrantly abusing the term ‘open source’?” The answer is: starting today.

I am not going to start by flaming Dana. As President of the Open Source Initiative, I feel a certain amount of responsibility for stewardship of the open source brand, including both the promotion of the brand as well as the protection of the brand. The topic of “what is really open source and what is not?” has been simmering for quite some time. And until last year the question was trivial to answer, and the answer provided a trivial fix. But things have changed, and its time to regain our turf.

He continues:

So here’s what I propose: let’s all agree–vendors, press, analysts, and others who identify themselves as community members–to use the term ‘open source’ to refer to software licensed under an OSI-approved license. If no company can be successful by selling a CRM solution licensed under an OSI-approved license, then OSI (and the open source movement) should take the heat for promoting a model that is not sustainable in a free market economy. We can treat that case as a bug, and together we can work (with many eyes) to discern what it is about the existing open source definition or open source licenses made CRM a failure when so many other applications are flourishing. But just because a CEO thinks his company will be more successful by promoting proprietary software as open source doesn’t teach anything about the true value of open source. Hey–if people want to try something that’s not open source, great! But let them call it something else, as Microsoft has done with Shared Source. We should never put the customer in a position where they cannot trust the term open source to mean anything because some company and their investors would rather make a quick buck than an honest one, or because they believe more strongly in their own story than the story we’ve been creating together for the past twenty years. We are better than that. We have been successful over the past twenty years because we have been better than that. We have built a well-deserved reputation, and we shouldn’t allow others to trade the reputation we earned for a few pieces of silver.

Open Source has grown up. Now it is time for us to stand up. I believe that when we do, the vendors who ignore our norms will suddenly recognize that they really do need to make a choice: to label their software correctly and honestly, or to license it with an OSI-approved license that matches their open source label. And when they choose the latter, I’ll give them a shout out, as history shows.

Please join me, stand up, and make your voice heard–enough is enough.

I think most of us in the community agree that some companies are completely and utterly abusing the words Open Source. I’d guess some of it is intentional and some of it is not. In both cases though, it hurts us all. It creates confusion, mistrust and more. However, with the proliferation of companies that are absolutely not proprietary but also not quite OSD-level, I think it’s in the OSI’s best interest to come up with a taxonomy that properly addresses the issue. Without that, you’re telling some very well meaning companies that do a lot of good for the greater OSS community to go away. While I (and, of course many of you) believe strongly in Open Source it is still a bit of a leap of faith for many (and one need look no further than threads like this to see how much confusion and misunderstanding is still out there). Once a proper taxonomy is in place I think action should be both swift and comprehensive. Companies on the fringe can be made aware of the new taxonomy and where they fall. At that point the only violators left will be of the intentional and malicious sort, so they can be dealt with in a harsh way with little chance of collateral damage.

Open Source. Those two words mean so much. It’s important we protect them. It’s also important that protection comes in a way that’s congruent with the community spirit.

–jeremy

Filed under Open Source, OSI

Future of Enterprise Linux kernels

June 19, 2007 Leave a comment

Greg K-H discusses the current state of Enterprise Linux kernels. This is a topic that was discussed at length at the LF Collaboration Summit and is one of those issues that has a whole host of pros and cons on all sides. It’s easy to point out the flaws with the current setup, but very difficult to come up with a system that doesn’t have different, but just as serious, flaws. Greg gives a a great synopsis of the current situation and it’s telling that even the Novell/SuSE kernel team doesn’t agree fully on the issue. This is something I think is critical to the future success of Linux. I don’t have any direct suggestions at the moment, but it’s a topic I think needs as much exposure as possible.

–jeremy

Filed under Linux, Linux Foundation, Open Source

Linux leaders plot counterattack on Microsoft

June 15, 2007 Leave a comment

This is from an article recently posted to Reuters about the Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit:

Dressed in the alternative software movement’s casual uniform of T-shirts and jeans, the group is coming to grips with internal divisions that sap at its success — Linux is now used to power desktop computers, major Web sites, mobile phones — since rival factions often create very similar products.

But as many of the world’s top tech companies and corporate customers demand ever more from Linux, open source devotees still fight among themselves with the fervor of a tiny monastic order seeking to root out theological error in their midst.

“Guys: Be seekers of truth, not finders of contradiction,” Jim Zemlin, executive director of the Linux Foundation, organizer of the event, only half-jokingly told the 150 attendees of what is billed their “Collaboration Summit.”

Collectively, the group is militantly opposed to Microsoft, which some attending the summit openly refer to as “the enemy.”

The thing I really don’t like about the article is the headline. It’s an attention grabber, meant to pull in readers. But, the fact is that nothing could be further from the truth. Having attended the event I can say the the subject of Microsoft was barely even broached. In fact, one of the panels included some of the best Open Source lawyers on the planet. The likes of Andrew Updegrove, Karen Copenhaver and Mark Radcliffe. The audience could ask this ridiculously prodigious group any questions they wanted. The recent Microsoft patent deals were not brought up a single time to my recollection. This summit was about how to better work together within our community, how to collaborate with each others in ways that make sense, how to improve freedom and how to build the absolute best products and services in the world. That’s a change from some events in the past, where it was about Microsoft. It’s good to see we’ve moved on to more important things. Yes, some people do disagree on some things. We’re able to rationally discuss those points as a community though, and through it all that makes us stronger. If 100% of the people in your organization agree on everything, you’re either not doing anything interesting or people are just scared to speak up. Both are bad.

–jeremy

Filed under Linux, Linux Foundation, Microsoft, MSFT, Open Source

Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit Update

June 13, 2007 Leave a comment

It’s lunchtime at the summit and I have enough time for a quick update. First, a big thanks should go to Google. They are treating us extremely well and it’s fantastic that they do things like this. The last time I was at the GOOG campus was just pre-IPO, and a lot has changed to say the least. The SGI sign is even gone now :)

The conversation so far has been both interesting and very real. To me, those are key components of collaboration, which is what this summit is supposed to be about. Mark had it right when he said that the people in this room agree on far more than they disagree on. In the middle of a flame war, that’s sometime easy to forget.

A couple highlights from the discussion (kudos to the Linux Foundation for explicitly stating that the first day here is 100% bloggable):

* The crowd here is extremely varied with almost all major groups including vendors, coders, hackers, community, users, ISV’s and more represented.
* A data point I wasn’t aware of: somewhere around 1/4-1/3 of the actual Linux kernel code is in fact licensed as “GPLv2 or later”. This has some interesting implications.
* Some day, a dual GPLv2/GPLv3 Linux kernel may be theoretically possible. A GPLv3-only version will not happen.
* Both the GPLv3 discussion and the ATI/nVidia discussion is wearing a bit thin on many people…
* One reason companies like Motorola are so interested in mobile Linux (which is going to be absolutely huge from the looks of things) is that they have some measure of control over the platform. When you get a tome from the carriers stating what you must conform to if you want to run hardware on their network, having access to the code on your phone isn’t a luxury… it’s a business differentiator.
* For mobile Linux to really gain traction, it needs to be a consistent platform. If it’s not, content partners won’t be able to make the business case to support it. (ie. They want to support “mobile Linux” for their apps and content, not have to support each and every phone/carrier combo which run slightly different Linux variants individually)
* It would be a boon if bug reporting was easier, especially with regard to better communication and process flow between distros and upstream (confederation was mentioned).

A lot more was discussed, but alas…lunch it over. Should have another update at some point.

–jeremy

Filed under Google, Linux, Linux Foundation, Open Source

Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit

June 12, 2007 Leave a comment

I take off for the Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit in about an hour. Really looking forward to the event. If you’re staying at the Wild Palms and would like to meet for a drink/chat tonight, I should be at the hotel by about 9PM. Feel free to send me an email while I’m in the air.

–jeremy

Filed under Google, Linux, Open Source

Linus on GPLv3

June 12, 2007 Leave a comment

Linus made a couple interesting comments on LKML a few days ago regarding the GPLv3:

I was impressed in the sense that it was a hell of a lot better than the disaster that were the earlier drafts.

I still think GPLv2 is simply the better license.

I consider dual-licensing unlikely (and technically quite hard), but at least _possible_ in theory. I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for licensing under the GPLv3, though. All I’ve heard are shrill voices about “tivoization” (which I expressly think is ok) and panicked worries about Novell-MS (which seems way overblown, and quite frankly, the argument seems to not so much be about the Novell deal, as about an excuse to push the GPLv3).

and

Btw, if Sun really _is_ going to release OpenSolaris under GPLv3, that _may_ be a good reason. I don’t think the GPLv3 is as good a license as v2, but on the other hand, I’m pragmatic, and if we can avoid having two kernels with two different licenses and the friction that causes, I at least see the _reason_ for GPLv3. As it is, I don’t really see a reason at all.

I personally doubt it will happen, but hey, I didn’t really expect them to open-source Java either(*), so it’s not like I’m infallible in my predictions.

If you’ve been following this you’ll notice that Linus’ opinion of the GPLv3 has gotten slightly more positive with each draft, which is a good indicator that the FSF really has been proactively responding to criticisms and valid objections. I’d guess that the definitive addition of Apache compatibility will lead to some additional adoption (which is my guess on why they added it in the end). Linus is pragmatic as usual in his above comment about OpenSolaris. If Sun does indeed release it under the GPLv3 and Linux is able to follow, that would be a huge win for both. There’s a ton of innovation on both sides that would finally be able to flow back and forth. Whether that will happen remains to be seen, but at least now it’s a possibility.

–jeremy

Filed under FSF, GPL, GPLv3, Linux, Open Source

Why Multiple Competing Standards are a Bad Idea

June 11, 2007 Leave a comment

A good look at why multiple competing products using an open standard is good, but multiple competing standards that do almost the exact same thing are not:

I guess one good result is that Microsoft has encouraged voting for OpenDocument, because that’s the only logical thing it can do if it really believes that having “many conflicting formats are a good thing”. In contrast, there’s no reason that someone who wants a truly open single format needs to vote for OOXML. It’s perfectly reasonable to reject OOXML on the grounds that it conflicts with an already-existing ISO standard (OpenDocument). If there’s something that OOXML does that OpenDocument doesn’t, it would be much easier to add that tweak to OpenDocument, because OpenDocument builds on existing standards while OOXML fails to do so.

Microsoft is not a “universal evil”, and I praise them when they do good things. But encouraging multiple conflicting standards for the same area is not a good thing. In some sense, I don’t care if MS XML or ODF become “the” format for office documents, as long as the final specification is truly open. But the materials noted above lead me to believe that MS XML is not really open; it appears to be effectively controlled by one vendor, both in its current and future forms, as one obvious example. So MS XML isn’t really an option, and we already have a nice working solution.

What I want is a single document format that is fully open. What’s that mean? See Is OpenDocument an Open Standard? Yes! to see what the phrase “open standard” really means. And let’s look at it in practice. Currently I can edit text documents using the program “vim”, and I don’t even bother to ask if the other person uses emacs, or Notepad… just by saying “simple text format” we can exchange our files. Similarly, I can edit a GIF or PNG file without wondering what originally created the file – or who will edit it next. That’s generally true with other standards like HTML, HTTP, and TCP/IP. That’s the beauty of open standards – real open standards enable a thriving industry of competing products, allowing users to choose and re-choose between them. I want to see that beautiful sunlight in office suites as well.

Interestingly, the issue of a single rail gauge standard during the civil war has come up in at least three recent examples that I can think of.

–jeremy

Filed under Microsoft, ODF, Open Source

A Patent Lie

June 9, 2007 Leave a comment

It’s great to see that the current patent situation is getting some attention in the main stream media. From the article:

The Gates memo predicted that a large company would “patent some obvious thing,” and that’s exactly what Verizon has done. Two of its patents cover the concept of translating phone numbers into Internet addresses. It is virtually impossible to create a consumer-friendly Internet telephone product without doing that. So if Verizon prevails on appeal, it will probably be able to drive Vonage out of business. Consumers will suffer from fewer choices and higher prices, and future competitors will be reluctant to enter markets dominated by patents.

But don’t software companies need patent protection? In fact, companies, especially those that are focused on innovation, don’t: software is already protected by copyright law, and there’s no reason any industry needs both types of protection. The rules of copyright are simpler and protection is available to everyone at very low cost. In contrast, the patent system is cumbersome and expensive. Applying for patents and conducting patent searches can cost tens of thousands of dollars. That is not a huge burden for large companies like Microsoft, but it can be a serious burden for the small start-up firms that produce some of the most important software innovations.

Yet, as the Vonage case demonstrates, participating in the patent system is not optional. Independent invention is not a defense to patent infringement, and large software companies now hold so many patents that it is almost impossible to create useful software without infringing some of them. Therefore, the only means of self-defense is the one Mr. Gates identified 16 years ago: stockpile patents to use as bargaining chips in litigation. Vonage didn’t do that, and it’s now paying a very high price.

Only patent lawyers benefit from this kind of arms race. And Microsoft’s own history contradicts Mr. Smith’s claim that patents are essential for technological breakthroughs: Microsoft produced lots of innovative software before it received its first software patent in 1988. As more and more lawsuits rock the industry, we should ask if software patents are stifling innovation. Bill Gates certainly thought so in 1991, even if he won’t admit it today.

Here’s hoping some progress is finally made on actually fixing the issue.

–jeremy

Filed under Microsoft, Open Source

Mobile is dead! (or the flexibility of Linux)

June 7, 2007 Leave a comment

Reading this post is a great reminder as to just how flexible Linux really is:

Back in the good old days we created mobile software from scratch. We created home grown operating systems for mobile phones, mobile stacks and UI frameworks, primitive light weight file systems, and so on. Back then, CPUs were lazy and flash was poor. Thus, we built dedicated software for mobile devices – and we called it Mobile Software ™.

Today, we run Linux, X, Gnome, Flash, and friends on Nokia N800. Our big idea form the start was to run –as closely as possible– a desktop Linux stack. Others will start to do the same and I predict that mobile software will thus eventually die. All we need is software that runs everywhere.

The N800 is a great example of this. For the most part it runs a fairly stock Linux (It’s Debian based – if you’ve never seen an N800 it’s a fantastic device and one I’m throughly enjoying). This is becoming the case even with things as small as a mobile phone. It’s “just” Linux. On the other end of the spectrum we have mainframes that run “just” Linux as well. Now sure, there are differences in kernel compile options, and while the mainframe will utilize NUMA the phone will have many things ripped out. In the end though, both are true Linux. That means you can use the same tools, the same developer knowledge and in many cases the same apps. Whether it be a phone, a tablet, a desktop or a server – it’s Linux. That’s a powerful proposition. OS X looks to be offering that same flexibility (and it’s not surprising, being BSD based) with the iPhone. Compare this paradigm to the Windows world. If you have a mobile or tablet it may run Windows Mobile, but it may run Windows CE. For a desktop you can choose between a couple versions of XP or myriad versions of Vista. For a server you have Windows 2003. Now most apps that work on XP will work on 2003 and many will work on Vista. I don’t think there is any compatibility between say Vista and Mobile or even Mobile and CE. You have different tool sets for many of these, completely different kernels in many cases and some have arbitrary limitations that I don’t quite understand from a technical perspective. Behind the scenes this all has to be a nightmare to manage and I’d guess the duplication of effort is astounding. Makes me glad I run Linux on almost every device I own :)

–jeremy

Filed under Linux, Microsoft, Open Source

Free Ubuntu Live Conference Pass

June 7, 2007 Leave a comment

I’m happy to announce that as a Media Sponsor I’ve just been informed that LQ is able to give away one full Ubuntu Live Conference pass absolutely free of charge. To be eligible please post in this thread saying how you are involved in the Ubuntu Community and why you’d like to attend. One winner will be randomly selected on June 19th. Ubuntu Live is being held in Portland, Oregon and is July 22-24. Good Luck!

–jeremy

Filed under Linux, Open Source, Ubuntu

← Older posts

Newer posts →