Adobe to Open Source Flex

May 1, 2007 Leave a comment

In my opinion, Adobe is near the top of the list of mainly proprietary companies that could most benefit from opening up. Their vision for RIA is compelling, but a key to platform success is ubiquity and in this day and age that’s really hard to reach without Open Source. It seem Adobe has taken a good first step by releasing Flex under the MPL. From Adobe:

Adobe is announcing plans to open source Flex under the Mozilla Public License (MPL). This includes not only the source to the ActionScript components from the Flex SDK, which have been available in source code form with the SDK since Flex 2 was released, but also includes the Java source code for the ActionScript and MXML compilers, the ActionScript debugger and the core ActionScript libraries from the SDK. The Flex SDK includes all of the components needed to create Flex applications that run in any browser – on Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux and on now on the desktop using “Apollo”.

Developers can use the Flex SDK to freely develop and deploy Flex applications using either Adobe Flex Builder or an IDE of their choice.

The source code for the Flex framework is already available within the free distribution of the current Flex 2 SDK. By this summer, Adobe plans to put in place most of the infrastructure (public bug database and public daily builds) required to run the Flex SDK as an open source project. We expect to complete the transition to a fully open source project (source code for the compiler, infrastructure for community contributions, etc.) by the end of 2007.

It should be noted that Linux, Solaris and Max OS X are all on the list of supported platforms. Some may say that this isn’t really big news. After all, it’s not like they are MPL’ing Flash. The thing is, Adobe is a large and established company. You can’t expect them to change overnight. This is a good first step. Hopefully there will be solid next steps. The web is almost certainly the next platform. It needs to be open. I think Adobe gets that.

–jeremy

Filed under Adobe, Open Source

Eben Moglen Steps Down From Free Software Foundation

May 1, 2007 Leave a comment

(Via an InformationWeek article) It looks like Eben Moglen has stepped down from the FSF. From the article:

The Free Software Foundation has lost one of its best-known leaders.

Board member Eben Moglen announced this week that he is stepping down from the board and his position as general counsel now that the latest draft of GPLv3 has been released. A spokesman for the Software Freedom Law Center said that the two organizations will continue working together. Moglen gave a keynote speech at the MySQL Conference and Expo in Santa Clara, Calif., Wednesday and spoke as a leader of the Software Freedom Law Center during a phone interview afterward.

Moglen said he discussed his plans with others at the foundation before posting a blog explaining his reasons for leaving. FSF president Richard Stallman could not be reached immediately for comment, but Moglen said he left on good terms.

“This is not the consequence of disagreement about anything,” he said during an interview Wednesday.

Moglen said timing and other commitments drove his decision and that Stallman remains a friend.

“I have my own young, growing nonprofit to take care of,” he said. “We have a long alliance on working on things that we both consider very important: free software, technological liberty in the 21st century, and free society. I don’t think that can be changed, and I certainly don’t think this does it.”

While interesting that he didn’t stay through the completion of the GPLv3 process, it’s good to see that he left of amicable terms. He’ll surely be missed. I’ve had the pleasure of seeing Eben speak a number of times and it’s always a worthwhile event. This is great news for any student at Columbia who now has a chance to get into one of his classes. Good luck with the SFLC Eben!

–jeremy

Filed under FSF, GPLv3, Open Source

Linux and Open Source Conference Discount Codes

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

Filed under Linux, LinuxQuestions.org, LinuxWorld, MySQL, Open Source, Ubuntu

Microsoft's other Linux patent deals

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

Filed under Linux, Microsoft, Open Source

Michael Dell Uses Ubuntu and Firefox

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

Filed under Firefox, Linux, Open Source, Ubuntu

Open Source Business Models: a Taxonomy of Open Source Firms' business models

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

Filed under GPL, Linux, Open Source

Thinking Past Platforms: the Next Challenge for Linux

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

Filed under Linux, Open Source

GPLv3, Linux and GPLv2 Compatibility

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

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

Open Source and Business

April 9, 2007 2 Comments

In dealing with Open Source in the business world, it’s amazing how often I run into statements like “we don’t use Open Source because we need a supported product” or “isn’t all Open Source no cost” or “yeah, but you can’t make money with Open Source”. I think some of this misinformation is simply the fact that Open Source is a new way of doing things. Old habits die hard. Another part of it, of course, is the FUD spread by some straining to maintain the status quo. I won’t touch on that part today though ;) The fact is (in order) commercial Open Source companies have to offer quality support – it’s where they provide value and therefore where they make their money. They’re not selling you boxed bits. All Open Source does not come at no cost. There are many examples of this, but the misconception remains a common one. As for the last one, there are a ton of companies making money with Open Source. In some cases, lots of money. The fact that being Open can be extremely good for business is actually what sparked this post. This is from a recent post by Jonathan Schwartz:

For years we were called proprietary – a moniker that did more damage to Sun than any market downturn. And frankly, we’ve spent years recovering. But at this point, my hope is we’ve completely turned that slur on its head, that we’ve come to define open – more open than any other vendor, more open than open itself. From silicon to systems, software to storage and services.

Where open translates to “open to opportunity.”

So how is the Sun stock doing since the transition started? In the last two years the stock has almost doubled. The general consensus about Sun has gone from one of near death to one of rejuvenated innovation. Open Source isn’t only good for the consumer, it’s good for the whole chain. It’ll just take some longer to figure that out than others.

–jeremy

Filed under Open Source, Sun

The LQ Radio Interview Series Returns

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.

Listen In

–jeremy

Filed under Linux, LinuxQuestions.org, Open Source, podcast

← Older posts

Newer posts →