The most free distro war: “free software on proprietary terms”
For years we have been reading articles reporting Debian as the most free distro, but recently Mark Shuttleworth started a new kind of distro war, saying that Red Hat and Novell essentially offer free software on proprietary terms.
Shuttleworth answering to some comments made clear is point of view:
When a free software kernel is compiled by a company and then licensed under a commercial license (i.e. you can use this source code freely, but you can’t actually run our build freely), then I think we are in danger of recreating Microsoft in the Linux world.
Greg De Koenigsberg, the Community Development Manager for Red Hat, answered Shuttleworth provocation saying that:
What is “proprietary” is the brand, and the quality of service you are entitled to receive by being a paying customer.
He also added that while Red Hat makes all of its source RPMs available to anyone, Novell don’t.
Mark Shuttleworth then replied:
Applications, as you know, don’t run on source RPM’s. Hardware vendors don’t certify source RPM’s. Users don’t install source RPM’s.
So let’s talk about the real meat – the binaries that make up RHEL. As you are well aware, these are a closely controlled and licensed under terms very similar to those of any traditional proprietary software. That’s why Oracle’s having to jump through hoops to produce Unbreakable Linux (bless ‘em). That’s why users are required to pay for the privilege of using RHEL.
De Koenigsberg posted a definitive answer to Shuttleworth:
Yes, “let’s talk about the real meat” — the way that Mr. Shuttleworth chooses to define “proprietary”. It appears that he defines it thusly: “using a business model that is not compatible with my own.”
I think that most folks would agree that Richard Stallman is the defining ethicist of the copyleft generation. Does he say in the GPL, “one must give away one’s binary packages for free”?
He does not.
What is “proprietary” is the brand, and the quality of service you are entitled to receive by being a paying customer.
The real issue is that challengers like Canonical are struggling to get a space in the Linux arena, where barriers are higher and weak intellectual property assets don’t help to appropriate returns.
Canonical is offering to all Ubuntu users a quality of service delivered by the incumbents only to paying subscribers, that’s neither noble nor admirable. but simply a marketing necessity.
In the meanwhile, Sun Microsystems through its Sun Partner Advantage News says:
Companies currently evaluating Red Hat or SuSE Linux will likely be concerned about potential business disruptions resulting from the recent announcements as well as the potential for increased risk associated with compatibility, support, and intellectual property issues.
Users of Solaris 10 will not be affected by these developments.
At Sun, free means free. Open source software makes the Solaris OS the safe, strategic choice for commercial and development use.
Is the most free distro war becoming the most free OS war?
Roberto Galoppini, 
][ stefano maffulli » Chi ce l’ha più libera? 9:38 am on January 22, 2007 Permalink
[…] Redhat ha scelto la stessa strategia: usare il suo marchio per differenziarsi da terzi e vendere costosi contratti di assistenza. Canonical, con Ubuntu, invece è un outsider sul mercato e il suo marchio è poco riconoscibile nel mercato che conta di più (l’enterprise) perciò sta puntando sulla gratuità della sua offerta. Come giustamente fa notare Galoppini questa scelta [di Canonical] non è né nobile né ammirabile: è una necessità di marketing. Per questo mi ha deluso moltissimo la serie di post di Shuttleworth sulle ‘sfide da superare‘. Tutta questa enfasi sulla gratuità (la sfida #1) la trovo sbagliata e poco interessante. Vogliamo parlare invece del software proprietario sviluppato da Canonical e mai distribuito? Launchpad, per esempio, la collezione di servizi su cui si basa la collaborazione con la comunità di sviluppatori di Ubuntu, il maggiore differenziatore di Ubuntu rispetto a RH o Suse: dov’è? Dov’è il sistema per assemblare la distribuzione? E questa scelta di includere driver proprietari, rimangiandosi la promessa di non includere software proprietario, come la classifichiamo? Ubuntu distribuisce solo software libero oltre ad essere gratis? Free o free? Brutta scena. Molte aziende hanno una strategia riguardo il Business del Software Libero, incluso Sun. La torta del BSL non farà altro che crescere, per cui anche una piccola fetta è destinata ad aumentare di volume. Ho invece l’impressione che queste lotte interne rischia di non far crescere la torta, di rallentare l’adozione del Software Libero da parte dei clienti che contano. Commercial Open Source Software » The most free distro war: “free software on proprietary terms†[…]
Savio Rodrigues 11:14 pm on January 26, 2007 Permalink
g “a quality of service delivered by the incumbents only to paying subscribers, that’s neither noble nor admirable. but simply a marketing necessity.
Roberto, that is a very insightful remark.
I’m sure Mark would tell you that it’s less about marketing and more about doing what is “right for all humans”. And hey, if he’s willing to put his money where his mouth is and offer for free what others are charging for, great. As a user, that makes me happy (who doesn’t like free stuff?) But it’s difficult for a business to get by without revenue 🙂
Roberto Galoppini 11:54 am on January 27, 2007 Permalink
Talking about what is “right for all humans” I would rather think to more basic things, though.
Anyhow I pay big respect to Mark’s risky business model, and may be he will eventually eat a slice of the distro pie, and I wish to see how he will behave then.