Updates from January, 2007 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Roberto Galoppini 8:44 pm on January 22, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Licensing: OpenSolaris under GPLv3? 

    An anonymous source, as reported by Peter Galli on eweek, revelead that Sun Microsystems is planning to dual-license OpenSolaris, under the CDDL license and the GPLv3 as well.

    Alex Fletcher, principal analyst at Entiva Group Incorporated, talks about sound decision:

    I class as a sound decision, Sun Microsystems decided to hold off on deciding whether to adopt the General Public License version 3 (GPLv3) for its Solaris operating system until the license is finalized.

    Rich Green, Sun’s Executive Vice President, wrote:

    According to eWeek, apparently we’re going to license OpenSolaris under GPLv3. I have to say I was surprised because it just ain’t so. This is primarily due to the fact that the terms of GPLv3 aren’t final, thus making it impossible for us to commit to it. It would be like signing a contract with blanks to be filled in later. So, with all due respect to eWeek, I feel I have to go on record to say the article isn’t correct.

    At the end of the day, no news under the Sun ..

     
  • Roberto Galoppini 10:22 am on January 22, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Business development: listening users, caring customers 

    Waiting to agree on what is an open source company. challengers are trying to get some “space” saying incumbents are not so open source minded as they pretend to be.

    Reading the Vtiger blog I found a thread about priorizing users vs customers needs.

    All started by the following statement, written by Ritchie of the Vtiger team:

    We are giving priority to the paid customers’ queries.

    Carlos Ribeiro commented Ritchie saying he was disappointed by the Vtiger policy:

    Even if I understand you, there are a couple points here… first, even being true, it should not be said in a public forum, because it in a way “diminishes” the importance of the open source version users. So, we all know it, you will prioritize your paid customers, but DONT LET ME KNOW. And that leads me to the second point.

    One thing is for you to allocate your best resources to attend your paid customers. Another completely different thing is to leave your “open source” customers in the dark, with no response. I sincerely believe that no question should be unanswered, even if the answer is “I cant solve it for you right now”. Leaving a customer with no answer is an invitation for him to leave your company and do business elsewhere.

    Some commercial open source firms offer all users an high quality of service, it’s a marketing choice, may be even a necessity, but it can’t be an obligation.

    Open source companies are companies, and they have to be profitable. Vtiger people is right, they clearly say:

    The product is free, the source code is free; do not expect the service to be free.

    But OS firms indeed are involved in a commons-based peer-production with other firms, volunteers, users and customers and they have to pay attention if they want to be successfully symbiotic.

    Listening users, sharing roadmap decisions, work with the community can make the open source choice more effective, going beyond marketing, but it’s costy and may be not easy.

    Sun despite its slogan “Open Source is about participation” didn’t answered yet to an open letter by the Italian Native-Lang Project about an issue opened months ago.

    Walking the talk might be tough..

     
  • Roberto Galoppini 8:20 pm on January 21, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Open Source Initiative about Attribution: you decide! 

    Answering a comment about the attribution debate I wrote I believed that OSI had a good chance to show the world why we need them, finding a way to close the debate, as soon as possible.

    Today I learn that Michael Tiemann, Red Hat Chief Technology Officer and OSI President, posted a message on the license-discuss@opensource.org mailing-list saying:

    [..]In the case of the SocialText license, I feel there’s significant risk that if we take on the responsibility of making the arguments, we may create a bias that is not faithful to the real arguments you want to make. Therefore, we’d like to invite those who think we should not approve the SocialText license to work out a common position on *why* we should not approve it, which could inform how SocialText could remedy your concerns. And we’d like to invite those who think we should approve it (or should approve it with some minor change) to work out a common position on why we *should* approve it. If one or both sides an biore willing to do this, I think that the Board’s decision process will appear much more transparent.

    The OSI Board it’s likely to make the decision within February, but besides appearing more transparent they risk to delegitimate themselves..

     
    • Savio Rodrigues 4:30 am on January 23, 2007 Permalink

      Hey Roberto, I don’t think that it’s such a bad thing for the OSI to ask for community input.

      Just think about how a true open source community works. Multiple viewpoints and multiple motivations but everyone’s pulling in the same direction.

      I think more input and more transparency is a good thing; whether it’s for developing software, or for deciding on what constitutes an open source license.

    • Roberto Galoppini 11:28 am on January 23, 2007 Permalink

      I agree Savio, is not such a bad thing itself ask for comments, though they’re asking it now because they couldn’t manage to sort it out by themselves.
      Democracy through participation it’s supposed to be a philosophy, not the ultimate resource when you’re in trouble, as Pontius Pilate.

    • Savio Rodrigues 7:19 pm on January 23, 2007 Permalink

      lol – the Pontius Pilate reference made my day!

  • Roberto Galoppini 4:48 pm on January 21, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    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?

     
    • 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.

  • Roberto Galoppini 6:51 pm on January 19, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Free software, is it really unambiguous? 

    Richard Stallman argued that the explanation for “free software” is simple – free speech, not free beer – and there is no such succinct way to explain the official meaning of “open source”.

    He also sustained that:

    The official definition of “open source software,” as published by the Open Source Initiative, is very close to our definition of free software; however, it is a little looser in some respects, and they have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users.

    As I already pointed out definitions of free software and open source are both vague, and beyond definitions both organizations decide unilaterally if a license qualifies or not.

    Today reading about a weird comparison of Software libre and Life libre, I sorted out that people misunderstand also what free software advocates are advocating: definitions after all are just definitions, facts matter!

    Richard Stallman noticed also that companies involved with FLOSS seek to gain the favorable cachet of “open source” also for their proprietary products, calling themselves “open source company”:

    But companies do not seem to use the term “free software” that way; perhaps its association with idealism makes it seem unsuitable. The term “open source” opened the door for this.

    I believe he is totally right.

     
  • Roberto Galoppini 9:08 am on January 19, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    (Free) Software choice: Macedonian organizations demand for 

    Metamorphosis, a foundation organising OpenOffice.org training for representatives of local self-government units in Republic of Macedonia and  Free Software Macedonia demanded from the Government to enable the citizens to choose to be trained in the use of FLOSS.

    According to the two organizations, alternatives like Open Office offer benefits going beyond technological and functional aspects, important in the current economic situation in the country.

    They also refer to the position expressed in a study funded by the European Commission, citing that free software can aid the development of digital industry in EU.

     
  • Roberto Galoppini 8:47 pm on January 18, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Open Source firm, what do you mean? 

    Matt Asay, who recently announced that if you want to follow his valuable open source commentary you have to to do it from InfoWorld, yesterday wrote about what constitutes an open source company.

    Some models rely on a small percentage of the being open source, others fund open source projects but have the majority of their software products proprietary and I believe he is right stating:

    In someone’s mind, every open source company out there is not open source enough.

    Matt concludes saying that the best policing mechanism he found to answer the question is the community. So, what do you think?

     
  • Roberto Galoppini 7:07 pm on January 17, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Free software: where does it come from? 

    The already famous final report published by the European Commission about the Economic Impact of Free/Libre Open Source Software on innovation and competitiveness of the EU ICT sector. has recently been commented Matthew Aslett.

    It’s interesting notice things like SAP and Silicon Graphics contributing more than MySql.

     
  • Roberto Galoppini 7:17 pm on January 16, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Business development: the Aras approach 

    Aras Corporation, specialized in commercial open source solutions for enterprise product lifecycle management (PLM), Advanced Product Quality Planning (APQP), yesterday announced the availability of the version 8 of the Aras Innovator suite.

    Aras, a privately held company with institutional investors like Oak Investment Partners, Greylock Partners, Matrix Partners and the angel group eCoast Angels, hosts its open source projects on Microsoft’s CodePlex collaborative development website.

    Bill Hilf, the General Manager of Microsoft’s Platform Strategy, stated:

    We are supportive of Aras’ move to offer enterprise open source solutions on the Microsoft stack, and we continue to see tremendous growth in the Microsoft partner ecosystem as a variety of industry partners are finding innovative ways to take advantage of the value of the Microsoft platform under a wide range of licensing models.

    So Microsoft likes open source this way, but is the world ready for Microsoft Open Source?

     
  • Roberto Galoppini 8:11 am on January 15, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Italian Open Source projects: Funambol 

    As I already observed, there are interesting stories to tell about Italians involved with OS projects. Funambol is both the name of the firm, raised up by Italians with funds from US Venture Capitalists, and of its flagship product, the open source project formerly known as sinc4j.

    Funambol application server provides push email, address book and calendar (PIM) data synchronization, but is also a development platform for mobile applications. The product is aimed at developers who need to extend an existing product to the mobile space, or who are looking to create a new mobile application.

    Andrea Trasatti commenting my post suggested me to have a look at Fabrizio Capobianco’s blog, Funambol’s CEO, I did it and then I asked him to tell me more about Funambol story.

    How the project was conceived?

    The project started in 2001 as Sync4j, with the basic idea of providing a mobile application server for developers. To allow the next paradigm shift (from web to mobile) to become a reality. In 2002, a company was created to promote the project. It was called Funambol, the mobile open source company. Funambol is a Latin word that means tight-rope walker: being a commercial open source company means walking a tight-rope, every day. Funambol is based in Silicon Valley, it is backed by Venture Capitalist and in 2006 it was selected among the top 100 companies in America by Red Herring. The project changed its name to Funambol in 2006, it became the largest open project in mobile and it is now close to reach the one million downloads mark.

    Not differently from Wurfl the project started by scratching developers’ itches, but the business idea was quite clear from the very beginning.

    How did it grow?

    Initially, the focus was around building mobile applications and providing data synchronization with SyncML (an open standard now pre-installed on 80% of the devices). Then we created vertical solutions around push-email, contacts/calendar backup and sync. The goal is to take BlackBerry-like capabilities and bring them to everyday phones. Push messaging – integrated with address book synchronization – is the “killer app” in mobile. The focus is building the next SMS: based on standards, supporting attachments (e.g. pictures and videos, created on devices) and integrated with the web email. The community grew extremely fast, in particular in the last year. Apart from the development, the key contribution is on the device testing. When you have a billion phones that change every quarter and behave differently depending on location and mobile operator, device testing and compatibility is the killer factor. In mobile, there is no automated testing but there are a billion devices to be tested… You need people in every country of the world. To create a BlackBerry solution for the masses, the only option is a distributed community effort. Open Source is the only viable alternative to BlackBerry and Microsoft, when it comes to the consumer market.

    Looking at the community projects page I found many external developers contributing to Funambol’s OS projects, realizing connectors and syncronizers. The modular architecture establishes spheres in which developers can work free of interference from external influences, aiding the division of labour. Modularity, as usual, is central.

    Who are the contributors?

    Funambol is released with two edition: Community and Carrier edition. The Community Edition is targeted at enterprises who need to mobilize their users, giving them push-email and PIM synchronization for the rest of the company. Contribution to the project comes from IT people in the enterprise, ISV (bundling our project in their own) and ASP (offering our platform as a service). The Carrier Edition is targeted at mobile operators who need to offer push-email and contacts/calendar backup and sync to their consumers. It has additional features – specific for mobile operators – and it is licensed with a commercial license. We call it “honest dual licensing”, since we are not upselling a commercial product on our open source community (enterprises and ISVs) but we sell to a different target (who does not want to be return code to the community). It is the best of both worlds, since there is no tension with the community and you make paying customers quite happy (they like the source code and the large community around it, for quality and support).

    Looking at the edition page, I sorted out there is a third edition, namely the Network one, aimed at delivering some basic technical support and software update notices, a low level subscription level.
    Funambol is a business model layering users and customers depending on their needs, and here turning consumer users in customers is not an issue.
    OS marketing works very well for pyramidal markets where you need to address only the top.

    What about the coordination of production?

    We have a core development team in Pavia, Italy. The project manager of the Funambol project is Stefano Fornari, Funambol CTO. The team coordinates the development and the contribution from the community in the core. On top of it, we have a very significant amount of contributors around clients (for example, the Mozilla or Evolution client) and data sources (for example, the Exchange or SugarCRM connectors). These are what we call Community Projects, fully maintained by community members. We have also launched a couple of interesting programs: Code Sniper is meant to encourage development by the community of components that have been requested by the community itself. Phone Sniper is meant to encourage device testing and certification. Both programs enjoy cash contribution from Funambol. It is one of our way to return some of the revenues of our Carrier Edition back to the community, walking the tight-rope.

    I did know Funambol was helped by one of the most active attorneys in open source, what I learn from Capobianco is the extra effort they put to organize programs, included the Funambol Open Source Project Social contract, and I believe they do merit their success.

    Long live to Funambol and all its Commercial Open Source projects!

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel