Recent Updates Page 73 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Roberto Galoppini 10:42 am on July 7, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    Network Neutrality: FFII urges action on the European Telecommunications Packet Regulations, first reactions 

    Today the European Parliament is going to vote on proposed amendments to the telecommunications packet regulation, below an excerpt of FFII press release and Kathy Sinnott reactions.

    European Parliament rushes towards Soviet Internet

    Brussels, 04 July 2008 — Amendments to the European Telecommunications directive being rushed through the European Parliament propose a “Soviet internet” where software publishers and internet service providers watch traffic and data for Hollywood. Software and services that run on the internet would have to ask for permission of the regulators.

    Some amendments to the European Telecommunications directive allow administrative authorities in each Member State to define which are the authorised software applications for the internet. Parts of the directive should be implemented by the member states through requiring specific “technical features” in electronic communications networks. Live-analysis and filtering compose a pre-requisite for a “Soviet style” censorship environment.

    Read the full press release, below Kathy Sinnott’s press release.

    Kathy Sinnott MEP for Munster will be voting against a series of amendments to the European Telecommunications Directive designed to give the EU control over citizen’s internet usage. The proposed amendments to the could force internet service providers to turn over information on customers and monitor their internet usage. It could also force software makers to include spyware in their products to allow not only governments but also corporations to monitor citizen’s activities whether or not they are suspected of unlawful behaviour.

    Kathy Sinnott MEP said “I am a great proponent of net neutrality. The reason the internet is what it is today, is that no-one owns it and no company or government has as yet taken control over it. These amendments being pressed by some MEP’s seek to move Europe closer to the Chinese internet model where usage is monitored and where an individual goes online can be curtailed. This will give vast control over our lives to governments and in some cases corporations. I believe that law enforcement agencies should be allowed to pursue specific targets (eg. child pornography, terrorism) but monitoring the
    entire populace is not the way to go about it. These intrusions into our privacy would be unacceptable and I will be urging my colleagues to vote down all such amendments on July 7th.”

    Read also Philippe Aigrain’s post on the subject.

    Technorati Tags: Network Neutrality, net neutrality, FFII, European Parliament, Kathy Sinnott

     
  • Roberto Galoppini 12:24 pm on July 6, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    Open Source and Social Responsibility, some random thoughts 

    Bradley M. Kuhn, FLOSS Community Liaison and Technology Director of Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC), asks if contributing to FLOSS is becoming a social cause, as he received a phone call from someone involved with a socially responsible investment house.

    Social ResponsibilitySocial Responsibility by Casallart

    My friend Stefano Maffulli wonders if free software is closer to be perceived as a social clause, suggesting that we might need a way to measure how close the actions of corporations are to the values of the Free Software movement.

    While I am not convinced it is feasible to measure what he calls the “Free Software Fairness Index”, I see that Jonathan Schwartz in 2007 published the first Sun’s Corporate Social Responsibility report, while corporate/social responsibility advocates asked the Oracle board to issue an Open Source Social Responsibility Report to shareholders.

    Are we really entering an era where FLOSS issues are on the socially responsible criteria list for investors, as Bradley hopes?

    Technorati Tags: social responsibility, BradleyKuhn, Stefano Maffulli

     
  • Roberto Galoppini 11:00 am on July 5, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    European Open Source Observatory and Repository, EC considering Open Source Migration, German Migration Guide available: links 05-07-2008 

    The Open Source Observatory and Repository opens up – The OSOR provides a platform for the exchange of information, experiences and FLOSS-based code for the use in public administrations, everyone is invited.

    EU: EC considers study on migration to Open Source – The European Commission seems considering doing research on whether it should migrate to Open Source software or not. Carlo Piana commented saying that the Commission should be more thorough in following their own policies.

    EU: SUN and Novell to governments: there is plenty of Open Source supportSimon Phipps says there is enough support available for Open Source projects of any scale. It sounds a bit over optimistic.

    DE: Manual for migrating to Open Source updated -The German Ministry of the Interior has published the third edition of its ‘Migrationsleitfaden’, a manual for public administrations  migrating to Open Source. The guide was first published in 2003. It has been downloaded 150,000 times so far and has been translated into several languages.

    Sign up for the IDABC Monthly Open Source News Service if interested in similar news.

     
  • Roberto Galoppini 4:05 pm on July 4, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    Open Source Development: About Community and Sponsored Projects 

    Classifying Open Source production models is not an academic curiosity, as result from recent conversations on how the development model affects at large the software life-cycle and, more important, the business strategy.

    Theodore Ts’o opened a conversation about organic vs non organic open source development, following a Mozilla’s organic definition. Matthew Aslett later reopened the discussion further exploring the bee keeper analogy, getting some reactions from Stormy Peters and James Dixon (original author of the Bee Keeper model).

    Sponsored DevelopersAre all your developers corporate-sponsored? by camera_rwanda

    Beyond definitions, the way open source firms cope with their communities, and how their business is affected by the relationship, worth some attention. The relationships between firms and communities in open source software has been analyzed by very few academic papers so far. Dahlander and Magnusson in their paper “Relationships between open source software companies and communities: Observations from Nordic firms” distinguished three different approaches to handle the firm–community relationship: symbiotic, commensalistic, and parasitic. Managerial issues vary depending on the chosen approach. The symbiotic approach seem to be the most promising in terms of the possibility to influence the community, but firms adopting it are also confronted with challenging managerial issues related to decision rights and control.

    West and O’Mahony in “contrasting community building in sponsored and community founded open source projects” investigated how changes in building and attracting an “external” when open source firms spin out internally developed code. The following table from the paper reports key issues for community-led and sponsored open source projects.

     

    Community initiated

    Sponsored

    Reasons for Initiation

    • Solve a problem
    • Create a “free software” alternative to proprietary solution
    • Achieve greater adoption
    • Get development help on areas that are of ow priority for the firm (e.g. special dialects)

    Key Issues

    • Garnering Resources
    • Building healthy community, attracting talented developers
    • Distributing software
    • Gaining “mindshare” with minimal marketing
    • Gaining legitimacy
    • Building healthy community, attracting talented contributors
    • Resolving ambiguity about control and ownership

    Contributor Motivations

    • To make software happen
    • To gain fulfillment
    • To build and learn new skills
    • To Solve personal and professional problems
    • To complete areas that are of high priority for contributors
    • To gain visibility by prospective employers
    • To influence sponsor’s alignment with complementary projects

    Control

    • Democratic, transparent, usually meritocratic
    • Some leadership and stratification
    • Varies but usually sponsor retains direct or indirect control

    The paper suggests that ongoing relationships between the sponsor and the community face a trade-off between appropriating returns from the commons versus providing incentives for external participants to join the community. As a matter of fact unilateral decisions and legal obligations make difficult recruiting contributors. On the contrary governance mechanisms enabling the sponsor to determine project’s evolution through pluralistic support are definitely of help in this respect.

    Apache, the Collaborative Software Initiative, Eclipse, OpenOffice.org or SAKAI seem to follow very different approaches to community building, technology transfer and fostering open source ecosystems. That is for another post, maybe more than one: I will make some interview before reaching any conclusion, in if any.

    Technorati Tags: Commercial Open Source, community-driven, collaborative software initiative, open source projects, SAKAI, Dahlander, Magnusson, OMahony, West

     
    • James Dixon 4:52 pm on July 4, 2008 Permalink

      These are great points Roberto.

      Based on my own experience I don’t agree with West and Mahony’s items in the Contributor Motivations section. I have contributed to both commercial and organic projects in the past and my motivation is the same regardless of the model: I have a need for the software that the project produces but I am stalled or blocked by a documentation, design, or coding issue. I participate in the project to unblock myself and in the process I contribute my changes to the project.

      In terms of how I select the packge in the first place I try several projects and choose the one that has the bet fit for my needs (this includes functionality, architecture, community etc). I don’t care whether it came from JBoss or Apache or Sourceforge.

      James Dixon, CTO, Pentaho

    • Roberto Galoppini 6:52 pm on July 4, 2008 Permalink

      Hi James, it is great to hear back from you!

      I quoted the West and Mahony’s original table fully, and I agree that the Contributor Motivations section is probably not the most interesting (Lakhani and Wolf are my first choice in this respect).

      I agree that open source software selection is a very interesting topic. I will cover this issue at some extent talking about how super-communities fit into the open source development picture, and your feedback is welcome!

    • Joel West 11:21 pm on July 15, 2008 Permalink

      I would tend to agree that the motivations section was not the strongest part: it was less our own work and thus heavily derived from the prior research of others (including Lakhani and Wolf). The main focus we had — what we thought the contribution was — was on governance of sponsored projects and how that differs from independent ones. This is consistent with Siobhan’s work on community governance and my own interest in openness as a source of competitive advantage.

      Given our focus, we may have simplified away James’ case where he needs the technology and therefore does something to make it happen. This is very consistent with the story of Brian Behlendorf and the Apache contributors.

      However this is where I’d draw the distinction. Brian was contributing because as an employee of a user company — i.e. a company running a website. The data collection for this study focused on IT vendors, normally companies that want to give away X so they can sell Y. So the motivations here tended to be more strategic: we’ll assign 2.5 bodies to support project X to make sure it is available for us when we need it.

      I can certainly see how the line gets blurry for IT vendors: IBM support Apache on principle, but a particular bug needs to be fixed by next week so that WebSphere 12.7 won’t crash. Still, for big companies there’s normally a requirement to get permission to work on OSS projects (at least during work hours) and so the decision to participate in a project would have to be approved as fitting the strategic goals of the company. Presumably a CTO (especially in a non-public company) would have more discretion than a bench-level engineer.

      Joel West
      San Jose State

    • Joel West 11:31 pm on July 15, 2008 Permalink

      Oops, now I can see the source of the confusion.

      The paper quoted in this blog posting is the one that Siobhan & I wrote in June 2004 — effectively our first draft.

      The paper I was referring to one published in April 2008. The newer paper reflects many months of working out the governance issues that distinguish sponsored from independent projects.

      Joel

    • Roberto Galoppini 4:26 pm on July 18, 2008 Permalink

      Hi Joel, I am really glad you joined the conversation.

      I tend to spend part of my blogger’s time and effort to spread the word about academic researches and EC-funded projects, often unknown due to poor dissemination. I think it is a great thing that you spend some time blogging about your findings.

      I took the chance to report about your newest paper on another post about open source communities, maybe raising other issues about what I call hybrid production model.

      Getting back to your comments, I believe that IT vendors are the most important open source actor, but not the only one. Actors like the Collaborative Software Initiative are just trying to industrialize bottom-up processes seen with Apache before, and later with organizations like SAKAI.

      I guess that open source ecosystems in the next future will be seeing consumers playing a much important role.

      Do you agree?

  • Roberto Galoppini 7:37 pm on July 2, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    Open Source Community Awards: Selected Finalists Announced 

    Sourceforge 2008 community choice awards‘ nomination phase is closed, the finalists list is on line and it is time to vote.

    I am partialI Am Also Partial To A Sip Of Wine Sometimes… by *lemonade*

    This year’s pool is a mixture of old favorites and new names, and I am happy that OpenOffice.org is in the “Most Likely to Change the World” category, and invite you to vote for our beloved project!

    Yes, I am partial to my favorite open source productive suite!

    Technorati Tags: SourceForge, Open Source Community, Community Awards, OpenOffice.org, openoffice

     
  • Roberto Galoppini 4:48 pm on July 1, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    Open Source Survey: About OpenLogic Census 

    Six months ago OpenLogic announced the Open Source Census, an initiative to quantify the global use of open source in enterprises. On the 16th of April OpenLogic eventually launched the collaborative project to collect and share quantitative data on the use of open source software, and recently announced the first results.
    Complete Lego CensusComplete Lego Census by Cavalier92

     

    • Ubuntu is the top Linux distribution on machines scanned to date – Various versions of Ubuntu accounted for almost 50% of all Linux distributions installed on participating machines. Debian accounted for 14%; SUSE Linux accounted for 12% of install base; Fedora Core 7%.
    • International interest in Census – 66% of machines scanned in the first two months were outside the U.S. U.S. participants represented about one third of participants. Active global participation in the Census came from areas such as Europe, Canada and Australia.
    • Top open source packages – The top 5 installed open source packages were in order were, Firefox, Xerces, Zlib, Xalan and Prototype.

    I asked my twitter and blog buddy Stormy Peters , Director of Community and Partner Programs at OpenLogic, some feedback about the Census initiative. OpenLogic is an open source firm providing services to help customers to manage open source governance, taking advantage of the frequent lack of open source corporate actors. Apparently launching this survey OpenLogic is doing Forrester, Gartner or IDC job (the last is one of the sponsor of the initiative).

    Why OpenLogic decided to launch an opt-in survey?

     

    As OpenLogic worked with large enterprises, we realized that companies did not know how much open source software they were using. To help address this problem, we developed an open source tool, OSS Discovery, to allow companies to inventory the open source on their systems. As we started working with customers to conduct these inventories, we felt that it would be useful to aggregate this data in an anonymous way. From this experience, The Open Source Census was born. Most research firms use traditional surveys (of software vendors or of end users). Unfortunately, these methods are inadequate for open source since it is downloaded freely and companies do not always know how much open source they are using. IDC sponsored The Open Source Census to supplement the data that they get from other research methods.

    Traditional surveys, basically done by phone calls to software vendors, simply don’t work: OSS procurement is done by clicking on a download button, most of the times. OpenLogic conducting such a survey sponsored by IDC is definitely a sign of the time.

     

     

    What can you tell about the OS census so far?

    We are happy with the initial response to The Open Source Census with almost 1500 systems scanned as of Jun 30. To date, most of the participants in the Census are individuals scanning and submitting data for one or two systems. This is expected since these participants primarily came from press when we launched The Open Source Census. We are now working to actively recruit large enterprises to scan a sampling of machines. We expect that many of these enterprises will scan hundreds or even thousands of machines. The sponsors of The Open Source Census are currently recruiting enterprises and we expect these activities to pay off in the months ahead as enterprises submit large blocks of scans to the Census.

    Enterprises scans will tell us a lot of interesting things, I am not sure Firefox or Xerces will still be in the top ten, though.

    Any comment about the reaction to news of Microsoft’s Support of Open Source Census?

     

    From the beginning, we knew that we wanted The Open Source Census to be a collaborative effort – not just specific to OpenLogic. We felt that collaboration was critical to making The Open Source Census successful. Prior to launching The Open Source Census, we began the process of reaching out to a wide variety of participants in the open source community and ecosystem. The list included large platform vendors, commercial open source vendors, open source communities and organizations, law firms and analysts. Because this is an open project, we did not limit or exclude anyone from sponsoring or participating – as long as they agreed with the goals and process for The Open Source Census. We welcome all sponsors who might want to participate and help make The Open Source Census successful.

    Beyond Stormy’s diplomatic answer all the fuss around Microsoft’s sponsorship is spreading the word about the open source census, and Matt Asay, Savio Rodrigues and Sean Michael Kerner posts are of help in this respect.

    Side effect or not?

    About The Open Source Census:
    The Open Source Census is a global, collaborative project to collect and share quantitative data on the use of open source software in enterprise. Founded by OpenLogic, the Open Source Census has a number of sponsors including OpenLogic and IDC. The Open Source Census initiative has open source tools designed to scan individual enterprise computers for all installed open source software. The results of these scans can then be contributed anonymously to the Open Source Census, where the aggregate data is published.

    Technorati Tags: commercial open source, openlogic, OpenLogic Census, IDC, Gartner, Forrester, StormyPeters

     
  • Egor Grebnev 10:00 am on June 30, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    The Russian schools Linux pilot goes nationwide 

    The pilot project to migrate schools of three Russian regions to Free Software has recently expanded its geography. Now it is possible for the schools outside of Tatarstan, Perm krai and Tomsk region to voluntarily apply for participation by completing a special form (Russian) published on the project website.

    The project, if successful, may be the first step towards large-scale migration of Russian secondary education instutitions and, consequently, of the other state agencies to Free Software as President Medvedev stated last year (Russian) while being the First Deputy Prime Minister.

    Children in the Putino village of Perm Krai running Linux

    Children in the Putino village of Perm Krai running Linux

    It is a hot summer for the project contractors since the schools must be migrated before September 1, when the new academic year starts. By now, according to the official website of Armada, the consortium that unites the firms involved in the project, the project is slightly ahead of schedule. Moreover, Armada’s CEO Igor Gorbatov expects (Russian) the total number of schools migrated to Free Software to surpass the target number of 1000 (the goal is to migrate 50% schools in the central cities and 20% in the rest of the three regions) so that there may be 2000 or even 5000 schools.

    According to project statistics (Russian, but the numbers are quite self-explanatory) published by Armada on June 4, only 182 schools of 1084 had been migrated. However, the project members are actively promoting Free Software, the most notable activity being the on-site install seminars that are organized almost every week in various towns and villages of Perm Krai.

    Technorati Tags: Russia, schools, migration, Armada, free software, Medvedev, Perm, Tatarstan, Tomsk, open source

     
    • exelens 5:07 am on July 1, 2008 Permalink

      Yes! We migrate to Linux in schools. But our distros is really sux.

      We have 2 distros
      1 alt linux. Distr don’t have Russian support in console =( All messages on English. Its not a fanny, Russian Linux with minimal russification.
      2 asp Linux. Distr is a copy Fedora 9 =))

      Many peoples in Russia prefer Ubuntu or Mandriva.
      I prefer Ubuntu =) and write blog about Ubuntu on Russian.

    • Egor Grebnev 3:51 pm on July 1, 2008 Permalink

      Well, as far as I remember, the necessity of translation in console has been a point of discussion. Although ALT Linux had better made at least an option to enable it, I agree.

      But the question that the government is trying to solve is not which distribution to choose (things would have been far too simple this way) but rather who will provide the necessary technical support, educational resources for teachers and kids and who will make all the models of hardware that are deployed in schools Linux-compatible.

    • Jocke 3:18 pm on July 3, 2008 Permalink

      Why dont you use Solaris instead? Solaris is an Enterprise operating System Unix that has long drifted systems in Wall Street, etc. Very very reliable. Not like Linux which is not that good. See yourself, one of the Linux kernel developers states that Linux kernel is buggy:
      http://lwn.net/Articles/285088/

      Solaris has better performance and is more stable than Linux:
      http://lethargy.org/~jesus/archives/77-Choosing-Solaris-10-over-Linux.html

      Download and try Solaris for free from
      http://www.opensolaris.org

    • Egor Grebnev 6:05 pm on July 3, 2008 Permalink

      As far as I know, there were about five firms that placed bids for the schools project, but none of them offered Solaris.

    • Randy Fisher 1:49 am on July 5, 2008 Permalink

      This is great news.

      An important benefit of using Open Office is the ability to save / export content in mediawiki format, so that it can be saved to a wiki.

      I am involved with WikiEducator, a fast-growing community of formal and informal educators – developing a free and open version of the world’s education curriculum by 2015 (in line with the UN’s Millennium Development Goals). WikiEd is connected to the Wikimedia Foundation, and uses its technology engine. http://www.wikieducator.org

      This development is important to us, because as Open Office and FOSS solutions become more pervasive, then educators can more easily develop open educational content, which they can use, share and remix – and further add value for local purposes.

      We offer free wiki skills training to any educator, and really anyone who is interested in learning this valuable life-skill. Please visit: http://www.wikieducator.org/Learning4Content

      – Randy Fisher aka wikirandy

    • Egor Grebnev 1:06 pm on July 5, 2008 Permalink

      Randy,

      Thanks for your message. I am not directly involved in the project at the moment, and changing its development is out of my power. However, I agree that migration to Free Software must involve not only hardware and software migration, but also development of new skills and new educational approaches, which is far more difficult.

      We must admit that nobody is still fully aware how we should use modern computing in education, and I think that the school eduction of the future is currently being forged in the project like yours. Hopefully, the need to focus on educational issues will later be acknowledged by the Russian authorities, and then we may become not only a pioneer in FOSS migration, but also in revealing of FOSS capabilities to their full extent.

    • ubuntu33 2:57 am on July 7, 2008 Permalink

      EXELENS:

      Yes.. I agree..i think Ubuntu is better and much easier for new users..

      Maybe you can bring a ubuntu-cd to school and show your teachers?

  • Roberto Galoppini 10:20 am on June 29, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    Software Patents: about the WIPO patent committee meeting 

    After a hiatus of three years, the WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP) met for its 12th session on June 23, 2008 to June 27, 2008. Given the collapse of the talks to initiate a Substantive Patent Law Treaty (SPLT) to harmonize patent law with respect to prior art, novelty, inventive step and grace period, even the most prescient of WIPO watchers were at a loss in prognosticating the outcome of the WIPO SCP. In 2007, informal consultations of the WIPO SCP were not able come to consensus on deciding upon a work program for the WIPO patent committee.

    As a result the the WIPO General Assembly (2007) instructed the International Bureau to

    establish a report on issues relating to the international patent system covering the different needs and interests of all Member States, which would constitute a working document for the next session of the SCP. The Report would contextualize the existing situation of the international patent system, including reference to the WIPO Development Agenda process, and would contain no conclusions.

    Under the stewardship of the Chair (Maximiliano Santa Cruz, Chile), and his two Vice-Chairs (Mr. Yin Xintian, China) and (Bucura Ionescu, Romania) working in concert with the International Bureau, this meeting bore witness to the flexibilities displayed by Member States including Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, the European Union, Egypt, India, Pakistan, Singapore and Switzerland to ensure that the WIPO patent committee embrace a positive agenda. This positive agenda is evidenced in the Summary by the Chair(SCP/12/4 Rev) posted by WIPO on June 27, 2008. It should also not be forgotten that during the patent committee interregnum, the International Bureau launched a series of patent symposiums that covered a range of issues including the research exemption and patents and standards.

    Despite strong signals sent by Group B countries (rich countries) early on in the Committee that left no doubts that patent harmonization was foremost on their agenda, the conclusion of the meeting took a different turn, a balanced outcome that gave something to developed countries and developing countries, users and right holders alike.

    Read the full article, by Thiru Balasubramaniam

     
  • Roberto Galoppini 6:45 am on June 27, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    Open Source Government: Italy seen from UK, by Matthew Aslett 

    To coincide with EURO 2008, Matthew Aslett is embarking on a virtual European tour, taking a look at open source policies and deployment projects in the 16 nations that are competing in the tournament.

    We lost with Spain, and Matthew wrote his Italian Open Source Tour.

    Key policies:
    In October 2002, a commission for free software in public administration was established to study open source adoption. in May 2003 CNIPA (Centro Nazionale per l’Informatica della Pubblica Amministrazione) published a study (PDF in Italian) that recommended (amongst other things) that public offices should neither prohibit nor penalize the use of OSS packages. A working group later produced guidelines (PDF in Italian) as to how to remain compliant with the recommendations.

    The Italian government put its money where its mouth was in December 2006 as Italian budget law committed €30m over three years to projects that stimulate the information society (although what happened to those funds is open to question) while in May 2007 Italy launched its own repository of open source software for public administrations, the Collaborative Development Environment.

    In June 2007 Italian Minister of Reform and Innovations in Public Administration, Luigi Nicolais, announced the creation of the second Open Source Commission to define guidelines for public procurement of open source software. In May 2008 it published its first draft report.

    Key projects:
    National open source success stories include the Ministry of Justice, which has adopted Red Hat Enterprise Linux, as has the Ministry of Economics and Finance.

    Meanwhile the National Institute of Design and Mint is using JBoss, and Corte dei Conti is also using Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

    In July 2007 the IT department of the Italian Parliament presented plans for the migration of 200 servers and more than 3,500 desktop PCs to Linux and OpenOffice. The migration was due to begin in September and take two years.

    Regional government projects include Cremona, Foggia, Rome, Tuscany, Emilia Romagna, Genoa, Bologna, Balzano, Savona, Umbria, and Tuscany again.

    More details are available of Rome’s open source policy, Genova’s OpenOffice trials, Bologna’s open source projects, and Bolzano’s FUSS project.

    Read the full article.

     
  • Roberto Galoppini 2:12 pm on June 26, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    Open Source Mobile: Funambol keeps growing and raises 12.5 Millions in Venture Capital 

    Congratulations to the Funambol team for raising 12.5 millions of funding in a series B financing led by mobile-focused venture capital firm Nexit Ventures, along with Castile Ventures (new investor) and was joined by existing investors, Walden International and HIG Ventures.

    Investors are banking in a long term perspective, while Funambol is cash flow positive from the beginning of this year, so I asked my friend Fabrizio Capobianco, CEO of Funambol, the following question:

    How is this money going to be spent?

    Tight-ropeA tight-rope walker (funambol) by hdc.

    Our plan is to use the cash to scale up the organization. In particular, around sales and operations. Commercial open source companies tend to have leads in every part of the world, which is a great thing. However, in order to follow the leads through, you need people on site (in particular if you are selling a product to service providers). Therefore, we are opening a few more offices world-wide, where we already have customers, to properly serve them and expand our presence.

    Sometimes easy questions are a valuable tool to get interesting insights. Open source ISVs facing the “turning OSS users into customers” are likely to meet Lead Users – a term coined by Eric Von Hippel referring to users of a product experiencing needs actually unfulfilled and who could significantly benefit from the solution to those needs – from all over the world. If thinking global is the natural choice for open source firms, acting locally requires individualization and customizations to your customers’ needs, yet a local structure to effectively implement such needs.

    As mentioned in my first interview to Fabrizio, Funambol addresses only the “top of the pyramid” (carriers, large ISP, etc), enabling also the base of the pyramid – the “free” Customers – to generate value for Funambol, as it is happening with AOL who just selected Funambol to help with synchronization of its own online and mobile mail.

    In the meantime Funambol ignited also a partnership with SpikeSource, in order to address through SpikeSource and their partners other layers of the “pyramid”. Fabrizio himself commenting the partnership said:

    This partnership with SpikeSource enables every company, regardless of size, to benefit from the simple implementation of Funambol’s mobile open source application.

    Funambol besides fostering its community and delivering its wireless sync application for the iPhone, is creating an open source (mobile) ecosystem around its platform, as every open source firm should do.

    Kudos to Fabrizio and his team!

    Technorati Tags: Funambol, SpikeSource, Spikeignited, Venture Capital, Nexit Ventures, Castile Ventures, Walden International, HIG Ventures, FabrizioCapobianco, lead users, free customers, pyramid market

     
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