Archive for the 'OIN' Category
Wednesday, October 3rd, 2007
New Linux ecosystem developments: Barracuda Networks joins OIN, the Linux Foundation and Japanese government join forces
Today I noticed two articles of interesting news over at Ars Technica:
1) Barracuda Networks has signed on as an OIN licensee which is yet another great pickup for the OIN team.
Security software appliance vendor Barracuda Networks is joining the Open Invention Network (OIN) today as a licensee. In exchange for agreeing not to assert any of their own patents against the Linux software ecosystem, Barracuda will gain royalty-free access to the significant collection of patents held by OIN—which includes the Commerce One web services patents.
2) The Japanese government and the Linux Foundation announced they will be collaborating to advance Linux adoption in Japan.
“Our two organizations are leading the adoption and use of Linux and open-source software, and by working together on joint summits, technology developments and legal activities, we can help Japanese companies promote the use of Linux,” said IPA chairman Buheita Fujiwara in a statement. “Japanese open-source software will continue to play a very important role in the worldwide open source revolution.”
Monday, August 13th, 2007
Google Becomes OIN’s First Licensee
This new is as P.J. describes “huge”. The press release is here.
“Linux plays a vital role at Google, and we’re strongly committed to supporting the Linux developer community,” said Chris DiBona, Google open source programs manager. “We believe that by becoming an Open Invention Network licensee, we can encourage Linux development and foster innovation in a way that benefits everyone. We’re proud to participate in OIN’s mission to help Linux thrive.”
This is huge. All previous licensees have been developers, sellers or resellers of Linux. Plus… let’s be real. It’s Google. OIN becomes increasingly important as a shield against patent attacks.
Wednesday, August 8th, 2007
Information Overload at LinuxWorld
So much news at LinuxWorld, so many discussions, and far too much to capture within a few minutes right now. I’ll dump more of my thoughts here later this week. It took a while for me to actually make my way to the show floor and once I did… shock took over. While I suspected LinuxWorld had “matured” meaning less interest in a Linux-specific event, there were a TON of people present. The show was packed. I haven’t seen official attendance numbers, but I’d say today was a healthy turnout. The IBM reception was absolutely packed. There were far too many parties going on to attend them all - I missed Vyatta’s unfortunately. There’s always tomorrow :)
Some things I have to write about soon: SystemTap (see LWN), OpenMoko (cool, but guys, the resolution is way to high), OLPC, IBM announcements, Desktop Linux, ODF, OIN and Google, Ubuntu (multiples here), POWER6 benchmarks, LSB thoughts, and more.
On another interesting note, I met Craig of Craigslist fame today.
Monday, July 2nd, 2007
GPLv3: Yes, I ignored it, let some dust settle, and now for my thoughts… if you care ;-)
I obviously was not ignoring the GPLv3 launch, but by not blogging about it, I was simply taking Dan’s advice to “just chill”. In the meantime, Luis Villa has posted a print-worthy analysis of what all the GPLv3 hype, changes, hoopla are about. He also offers his views and commentary which I found refreshing. I recommend reading Luis’ four part analysis starting with Part 1. After part 1, you will probably be hooked enough to take in Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Luis’ post-analysis Link Dump.
I will offer a couple comments on what I observed. First, I think the press had higher expectations of the “rolling support/relicensing” announcements would be. Let’s be realistic here: the text changed up until the final version (you can see the red-line version with changes from the “Last Call Draft” to the Final here). Obviously organizations, communities, projects, and vendors participating in the community will now only begin to evaluate licensing under GPLv3 (it’s hard to decide to license based on a changing draft license). You can see what GNU projects are beginning to relicense under GPLv3 here (June 29-30) and here (July).
I personally would not predict a major “ecosystem relicensing effort” to get all GPL licensed software under GPLv3. This process has surely brought to light a common understanding that GPLv2 is certainly good enough, and as Linus has pointed out… what’s the rush? Certainly there are some provisions like the patent “fix”, but whether that really “fixes everything” is doubtful anyway. So a few GNU projects have already gone to GPLv3 - the only point I’ll make here is you don’t need all of them to go to GPLv3 and you certainly don’t need the kernel at GPLv3 to have an impact. Just one package under GPLv3 is sufficient to have an effect and that’s already done. For patent issues… perhaps OIN is doing enough to keep predators at bay…
Does this minimize the importance of GPLv3? Not at all. If you ask me, the greatest output of all this debate, hype, FUD, clarification, drafting, and discussion is something amazing - a license built and agreed upon by the community. When was the last time you saw that happen? This is a true testament to the power of community innovation and the interest and support for GNU/Linux.
So if this is so great and the community is largely in agreement, why don’t we see everyone adopting it? I suspect the reality in many open source projects is simple… they don’t have an immediate need for a new license. Let’s say you have a laptop that you bought two months ago and someone is willing to trade you that laptop for one bought today that has a slightly better configuration. You know it will take you another 12 hours to migrate everything over and get up and running on the new one and while there’s potentially a slight benefit, there’s nothing on this new model that you really need. Perhaps you decline on updating to the latest model… that’s where I see GPLv3 - broad adoption will happen if those communities still on GPLv2 (or another license) have a need for any license change. The driver won’t be a new license, but a need for any change in their current license (and many won’t find one) I suspect Linus has been searching for what if any need he has for GPLv3 and there’s really not much that will “change the world” by changing licenses.
Anyway, head over to Luis’ place for his analysis, and in the meantime, remember:
Monday, June 25th, 2007
Meme Games: 3×3 Lessons for Open Source Firms
I was tagged by Stephen O’Grady… while I generally avoid replying to such meme’s, I then saw Luis replied and that put the rest of us tagged on the spot ;-) I am also replying because I probably see a different side of the equation that could potentially help others understand how the IBM-like vendors look at open source firms. Hopefully there may be at least a small level of insight that someone can benefit from in this response. I’ll put the usual disclaimers around this - take it “as is” with no express or implied warranties for fitness for any particular purpose (or merchantability).
I will preface that this meme is about “open source firms” which I assume means companies/profit seekers leveraging open source software as a model to grow - not those who take on the humble task of building free software in a non-commercial intent model (i.e. Apache, Eclipse). Having replied to this meme, I get to name the next round of victims. For that I will now tag Canonical’s Mark Shuttleworth, kernel hacker Gerrit Huizenga who participates uniquely with other Linux firms in the community, and finally sogrady’s partner in crime over at Redmonk, Coté. So without further adieu, here’s my quick/dirty 3×3.
3 “Do”s:
1) Do Bring Crisp Customer Value to the Table: Define a value proposition beyond simply relying on being “open source” - there has to be some reason your value proposition is better (i.e. Firms in your industry constantly struggle to integrate X and Y while customizing for individual business units. Our open, modular architecture can be adapted to meet your individual business unit CRM requirements and integrate with X without expensive, lengthy customizations of the entire app) Hitting on a pain point of “closed” alternatives works well too - ask a PBX user how much they love their supplier(s)… turn the pain points (licensing, payment models, etc) into your value prop
2) Do Make Friends, Not Enemies: I once had a _smart*_ once tell me in an opening introductory sentence at an O’Reilly event his job was to use open source to wipe out millions of dollars of IBM’s business until IBM realized they’d have to buy him. That was his first sentence to me ever! - not “Hi, I’m XYZ from ABC, I’d like to find ways to partner with IBM”. The IT business is driven by partnerships, friendships, loyalties, acquaintances, and networking. If you are into open source to make a profit, partner like mad - if you position yourself as the enemy, expect to be killed or worse, ignored and slowly put out to pasture. The person who approached me in that manner is now struggling with the latter issue… I suspect his initial investors won’t hang around long as he still tries to make himself relevant.
3) Do Make the Right Friends - Partner with the Right Partners: The open source firms with a strong management team “get” partnering. They partner with other firms that can enable business and community growth. Just because someone like IBM invests millions in open source communities, Linux, and the community does not mean every open source firm should bet the farm on partnering with IBM. Yes, partnering with IBM has advantages, but IBM can also suck up your precious resources simply navigating the huge array of virtual teams. IBM may also have a differing strategy (and every strategy out of IBM is not necessarily the one that wins in market - you can be different). As an open source firm, your goal is to find the right partners who are naturally aligned for partnering with you. Don’t accept partnerships that have no investment on one side - they’re doomed. Both sides must be aligned and invested. How will your partnership not only create more business for you, but also generate new revenue or reach a new customer base for your partners. I’ve had this discussion with the head a particular open source firm on a few occasions - partnering is by definition mutual - how do we both benefit from partnering? (otherwise, I can’t justify investment and maybe I’m not the right partner for you) Another IBM partner with an open source product just closed another round of investment for ~$25M - they know how to partner in a mutually beneficial model. There will be a lot of news coming in this space…
3 “Do not”s:
1) Do Not Shy Away from Being a Commercial Business - too often companies pitch how “open” they are. While that’s great, how do you make money? It’s as if some open source firms are afraid to discuss how they make money off of free software (free as in speech). This is usually a good way for vendors to weed out the bad firms - if the firm is shy about discussing this, they probably have a weak value prop, and there’s probably more of a “hidden hook” to make customers pay than offer something customers want to pay for. IBM has for a long time been investing substantially in Linux, open standards/source based software, and open source communities - I can’t recall an executive who did not clearly, up-front, and simultaneously articulate how IBM generates revenue from any of those ventures. If you set the tone up front, no one will be surprised or upset later. And if you have a strong value prop - see point 1) - customers will expect your valuable product/service comes at a reasonable price. And one last point is “free as in beer” only gets you one round - downloads do not magically turn into profit later. I don’t care if you have 8M downloads - while that’s great for showing loose interest in your technology, how many are paying you? How many have built a dependency in their applications on your technology? How are you going to generate the revenue needed to fund the next version of your technology?
2) [If you are trying to be the standard as in platform], Do Not Try to Control/Dominate/Dictate an “open” Community Project. I’m not talking about MySQL here - they’re an application/database component. Rather, think about platforms like operating systems, dynamic server languages, portable runtimes, etc. that customers use as platforms to build on. There are many of these succeeding today (RHT, NOVL, PHP, Apache, Eclipse to name just a few). There are others that may have an open source license, but the firm tries to dominate with restrictions and provisions in contributor agreements, including hidden hooks in license terms, or by bundling in non-free (as in speech) components. These firms typically then claim to be leaders and their platform is growing in adoption … yet for some reason… no one partners with them - see point 2) - and they carry the entire development expense with no community-scaling benefits. They invest the R&D and in the end, their “community platform” is just another vendor product that rings well with the vendors existing customers. Consider Eclipse - while it may have started with IBM dominating the “participant list”, it takes a serious approach to vendor-neutrality and open participation for BEA, Oracle, Sybase, Zend, Actuate, Compuware, SAP, CA, and Borland to all join IBM on the Strategic vendors list. The same applies to Linux - look at the Linux Foundation membership list.
3) Do Not Ignore Intellectual Property; Do Not Let Intellectual Property Stifle Your Innovation - First, you cannot ignore the effects and implications of intellectual property decisions. First, there’s the license - not all software must be GPL, but there are serious, practical issues if you decide to create the “XYZ Corp Open Source License v1.0″. License appropriately for the type of developer and user community you’re trying to foster. Second, patents - take a political stance, but don’t get caught staring at the clouds waiting for Congress. File for patents if you can, what you do with them after is up to you, but the Patent Commons, OIN, or some other entity is a great place to house them. Also, don’t be stupid and violate an obviously valid patent. If you’re starting an open source project in a technology area that has established players - hire an attorney to guide you through the minefield. It can be done. Third, figure out the trademark situation. Badgeware is one issue, but not creating a trademarked identity that your “open community” can use in viral marketing and “I’m proud to be an XYZ-user” situations is sheer nonsense. You need to establish legal trademarks, then set clear guidelines for trademark usage up front, make it open, and don’t use your trademark to make people pay you - IMO it’s a poor business practice and creates unnecessary frustration later on. And finally, don’t let IP hold you up. Everyone knows this field is wrought with nonsense and arcane approaches to IP. If you can create value, just hire a reasonable IP attorney to walk you through the field. Take some basic steps to be safe, but don’t spin wheels and tie up valuable resources trying to analyze (or let an attorney make you analyze) every conceivable, possible, extreme angle. IP generally comprises of Patents, Copyrights, Trade Secrets, and Trademarks - use them wisely.
If I had a 4×4 meme, I’d also cover open standards and the importance to lead in driving these open standards as part of your model (see what happened with Spring for instance).
Monday, June 18th, 2007
Mark Shuttleworth: Thanks, but no thanks; we have no need for your unspecified patents
Very well articulated view of recent patent comments from Microsoft by Mark Shuttleworth of Ubuntu/Canonical (and in response to pure speculation from SVN… he’s usually on target… not this time…) . Mark’s position is exactly what more people need to understand fully. Please read the whole blog post.
Some great quotes:
We have declined to discuss any agreement with Microsoft under the threat of unspecified patent infringements.
Allegations of “infringement of unspecified patents” carry no weight whatsoever. We don’t think they have any legal merit, and they are no incentive for us to work with Microsoft on any of the wonderful things we could do together. A promise by Microsoft not to sue for infringement of unspecified patents has no value at all and is not worth paying for. It does not protect users from the real risk of a patent suit from a pure-IP-holder (Microsoft itself is regularly found to violate such patents and regularly settles such suits). People who pay protection money for that promise are likely living in a false sense of security.
I welcome Microsoft’s stated commitment to interoperability between Linux and the Windows world - and believe Ubuntu will benefit fully from any investment made in that regard by Microsoft and its new partners, as that code will no doubt be free software and will no doubt be included in Ubuntu.
Monday, May 21st, 2007
OPPD: One Patent Per Developer
Larry has a lofty goal that sounds like a great idea. I’ve heard that similar efforts have had difficulty getting developers to submit and work through the patent process even when the resources are already paid for… perhaps recent issues can generate greater interest.
Tuesday, May 15th, 2007
Open Invention Network Responds to Microsoft’s Statements to Fortune
Just saw this statement from OIN hit the wire.
http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release_html_b1?release_id=253257
——————-
Open Invention Network Comments on Article in Fortune
NEW YORK, NY — (MARKET WIRE) — May 15, 2007 — Jerry Rosenthal, chief executive officer of Open Invention Network, issued the following statement today:
“A recent article in Fortune Magazine raises — or more precisely, re-raises — tired, old allegations about the Linux operating system for the sole purpose of perpetuating unwarranted fear, uncertainty and doubt among current and potential Linux users and distributors.
This is not the first time that unsubstantiated claims of patent infringement have been leveled at Linux. Moreover, just as in the past, these claims are made without disclosing any evidence. It’s time to stop the accusations and show the evidence. What’s happening with these accusers is the equivalent of declaring four aces while being unwilling to show even a pair of deuces.
It’s clear that these accusations are actually an admission of the rapid uptake of Linux in the marketplace, Linux’ success in displacing legacy products of competitors and that Linux provides superior software in performance, security and stability.
Here are some facts to provide clarity around Linux and patents:
-- There never has been a patent lawsuit against Linux. Never. -- Linux has excellent intellectual property vetting. -- Linux has thousands of high-quality, dedicated programmers. -- Linux creates a robust, secure computer operating environment.
In less than a year, OIN has accumulated more than 100 strategic, worldwide patents and patent applications that span Web / Internet, e-commerce, mobile and communications technologies. These patents are available to all as part of the free Linux ecosystem that OIN is creating around, and in support of Linux. We stand ready to leverage our IP portfolio to maintain the open patent environment OIN has helped create.” About Open Invention Network
Open Invention Network is an intellectual property company formed to further the Linux environment by acquiring patents and ensuring their availability. It promotes a positive, fertile ecosystem for Linux, which in turn drives innovation and choice in the global marketplace. Open Invention Network has considerable industry backing. It was launched in 2005, and has received investments from IBM, NEC, Novell, Philips, Red Hat and Sony. For more information go to www.openinventionnetwork.com.
Media-Only Contact: Ed Schauweker ed.schauweker@ketchum.com 703-963-5238 SOURCE: Open Invention Network
Tuesday, May 15th, 2007
Jerry Rosenthal of OIN quoted regarding Microsoft’s patent FUD
See Jerry’s quote at the end taken from this MSNBC.com article.
Open-source proponents are frustrated by Microsoft’s repeated allusions to patent violations because “they never say what patents being violated, never make any assertions, never put the evidence out there,” said Larry Augustin, a technology startup investor who launched SourceForge.net, a prominent open-source development site, in 1999.
But Augustin also acknowledged that it’s not in Microsoft’s interest to do so: Open-source programmers could rewrite their code to avoid infringing on specific patents, or the courts could find that Microsoft’s patent isn’t valid.
If Microsoft were to start suing, it could also kick off a patent war on a grand scale. An organization called the Open Innovation Network, funded by IBM Corp., Red Hat Inc. and others, has amassed a vast number of software patents. In the event of a Microsoft lawsuit against open source companies or customers, the OIN would retaliate in kind.
“We believe it’s highly likely that Microsoft would infringe some of our patents,” said Jerry Rosenthal, OIN’s chief executive.
Monday, May 14th, 2007
The dividing line between a junior reporter and an exceptional reporter: Steven Vaughan-Nichols covering MSFT’s latest legal FUD
Some good albeit randomly taken lines out of this article which is worth a read. SVN is once again on the exceptional side of that line for his ability to wade through all the mystery. I’m starting to question whether legal courses should be required components of any college degree. Core courses tend to include English, Mathematics, some Science, but not law which happens to govern quite a few aspects of most people’s personal and professional lives. Why is legal study reserved primarily for J.D. grad students? If everyone had a basic knowledge of IP law, most of the “mystery” that seems to surround legal FUD generation would simply go away. The way to fight these fears is through education. The only enemy to fear, is fear itself.
So, while Microsoft’s latest claims may sound terrible to the layman, any attorney worth his or her salt will know that these are old and basically bogus statements. So, why is Microsoft trotting them back out again?
….
How are these programs violating the patents? Heck, which patents are being violated? We don’t know. Microsoft isn’t saying.
…
Gosh, vague threatening IP (intellectual property) claims without any facts. Where have we heard that before? Could it be from early days of the long discredited SCO’s claims? The claims, which have fallen from grandiose heights to 326 unimportant lines of code?
….
No, that’s not just open-source fanboy talk. Prominent open-source lawyers, like Eben Moglen, the executive director of the Software Freedom Law Center, believe that by distributing the SLES certificates, Microsoft has become a Linux distributor, and therefore subject to the GPL.
Tuesday, March 27th, 2007
Subscribe to RSS/Atom Feed
