Archive for the 'Linux Foundation' Category
Thursday, August 14th, 2008
How to participate in the Linux kernel development process/community
There’s a great book published over at the Linux Foundation that helps developers who are interested in participating in Linux kernel development and the process for contributing. This is a great resource and is probably one of the most difficult “cultural” and procedural issues for new, aspiring kernel hackers. I think it’s absolutely fantastic the kernel community itself has published a guide on how to participate. This will help significantly as the developer community has scaled already to a very large number of participants.
The LF should publish a PDF version… I’ll send them a suggestion. One other suggestion would be about how a developer should work with their internal legal team to get permission for submitting code. Perhaps we’ll see that in version 2.0.
Oh, and of course it’s free (as in beer) - until O’Reilly buys the rights ;-)
http://ldn.linuxfoundation.org/book/how-participate-linux-community
Thursday, April 3rd, 2008
Who really writes “Linux”? A special report from the Linux Foundation
Steven posted a good eWeek article summarizing the recent Linux Foundation report on who writes and contributes to the Linux kernel development. Too many have written blogs with titles like “who writes Linux” that I had to put “Linux” in quotes in my title. The reason is that this document/report is about the Linux kernel and there are many things that people commonly associate with “Linux” that are outside the kernel. Think of Gnome which is written by the Gnome community, KDE which is sponsored by Trolltech, package management tools from Red Hat, Debian or Novell (e.g. YaST, Apt Yum), a multitude of libraries, and even OpenOffice which is still controlled by Sun, but now with contributions from IBM.
So I would agree this report is fantastic - it provides a view into what’s going on beyond what we “think” happens. The Linux kernel community is a great success story in what Amanda calls “mass community collaboration” - even more ironic because there are many competitors, vendors, academics, hobbyists, customers and other random experts collaborating in one place.
Read the report (it’s “free as in beer”) and find out everything you wanted to know about Linux kernel development (including perhaps that IBM is the #3 contributor to the kernel). The story this report tells is a truly unique feature of the Linux community. You won’t see it anywhere in the communities or practices of other OSs, no matter how “open” they proclaim to have become.
The report is interesting in how it also debunks some myths that somehow get spread around. For instance, some have said “kernel development will slow down as the features catch up to UNIX/Windows”. Not true.
Some have said “Linux is just IBM” or “Linux is just Red Hat” trying to position Linux as dominated or caused by one entity that they’re not fond of. Again, not true (see the section of the report on Contributors).
Finally, take a look at how some end user companies are participating and reaping the benefits of a true collaborative development community. Did you know your next VW will be powered by Linux? Did you ever think the same features that make an auto’s systems “crash-proof” could also help on a server or mobile phone? The VW bullet is a pure example of innovation being applied to adjacent spaces - it would never happen in Windows, AIX or Solaris.
- Companies like Sony, Nokia, and Samsung ship Linux as a component of products like video cameras, television sets, and mobile telephones. Working with the development process helps these companies ensure that Linux will continue to be a solid base for their products in the future.
- Companies which are not in the information technology business can still find working with Linux beneficial. The 2.6.25 kernel will include an implementation of the PF_CAN network protocol which was contributed by Volkswagen. PF_CAN allows for reliable communications between components in an interference-prone environment – such as that found in an automobile. Linux gave Volkswagen a platform upon which it could build its networking code; the company then found it worthwhile to contribute the code back so that it could be maintained with the rest of the kernel. http://lwn.net/Articles/253425/ for more information on this work.
So with that I will end my praises and simply point you to the source over at the LF website here.
Friday, March 7th, 2008
The Linux Foundation is looking for a Community Manager: it could be you!
If you read my blog, you’re a potentially interested party for a new Community Manager position at the Linux Foundation. One perk they didn’t list is that someone in this position will also get great visibility and interaction with the Linux leads and team members at the various member organizations (e.g. IBM, HP, Intel, AMD, Oracle, etc. etc.). If you’re interested in the Linux community, this is a great position to be in.
http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/Jobs#Linux_Foundation_Community_Manager
Linux Foundation Community Manager
Linux Foundation Community Manager
We’re looking for world class talent to join the non-profit organization that is accelerating Linux. If you’re passionate about Linux, there is no better place to work. We have a unique opportunity for the right individual to make a huge difference in Linux.
The Community Manager must have both a technical and business view of key issues facing Linux and can do the following:
- Organize workgroups by galvanizing member leaders and participants. Push agendas on calls and in Collaboration Summit meetings. Recruit the right people and enable them to lead the workgroups. This person will be the LF liaison between us and our members.
- Build community in these workgroups and in the general LF online presence by writing content, recruiting volunteers to write content and managing new web properties and strategies. This is a chance for you to be creative and be a thought leader.
- Be a technical source for Linux issues for LF management and prepare them for press and speaking opps in specific areas of expertise.
- Handle details around LF workgroups and advisory councils. You will own these groups so you are responsible for everytihng, down to the details. If you’re used to a large staff to handle details for you, this is probably not the right job for you.
- Assist LF staff with conference and events. This could be writing and leading workgroup sessions, recruiting the right people, speaking at conferences, etc.
- Assist engineering in LSB content and community. (Moderating forums, recruiting participants, etc. for a new Web property.)
- You must understand the Linux ecosystem, especially server-related Linux issues, and be technical. (You don’t have to be a kernel programmer but you need to know who they are individually. If someone says GCC you know what that means.)
- You need to be able to express yourself in writing but just as importantly you need to be able to organize and run a meeting. You need to be able to do details and get things done but also have a big picture view.
- You have to be politically savvy and understand motivations and sensitivities of divergent people and groups.
- Web programming or at least a high proficiency in new web strategies is preferred.
If you’d like to apply for this job, please send your resume to angela (at) linux-foundation (dot) org.
Wednesday, February 13th, 2008
Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit Speakers are Lining Up
Speakers for 2nd Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit Announced!
We are pleased to announce the speaker line up for the upcoming Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit at the Austin Supercomputing Center. The speakers, like the attendees of the summit, represent leaders from the developer, industry and end user communities surrounding Linux. Don’t miss the opportunity to collaborate with these individuals on April 8-10, 2008 at the UT Austin Supercomputing Center.
Speakers for the Panel and Keynote Showcase on April 8 already include:
- Kernel maintainers and developers James Bottomley, Jon Corbet, Dave Jones, Christoph Lameter, Ted Ts’o, Chris Wright and others will discuss the state of the Linux kernel community
- Dan Frye, head of IBM’s Linux Technology Center, Christine Martino, vice president of the Open Source & Linux Organization at HP and Wim Coekaerts, vice president of Linux Engineering for Oracle will share their perspective on what Linux means to their companies and where it’s headed
- Senior representatives from LiMO, Open Handset Alliance, Moblin, OpenMoko, LiPS and others will discuss Linux and mobile: why it’s so strong and where it’s going
- Linux is now shipping on multiple hardware offerings. Hear from John Hull of Dell, Bdale Garbee of HP and representatives of ASUS, Acer, Everex and Lenovo on why they chose Linux and what they need from the Linux community to make it succeed
- IDC Analyst Al Gillen will share important new data on Linux deployment worldwide
- MySQL CEO Marten Mikos will discuss his company’s recent billion dollar acquisition by Sun Microsystems and MySQL’s continued commitment to the Linux platform.
This is truly an unbelievable assortment of people. The Collaboration Summit will have representatives from all the big names in Linux from Intel, AMD, HP, Texas Instruments, Google, NTT, Fujitsu, Hitachi, Dell, Red Hat, Novell, NEC, Sony, Motorola, Mozilla, GNOME Foundation, Nokia, Bull and dozens more. Additionally, the first day is an opportunity to meet press and analysts from eWeek, InformationWeek, BusinessWeek, Gartner Group, IDC and more.
Last year’s event filled up quickly. Please apply to attend this event if you feel you should be there:
ttps://www.linux-foundation.org/events/collaboration
This unique, invitation-only event bring together the brightest minds in the Linux ecosystem from the kernel, end user, desktop, legal and vendor communities to collaborate on the advancement of the Linux platform. Attendees can expect purposive discussion, examination and debate through engaging plenary session content and workgroup meetings. Breakout sessions contain all the domain expertise and key
players necessary to make immediate contributions to the platform.
You can see more detailed agenda information here:
https://www.linux-foundation.org/events/collaboration/program/agenda
This is a *free* event for LF members or key individuals needed to advance the Linux platform.
Additional benefits include:
• Special networking evening reception “Shark vs. Penguin” on Tuesday night in downtown Austin. Food, drinks and transportation provided.
• IBM Reception and Solutions Experience Lab Tour on Wednesday evening, including food and drinks.
Tuesday, January 8th, 2008
Linux Foundation Podcast Series with Linus Torvalds
Very cool! The first podcast is with Linus Torvalds.
The Linux Foundation (LF), the nonprofit organization dedicated to accelerating the growth of Linux, today launched Open Voices, a podcast series featuring interviews with the industry’s top Linux and open source leaders.
The debut podcast features a conversation with Linux creator and LF fellow, Linus Torvalds. Future Open Voices installments will feature Novell President and CEO, Ron Hovsepian; Marten Mickos, CEO of MySQL; and Mark Shuttleworth, the founder of the Ubuntu Project.
Update: there’s a transcript available too.
Friday, December 7th, 2007
Comparing “open source” projects? Start by asking why does the project exist.
I’ve thus far made no mention of OpenDS and the wildfire reporting that has ensued, but there was one aspect of this situation I commented on to Stephen O’Grady and others on #redmonk when it came out that bugged me. It was a question: “how did it ever get to this point?”. How does a company - a profit seeking company, not a wild tongued developer - even get into an OpenDS situation? I believe the answer is that many people have wrongly assumed that the label “open source” indicates a project is disentangled from corporate affairs. Let me explain.
It’s not my place to determine whether any of the current buzz words today that mingle corporate led open code projects under various licensing and governance constructs are “right” or “wrong”, but I do have a strong opinion that the independent open source projects often have a leg up in building communities, participation, and multi-vendor investment (and often that’s their goal). I also think it’s foolish to expect any single company, commercially led project should behave in any manner other than a commercial business driven by stockholders would. I’m not defending or accusing Sun or any of the OpenDS developers; I’m focusing instead on what fundamental misunderstandings of “open source” may have led to all the hype that’s ensued.
I’ll start by saying I believe the “open” in “open source” projects is not well defined consistently and so confusion abounds when people compare “open source” X project to “open source” Y project. The compare is flawed in that each project may have a completely different reason for existence. Commercially run open source projects are inherently different from non-corporate, multi-vendor, open collaboration projects. That does not mean one is more “evil”, “good” or “bad” but rather that they’re apples and oranges. However, for whatever reason, the ability to view code has led to people lumping them together in the same classification called “open source”.
Linux and OpenSolaris are so different, I cringe whenever I hear people compare them (and yet I get dragged into doing comparisons myself to prove it’s not proper). It’s not that any one approach is by definition right or wrong - they have different reasons for existence. I do believe strongly that “Linux” is a great approach for its community’s goals - but Linux starts with a community, not a vendor’s goals. And so it becomes an issue when you compare a commercially driven project to a community led project - the reason for their existence is entirely different. There are different situations and goals that warrant a different project governance, control, license, and decision making construct for these projects.
Look at Eclipse. For full disclosure, I work at IBM. I’ve also only been at IBM since 2005 so Eclipse “happened” before my time. While Eclipse’ roots trace back to IBM, I don’t believe IBM had a single product that used Eclipse when it was “open sourced”. Some intelligent visionaries at IBM saw that the world needed an extensible IDE and platform for building out the next generation of desktop applications. Eventually Eclipse added Eclipse RCP and today IBM has Lotus Notes, Symphony, Rational, WebSphere and probably other Tivoli and IM tools and products built on Eclipse. Adobe, BEA, Borland, Oracle, SAP (competitors) are all “Strategic Members” of Eclipse and all have products that use Eclipse code (as do many other commercial software vendors). Did IBM intend to make money on Eclipse itself or intend to help its software competitors with code?
What was IBM’s goal then? Could it have been to disrupt the status quo, to change the landscape, foster open standards, build an ecosystem of investors, and ultimately move the industry forward? (something even a vendor as large as IBM could not do alone) I think we all know the answer to that. Just look at the results: a huge membership of Eclipse.org - look at how many of these for profit companies are using Eclipse in their own products. Could Eclipse’ structure be anything other that what it is to have the same impact? I don’t believe so.
Very few Eclipse “members” actually make money on selling the Eclipse code itself - they generate revenue using Eclipse in their products and extensions of the code. These members also reduce cost through collaborative, community based shared development. There are economic drivers and business value moving Eclipse forward. The revenue has moved from selling the IDE or RCP code to selling ancillary products/services leveraging and extending the code. What part of Eclipse Foundation does IBM own and control at Eclipse.org? Answer: None. How many times does “IBM” appear in the Eclipse Foundation Governance Bylaws? Answer: 0. With this independence, the Eclipse community has chosen Eclipse’ future, moving towards the needs of member users, towards innovative new developments, and ultimately has created a very malleable, extensible codebase upon with hundreds (maybe thousands) of products rely - whether IBM liked it or not.
It amuses me to see the OpenSolaris community now in a riff over Sun naming the Project Indiana OpenSolaris distro… well… OpenSolaris (second time’s a charm?). As a corporate company can decide, Sun has chosen to own and control all of the copyright and trademark IP, the Solaris architecture decisions, governance appears to “report” to Sun, Even the OpenSolaris community’s “Constitution” mentions Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is marked with a Sun copyright at the bottom. Sun employees hold 6 out of the 7 Governance Board seats, and all of the opensolaris.org infrastructure is owned and managed by Sun. Anyone who does contribute code must first sign over copyright to Sun, the company. This is not “like Linux” at all and it irks me when people compare them as if they’re similar products that should be compared.
So what standing does any “community member” have to tell Sun not to name Project Indiana what Sun wants to name it? This is not a “Foundation” or independent not for profit project. Sun is ultimately in this to make money on the productization of Solaris (why… after two years are there no competing commercial *Solaris distros as we see with Red Hat, Novell, Oracle, Ubuntu, etc?). The only group with standing to tell Sun what to do is Sun’s stockholders. It could only have been delusion or sheer blindness that led some community members to overlook that OpenSolaris has a different reason for existence and hence differing goals and mission as something like Linux. You cannot and should not compare them and you absolutely should not assume one “should be” like the other.
Look at the results. Start with how many people have contributed code to OpenSolaris (and look at what they’re contributing if you have time). OpenSolaris is Sun’s own project - I can confidently state there is no outside development of any significant substance directing the architecture of Solaris / OpenSolaris different from what Sun the company would have done anyway. Two “community developers” (Juergen Keil and Richard Lowe) account for nearly 40% of all accepted contributions - just two developers. Only 84 developers have contributed anything at all - ever (including small typos fixes, accepted or not). Outside contributors must have a Sun employee review, approve and integrate their code. And after two years, it seems some are starting to just realize, this Sun controlled model may not be the best approach. Those who do suddenly “wake up” have been relying on a false assumption. They assume OpenSolaris exists for them or should be like Linux or some other “open source” project they know about - and the reality is, it never was. It’s all about Sun’s stockholders.
What about Linux? There are approximately 2,000 Linux kernel contributors to each release alone (this does not include the massive work going on above the kernel). Looking at the commercial contributors to Linux, you will find a “who’s who” of IT and electronics vendors (also take a look at the LF membership). With Linux, copyright of the Linux kernel code is retained solely by the authors, there are many non-profit foundations supporting the components of a Linux distribution, and because decision making is merit based by community members, no one company controls (or stops) what goes in. Step back to the start of Linux and it’s obvious the intent for this project’s existence was very different than Sun had for OpenSolaris.
So returning to the subject of the post, I have come to the conclusion that much of the “open source” hype and “hurt feelings” are rooted in fundamental confusion about what “open source” means especially in single-vendor led and controlled projects. The only reason anyone should be surprised by anything Sun does with OpenSolaris, OpenDS, or any of the other Sun open source projects it controls, is because that person has fundamentally created an expectation that access to source code meant more than just that - and that is a flawed assumption.
Commercially led projects are created for commercial reasons. “Community members” should not force their own expectations on these projects or they’re likely to see disappointment, frustrations, and unnecessary hype when the company does something counter to what is expected. The same holds true for other companies as well, including IBM. Consider this Q&A about commercial project expectations from Stephen O’Grady back in June:
Q: Do you think that this Open Commercial Development represents an ideal hybrid of open source and commercial development philosophies?
A: It all depends on your expectations. If the idea is that some of the benefits of open source - be they community QA and bug reporting, feature suggestions, and so on - will be realized via this model, then yes. If the intent, however, is to build a vibrant, open source style community, a la Eclipse, then the answer is no, it isn’t.
It all starts with having the right expectation. Is Sun at fault on anything with OpenDS or OpenSolaris? Hey, no one’s perfect, but who can know for sure? Some may point to poor communication of its intent and goals for the projects (and improper comparisons to Linux). Too often I see Sun executives trying to position OpenSolaris as “like Linux”, but those who do research and homework, will likely understand the reality the hype-driving-community often ignores. Is this the “holy grail”, “silver bullet” answer to squash the hype? Absolutely not; communities will speculate forever. However, it’s easier to stay out of the hype if your message is consistent and clear.
You might be wondering what kicked off this massive post today? The answer is odd, but it was a quote from Bruce Perens in an El Reg article. In case any of the above post left my position to question, I agree with Bruce and this quote seems a great place to end.
“In general open source is only going to work if you let it be a community led project. Sun has had a hard time learning this, and some of their open source projects have had a hard time getting outside contributors, because Sun has insisted on owning the whole thing,” Perens said.
Monday, November 26th, 2007
The Register: “Linux desktops grow and grow and grow”
URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/23/linux_desktop_survey/
Initial figures from the 2007 Linux Foundation Desktop survey are coming out. In this article, two items caught my eye:
1) SMB
The majority, 68.4 per cent, of Linux desktops are in small and home office set-ups or small businesses with less than 100 machines. Medium businesses of between 101 and 500 PCs account for 9.7 per cent and companies with between 1,001 and 5,000 account for 6.2 per cent of Linux desktops.
2) Ubuntu, Ubuntu, Ubuntu
In terms of flavours of Linux the “Ubuntu family” accounts for 54.1 per cent followed by Red Hat versions with 50.2 per cent, while Novell SUSE picks up 35.2 per cent. (Eagle-eyed readers may notice this adds up to more than 100 per cent because many groups have not settled on just one Linux version in their office or organisation.)
Wednesday, October 24th, 2007
Take the Linux Foundation 3rd Annual Desktop Linux Survey
https://www.linux-foundation.org/en/2007ClientSurvey
If you use Linux on a desktop, client, or other device, take the annual desktop survey. I know one area of intense interest is what are the devices that you have that lack Linux drivers or you have issues with. Greg KH has be working hard to plug a ton of gaps, but we still hear about ‘this or that’ device, so let the LF know what needs work.
I’m also very interested in the Applications that people want to see on their Linux desktop. I noticed in some of the early stats I saw, Adobe Photoshop was high on the list… I agree.
Anyway, take the survey now. It’s short and easy to complete and you’re helping yourself and the community by providing input.
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.”
Wednesday, September 26th, 2007
How the Linux Foundation, users, developers, and member companies collaborate and intersect
Joe Alexander from Bull has a great “interview” up on Bull’s website that talks about how the Linux Foundation, users, developers, and the LF member companies all collaborate and intersect at varying levels. Joe covers hardening Linux for enterprise mission critical but moves to discuss how Linux has “crossed the chasm”. He also describes why and where the new LF “weather forecast” came from and how Linux requires a ‘forecast’ that is a bit different from other “roadmap driven” operating systems.
I found this to be a great viewpoint and even better to see it on Bull’s website giving testament to a foundation that in my opinion is kicking off some great working after the merger.
http://www.bull.com/opensource/enterpriselinux.html
One might wonder how proprietary OS vendors can compete over the long-term with the breath, depth, passion and quality of the Linux development community.
Tuesday, September 18th, 2007
John Cherry covers latest announcements around collaboration and office suites
John Cherry summed up the recent “big” announcements around collaboration and offices suites over on his LF blog:
http://www.linux-foundation.org/weblogs/cherry/2007/09/18/piling-on-office-and-collaboration/
Any of these announcements by themselves would be significant, but the combination of these is really sounding the starting pistol for competition in the multi-billion dollar office productivity race. And this time around, it is not a one horse race.
Tuesday, August 14th, 2007
Jim Zemlin describes future directions for Linux and Linux Foundation
Jim Zemlin points out in this article, the Linux Platform Weather Forecast - you can find that on the Linux Foundation website below.
What steps will the Linux Foundation take this year that will have a direct impact on IT managers?
Jim Zemlin: The foundation sponsors workgroups where industry and community can work together to solve key challenges facing Linux. You’ll see work in power management, for instance, that can impact all Linux users. You’ll see information like the Linux Platform Weather Forecast that offers visibility into what’s planned for the Linux platform. This will give IT managers a view into improvements to Linux and when to expect them. You’ll also see content on our Web site that will help IT managers understand that the legal issues facing Linux are no more complex than those facing other platforms. They’re straightforward issues that will be explained as such on our site.
This “weather forecast” should help give IT managers a sneak preview of what’s coming with future versions of the kernel as it has been traditionally difficult given the community development process. http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/Linux_Weather_Forecast
Wednesday, August 1st, 2007
Markus Rex Joins the Linux Foundation as “on loan” CTO
This was actually news on Tuesday, but still good to communicate. Markus Rex is joining the Linux Foundation to take over as CTO driving standards and technical initiatives. It’s good to see this role being filled as Markus comes on loan from Novell with an extensive Linux background at Suse.
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).
Tuesday, June 19th, 2007
Linux Foundation Desktop Architects Meeting 4 Breakout Notes
Breakout notes from DAM-4 are available online over at the LF wiki - the action items will give you a sense of where the LF / DAs are heading. I found printing particularly interesting - boring as printing may be, it needs some work for desktop users.
http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/Breakout_notes
Monday, June 18th, 2007
Gerrit Huizenga’s Notes from the Front Row at Linux Foundation Summit
IBM’s Gerrit Huizenga has posted the most detailed account of the Linux Foundation Summit I’ve seen on his blog. I’ve also asked Gerrit to keep blogging as he has great content to talk about and hopefully put more attention on some of the goings on in the Linux developer community. (I’m also trying to get him to switch to Wordpress… we’ll see…)
Gerrit has documented notes on the following sessions:
- End Users and Linux: What Works, What Doesn’t?
- The Legal Protection of Linux - Patents and Licensing, GPLv3 and the Future
- How Do We Get More Apps on Linux?
- Mark Shuttleworth Keynote at Linux Collaboration Summit
- Enterprise Panel at Linux Foundation
- Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit Intro
Thursday, June 14th, 2007
Didn’t make it to the Linux Foundation’s Linux Collaboration Summit? I didn’t either… here are the updates from the scene
The Linux Foundation is hosting a Collaboration Summit out at Google’s posh campus. I didn’t make it out as I’m buried in other things, but luckily we can read all about the events on blogs (and about the Google cafeteria).
Andrew Updegrove coverage: http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20070613083618132
Danese Cooper coverage: http://danesecooper.blogs.com/divablog/2007/06/linux_foundatio.html
I especially liked Danese’ quote of Dan Frye:
I predict that Dan Frye is going to get quoted a LOT (and the FSF should make a tee-shirt ) about his great comment when asked for the top two things the community can do for Linux…“When the GPLv3 is final…just CHILL !!!”
Don Marti’s “unique” coverage: http://www.linuxworld.com/community/?q=node/621
I already have a prototype for Danese:
Wednesday, May 9th, 2007
Linux Magazine covers Linux adoption in Healthcare
The Healthcare industry is…. well, unique. Exploding volumes of data, regulations and compliance issues everywhere, privacy questions abound, highly proprietary legacy applications and data, and not nearly enough budget for new applications compared to budgets wasted on maintaining existing systems. I predict that those healthcare institutions that adopt Linux and push for open standards will gain a competitive advantage. I can’t imagine it any other way.
Linux Magazine covers it here.
Tuesday, April 17th, 2007
HP’s Martino Says Linux Foundation Will Push Linux Toward Common Ground
Great article with Christine Martino of HP.
When you look at the combination of OSDL and FSG, one asks, “Why did that happen?” Well, because Linux has matured and is in a different place today. It needs a different set of things to take it to the next level, which doesn’t mean that innovation is gone or that freshness is gone. It means you’re building on a foundation now where Linux has gone into the data center. So the ecosystem and the needs of the community have changed.
Subscribe to RSS/Atom Feed
