Saturday March 15, 2008 OGB: Get The Vote Out
We're half-way through the voting for the new OpenSolaris Governing Board as I write there have been 74 votes cast. That means there are plenty of people (nearly 300) who have yet to vote.
If you've not seen them, I wrote some notes on why I encourage you to vote for both of the amendments I proposed. There's been some comments against them from certain community voices, so I'd like to clarify that both of those amendments are submitted by me as a community member in response to community comments and I have tried to incorporate all the feedback I received for both. I was not asked to submit them by any Sun management and they are not "official" Sun amendments.
In those notes I also listed some other candidates and endorsed them as people I would be pleased to work with on the future of OpenSolaris if I was elected. It was noted they are all Sun candidates, and while that reflects the significant presence of Sun employees in the OpenSolaris community, I'd like to make it clear that I would also be pleased to work with candidates like Michal Bielicki, Stephen Lau and Justin Erenkrantz, all of whom have shown the sort of constructive spirit we'll need to take OpenSolaris forward.
Ultimately we need an OGB that has the backing of all the Core Contributors. So if you have a vote please use it, whoever you vote for.
Posted by webmink
( Mar 15 2008, 07:44:21 AM PDT )
Permalink
links for 2008-03-15
-
The US Navy, that is, and the article seems to imply it's a standards thrust rather than a commitment to open source. But it's a great first step.
-
IBM abandons SolidDB. What with them abandoning Derby this is becoming a habit I hope they break.
Posted by webmink
( Mar 15 2008, 01:22:36 AM PDT )
Permalink
Comments [1]
Friday March 14, 2008 Adoption-Led as a Force of Nature
In discussing how the software market is increasingly an adoption-led one, a frequent point of departure is to look at ways in which existing software companies are pursuing open source models.
Centralised to Distributed
But the idea that the adoption-led model is a go-to-market strategy created by software vendors is wrong. Although as Zack observes it has become a successful driver for some companies, it is fundamentally a consequence of a set of social changes which in turn are the consequence of the pervasive nature of the Internet. No amount of debate for and against an adoption-led business model will ever change the fact that the market is moving that way.
The first mechanised communications - dating back to before the Industrial Revolution - helped to create a hub-and-spoke social topology. The ability to communicate to a large number of people was necessarily centralised and recognition of authorship became more important. Interestingly, this is when copyright law first emerged. And as more communications became industrialised, so did society become more centralised. Author at the hub, readers at the spokes, suppliers at the hub, customers at the spokes, government at the hub, citizens at the spokes. The Web is changing that. The topology is changing to a mesh that even crosses cultures and borders. Peer-to-peer is the new order.
While the internet has existed for a relatively long time in technology terms, the Web as an application has driven it to ubiquity in a very short time. And this is what gave the equally long-standing Free software movement the vehicle it needed to influence the mainstream. The two together have placed a growing wealth of software within reach of every sufficiently skilled developer, giving them the freedom to use it however they wish. As Stormy points out, they can now bypass the whole existing system.
Demands a Response
It's this sudden wealth of choice which created the adoption-led movement that I described before. It didn't - and doesn't - need vendors to happen. Rather, it demands a response from vendors. Some try to ignore or to discredit it. Some pay lip-service to it, using its fruits but shunning true participation. And some embrace it, employing people to work within open source communities. Each of these approaches has business models associated. None of these approaches have themselves caused the adoption-led market to spring into existence.
Now, although this movement did not need vendors to make it happen, vendors have the opportunity to help it into the mainstream for business usage. As I suggested in my response to Savio, there's a lot of value that a vendor can add:
The model assumes that enterprise users will want the value-added content of a "subscription" or "enterprise version". Value-add can include patch management, performance tuning, additional utilities and more. Corporate governance regulations may make enterprises using software for a mission-critical purpose require a service contract, or seek a warranty for their software infrastructure. Those who are embedding software in their own product may require indemnification. Finally, many businesses are reluctant (for whatever reason) to use open source licenses and so want commercial licenses for their production systems.
To deliver on that value, it's my belief that the biggest opportunities lie beyond the mere aggregation of the work of others (although that does seem to be a viable option for some). I believe that through influencing the direction of a project, through employing committers to an open source code base, by creating new code, by being a responsible community steward and by bringing leadership to the challenges open source faces, a software vendor can take full advantage of the opportunities the adoption-led market presents. And I believe that success will be proportional to the contribution made. No free lunches, at least for those wanting job security.
Led, not Driven
This is the response of the software industry to the mesh topology. It's one where copyright, through open source licenses, is used to foster creativity, rather than to restrict access (and the inverse for patents - a reversal worth discussing elsewhere). We are moving from the "procurement-driven market" to the "adoption-led market". One is driven by vendors. The other is led by deployers and developers. That's the key, and I think other industries should examine with interest the lead that the software market is providing, since I expect the phenomenon to spread beyond software.
[Previous: Adoption-led is not Shareware | Next: Why Adoption-led Is Not Trialware]
Posted by webmink
( Mar 14 2008, 02:58:34 AM PDT )
Permalink
Comments [2]
links for 2008-03-14
-
Smart move that invests in local skills and promotes shared and shareable assets.
-
Woot!
-
The free track on iTunes in the US this week is a must have from Duffy, the UK's number one atthe moment.
Posted by webmink
( Mar 14 2008, 01:25:10 AM PDT )
Permalink
Thursday March 13, 2008 Open Source for Sovereignty
I was interested to see news from the European Commission where they announce a new policy to more frequently use open source software in the administration of the European Union. They say:
For all new development, where deployment and usage is foreseen by parties outside of the Commission Infrastructure, Open Source Software will be the preferred development and deployment platform.
It's not just European government that's opting for open source. Today the NSA (the super-secret spy agency in the US) have announced they are joining in with OpenSolaris. Barton has an interview that explores this more. I think we'll see more and more government engagement as the adoption-led market takes hold.
Using Free software from open source communities makes perfect sense for governments, and not just for the obvious reasons of up-front savings on license fees. As I heard said on behalf of the Brazilian government, open source is a matter of sovereignty. When a government decides to use closed software, they are guaranteeing that they will be sending money out of the local economy. The degree of expatriation depends on the actual system they've chosen. In the worst case, all the money goes to the US, all the resulting assets belong to someone else and all the ongoing service and support costs pay for the development of skills abroad.
By contrast, using Free software has no licensing costs. Any extra programming results in an asset shared by an open source community. All service and support can be handled locally, growing the skill-base and economy. What could be a smarter way for a government to obtain the essential infrastructure it needs and develop the local economy at the same time?
Posted by webmink
( Mar 13 2008, 07:51:49 AM PDT )
Permalink
Comments [2]
Wednesday March 12, 2008 Adoption-Led is not Shareware
In response to my article last week on the emerging adoption-led market, IBM's Savio Rodrigues suggests this is just a description of Shareware and asks why anyone would ever pay for what they got free.
I can't say I agree. Of course, there are similarities between the two - in fact, I was closely associated with a successful shareware business at the start of the 90s, so I have a fair insight into how that works. We actually had close to 10% of estimated users registering our software. But what I am describing is not the same model.
First, what I am describing is a change in the software lifecycle which is facilitated by open source, rather than a business model which is initiated by vendors. Software deployers will switch from procurement-driven to adoption-led patterns without any intervention from vendors; it's a natural consequence of software freedom. The question really is not whether or not this market will come, but how vendors will remain relevant in it.
Second, this is not a support-only model. The model assumes that enterprise users will want the value-added content of a "subscription" (the model most closely associated with Sun to date) or "enterprise version" (such as the RHAT model). Value-add can include patch management, performance tuning, additional utilities and more. Corporate governance regulations may make enterprises using software for a mission-critical purpose require a service contract, or seek a warranty for their software infrastructure. Those who are embedding software in their own product may require indemnity. Finally, many businesses are reluctant (for whatever reason) to use open source licenses and so want commercial licenses for their production systems.
So I think people are more than willing to pay if what they are paying for reduces costs or adds value. It's the software that's free of charge, not the people who work on it. They benefit from the freedom Free software brings, and their employers or customers benefit from the choices that freedom brings.
[Previous: The Adoption-led Market | Next: A Force Of Nature]
Posted by webmink
( Mar 12 2008, 01:25:12 AM PDT )
Permalink
Tuesday March 11, 2008 OpenSolaris Polling Open
Polling is now open for the OpenSolaris elections and will remain open until March 24. If you have Core Contributor status in any OpenSolaris community, you are eligible to vote. In addition to some test questions which have been put back on the ballot, there are three important polls; two constitutional amendments plus the election of the 2008-9 OGB. Since I proposed both of the amendments, I'll explain them both.
Article IX: A Process For Managing The Constitution
The first proposes replacing Article IX of the constitution. At present this Article reads:
This Constitution and its bylaws may be altered, amended, added to, or repealed by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Members of record, provided that the proposed deletions and additions, when applied to the Constitution, will result in a new Constitution that remains in complete compliance with the OpenSolaris Charter. The complete text of the proposed deletions and additions must be delivered in a notice by electronic mail to the Members no less than ten (10) days prior to any vote on said deletions and additions.
In the run-up to the current elections, it became apparent that this article was not sufficiently detailed to tell people how to frame amendments. In addition, it did not specify who could propose amendments or when, or require any kind of community quality control to proposals prior to voting. I spent some time on IRC and then suggested text in the tracking system. After some discussion at the annual meeting I then sent the text to the Core Contributor list according to the current process. The proposed new text is:
This Constitution and its bylaws may be altered, amended, added to, or repealed by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Members of record during Annual and Special meetings as defined in 5.2 and 5.3, provided that the proposed deletions and additions, when applied to the Constitution, will result in a new Constitution that remains in complete compliance with the OpenSolaris Charter. The complete text of the proposed deletions and additions must:
- be approved within an OpenSolaris Community Group using the Majority voting rule in article 8.4 prior to being delivered to the full Membership for adoption.
- be delivered in a notice by electronic mail to the Members no less than ten (10) days prior to any vote on said deletions and additions.
This new text is intended to allow the flexibility members need to discuss and propose amendments anywhere in the OpenSolaris community. It also applies a quality control measure (the amendment has to be vetted in a Community Group somewhere) and limits consideration of amendments to either the Annual Meeting or, in exceptional cases, to a Special Meeting.
I believe that this amended text offers a more balanced and operable process for the constitutional amendments - something I am convinced we need - and I encourage you to vote "Yes" for measure "Amend_Amendment".
Article VI: Promoting OGB Transparency
One of the controversial topics associated with the OGB this year has been a lack of clarity about the connection between OGB members and their employment-related interests. While some have proposed attempting to prevent OGB members having such interests, I believe that's impossible. Instead, I suggested on the tracker that the OGB should engage in the same level of transparency expected of political leaders by declaring their employment-related and other interests that affect OpenSolaris. After discussion there and on IRC, my suggested amendment text is as follows:
Addition to section 6.3: "Candidates for election shall publish a list of their commercial affiliation, or other interests related to OpenSolaris, so that a voting member can understand the context from which they would act on the OGB and the likely biases they would bring. Candidates who before the start of voting do not publish such a statement and attest to its accuracy shall not be eligible for election. The Secretary of the OGB shall maintain a public register of OGB Members' interests."
Addition to section 6.2: "OGB members upon change of corporate affiliation or other interests related to OpenSolaris, must notify the membership of the same when that change applies.
I believe this approach recognises the inevitability (and indeed the desirability) of having an OGB consisting of people with a stake in the future of OpenSolaris while encouraging transparancy of motive. I note that many of the candidates for the current election have indeed declared their interests in a way that would satisfy the requirement as worded here and I think it is would be healthy to formalise this requirement. I encourage you to vote "yes" for measure "Amend_Board".
Board Election
Finally: the Board election. I would be delighted to have another opportunity to serve the OpenSolaris community on the Governing Board, as I was able to in 2006-7. I did not stand for election last year and since then have been observing and occasionally participating. My statements of interest are in my OpenSolaris profile so I'll not repeat them all here. I believe that in the coming year we particularly need an OGB that is equipped to communicate strongly, clearly and frequently with Sun's management. For communication to take place through channels other than the OGB undermines the OpenSolaris community. I also think that the OGB membership should reflect the interests around the project, and so in addition to the valued participation of those outside of Sun, I hope we will continue to see a strong showing of Sun employees elected to the OGB.
The candidates I'm referring to have all received endorsement to stand for the OGB from their management chain and all have seen Sun's employee policy on open source participation. They are all committed to asking Sun's management to communicate regularly and clearly with the OpenSolaris community and they represent a diverse cross-section of the community. I consider all to be independent-minded and honourable people. In arbitrary order they are John Plocher (plocher), Jim Grisanzio (jimgris), Glynn Foster (gman), John Beck (jbeck), Michelle Olson (michelle), Alan Coopersmith (alanc) and myself (webmink).
Of course, there are other excellent candidates. It is in the interests of getting proper Sun representation on, and dialogue with, the OGB that I encourage you to place the people I have listed early in your order of preference when you vote. I will be on IRC in the Annual Meeting at 10pm GMT each night this week if you'd like to discuss anything in this posting.
And thanks for reading to the end!
Update 15-Mar: I've clarified the intent behind these positions, take a look.
Posted by webmink
( Mar 11 2008, 10:42:06 AM PDT )
Permalink
Monday March 10, 2008 links for 2008-03-10
-
Handy reference list, especially for those who think Sun doesn't "do" Apache.
Posted by webmink
( Mar 10 2008, 01:23:29 AM PDT )
Permalink
Comments [1]
Sunday March 09, 2008 links for 2008-03-09
-
And the Touch (Apple has a name problem with this platform). It's done with a quicktime stream. No idea if there is any DRM. Seems to work perfectly, it even rotates with the device.
-
Speechless.
-
A new collection from Mary Oliver is like a hydration pack for the soul. This one apparently includes a cycle of love poems. On order.
Posted by webmink
( Mar 09 2008, 12:22:27 AM PST )
Permalink
Saturday March 08, 2008 links for 2008-03-08
-
It's not the gadgets themselves that are to blame, in my view. I think the people using them may play a role too.
-
This is an excellent and informative article on the subject.
-
I consider this to be an over-reaching excess and an abuse of authority. Until now I'd not felt that having the US control so much of the internet was a problem, but this example proves it is.
-
Looking forward to read Ian Skerrett's spin on this.
-
I wonder if they are also policing GPL infringements?
Posted by webmink
( Mar 08 2008, 12:27:12 AM PST )
Permalink
Friday March 07, 2008 Responding to the EU on DRM
In response to a request from the European Union concerning DRM and interoperability, Sun has submitted a lengthy written response. Preparing for and reviewing the response with colleagues took me back to my earlier article, DRM and the Death of a Culture. My tendency is always to look for a guiding principle rather than to seek a set of rules, and in this case it's about quantization of discretion. Here's what I wrote:
People talk of "fair use" but what they actually mean is that we all depend on the exercise of judgment in every decision. Near the "bulls-eye" of copyright we're all clear what is what, but as Lessig eloquently explains in Free Culture, in the outer circles we have to make case-by-case judgments about what usage is fair and what usage is abuse. When a technologist embodies their or their employer's view of what's fair into a technology-enforced restriction, any potential for the exercise of discretion is turned from a scale to a step and freedom is quantized.
It strikes me that the inherent quantization of rights is what makes DRM at best undesirable and at worst a guarantee of cultural Alzheimer's. I was thus delighted when a very senior Sun executive insisted that the position paper include the following paragraph:
Before we discuss interoperability in detail, we would like to emphasize this last point. Sun believes that DRM should be a solution only when necessary. DRM should never restrict the user's ability to utilize the content in legally-permissible ways. With this in mind, any DRM system must be open, fully interoperable, and free from hidden IP licensing burdens that effectively re-close the system economically. Indeed, in the spirit of the company that supports OpenOffice.org, Sun believes that the Commission's stance should enable it to be possible to create a free version of any DRM system used in the EU!
Of course, I am personally among those who believe it is never necessary to apply Digital Restrictions to content, but I'm very pleased that Sun is taking a position that DRM should not be assumed to be automatically a part of the entertainment business.
Posted by webmink
( Mar 07 2008, 08:47:23 AM PST )
Permalink
Comments [4]
links for 2008-03-07
-
Sun Microsystems and SBTVD Forum to Develop Open-Source Java Solution for Brazil's Digital TV SystemWatch this area. I believe we will see open source making a huge impact in a segment that's otherwise starched stiff with restrictive practice.
-
Not something I hear people say every day. Thank-you Michael. I remain convinced that for standards, the journey can be as important as the destination. Not always. But this time, definitely.
-
Right on the mark.
-
I've spoken here before and been amazed at the responses. I'll be watching for the CfP.
Posted by webmink
( Mar 07 2008, 12:24:00 AM PST )
Permalink
Thursday March 06, 2008 OpenOffice.org goes to LGPLv3
You may recall that a team from Sun devoted a great deal of time to the process of drafting the GPLv3. Our engagement was not just the monitoring exercise that I suspect it was for many of the corporate participants. It was always my hope that Sun would use the license for significant software projects.
Since then, the FSF has made some welcome clarifications to the license and Sun released its first project, Openxvm, as GPLv3. The next step for us has been to review the licensing for OpenOffice.org. We consulted widely in the community and received an overwhelming response on a number of proposed modifications to the project, starting with the license. The LGPL has served OpenOffice.org well, so the move to LGPL v3 seemed very logical. LGPLv3 is actually almost identical to GPLv3, but with an additional clause limiting the scope of the requirement to release source code under the same license.
Upgrading to the LGPLv3 brings important new protections to the OpenOffice.org community, most notably through the new language concerning software patents. You may know that I am personally an opponent of software patents, and that Sun has already taken steps in this area with a patent non-assert covenant for ODF. But the most important protection for developers comes from creating mutual patent grants between developers. LGPLv3 does this.
So it's a pleasure to be able to say that Sun supports the community's input. OpenOffice.org's license will change to LGPLv3 as part of a broader set of changes intended to improve the OpenOffice.org community for everyone. Those changes also include a switch to the latest version of the standard Sun contributor agreement, with an addendum specifically tailored to the needs of the OpenOffice.org community. There's increased latitude for documentation writers to publish their work on OpenOffice.org. And in future, plugins for OpenOffice.org may host their source code directly on the community site without copyright being shared, helping collaboration within the community.
There's more news about OpenOffice.org's infrastructure as well as the project's governance - see Jim's blog for more detail as well as Louis' community announcement. For all the details, you can listen to a discussion Barton George had with Michael Bemmer, the development director of OpenOffice.org at Sun, his boss Jim Parkinson, and with Peter Brown, Executive Director of the Free Software Foundation, on this podcast: [MP3]-[Ogg].
Posted by webmink
( Mar 06 2008, 10:26:05 AM PST )
Permalink
Comments [19]
Tuesday March 04, 2008 links for 2008-03-04
-
A huge welcome to Ted, great to have you on board.
Posted by webmink
( Mar 04 2008, 12:26:09 AM PST )
Permalink
