Why I’m okay that Google Code doesn’t support AGPL

Following threads from the Clipperz blog, I read this exchange of messages between Chris DiBona & Greg Stein of Google and a group of folks that want Google to host AGPL’d projects on Google Code. (I’d urge you to read the thread as it’s difficult to argue that Chris & Greg are being unreasonable).

As you know, the terms of the GPL only “kick in” when GPL’d code is distributed. Users/companies are not obliged to reveal their changes to GPL’d code unless the code is redistributed outside of their organization. The AGPL fixes this loophole.

Matt and some of the folks replying to Chris & Greg seem to think that Google is wearing its Evil Hat by restricting AGPL’d projects on Google Code. They believe that the growing use of AGPL’d by projects will prevent Google, (Yahoo, EBay, Amazon, or countless other companies that modify & use OSS without redistributing it) from using OSS without contributing their changes back.

I disagree ;-)

Let’s start with the various OSS projects that Google et al. pay their employees to work on, and the support, financially or otherwise, that these companies offer to OSS projects. We like to romanticize that OSS projects become solid products through the magical combination of thousands of non-affiliated contributors working for the greater good. The truth is that the majority of contributions, to the majority of leading OSS projects come from someone paid to do so by a vendor. Does anyone really think that Linux would be where it is now if not for IBM, HP, Oracle, Red Hat & Novell employees? Would PHP be where it is without Yahoo’s help? Would Firefox be where it is without the significant search-driven dollars that Google pays to Mozilla?

Second, which company in their right mind would open up its differentiated IT assets to competitors? If Linux, Apache HTTPD, PHP and MySQL had originally been licensed under the AGPL, I can almost guarantee that Google et al. would have paid for the right to make their own changes without having to contribute them back (as you can today with many dual-licensed OSS projects). Worst case, Google et al. may never have grown to their current state. Imagine if Google had to decide between closed-source software that they couldn’t modify, or open source software that they could modify, but those modifications would be seen by the competition. In both cases the lack of differentiation enabled by IT would have been enough to reconsider the business plan.

I’ve never been a fan of cutting off my nose to spite my face. Sadly, in the pursuit of “OSS purity”, the OSS community comes awful close to doing this all too often. I’m perfectly okay with Google et al. benefiting from OSS. If these vendors don’t contribute an equal value back to the OSS community through their own OSS efforts, I’m certain that they have added enough value to the lives of every IT user (OSS proponent or otherwise) to far offset any deficit from the use of OSS without “giving back enough”

 

Reply to My Microsoft Freetard post

Apologies for not writing this earlier, but I’ve just had a horrible few weeks of school & work, with a week of 14hr days in a classroom to boot.

I wanted to follow up on the post because most of the comments I received were of the “you’re crazy, Microsoft sucks, you suck” fashion.

Well, I have been known to be wrong, and sometimes my ideas have been crazy, and Microsoft has been known to suck. But, does any of this change what we’re seeing in the market?

According to IDC data from Dec. 2007:

• The Linux OS market growth rate is slowing from ~22% in 2007 to ~16% in 2011
• The Windows OS market growth rate is slowing from ~11% in 2007 to ~9% in 2011
• The Unix OS market growth rate is slowing from ~ NEGATIVE 7% in 2007 to ~ NEGATIVE 6% in 2011
• The 2006-2011 CAGRs for Linux, Windows and UNIX are 20%, -5% and 9% respectively
• IDC expects the Linux OS market to be worth $0.967B by 2011, compared to $22.7B for Windows and $1.9B for UNIX
• From 2006 to 2011, Linux, Windows and UNIX operating system revenue will grow by $0.57B, $7.7B and -$0.51B respectively (note how the Linux & UNIX revenue shift balance each other out)
• If the Windows OS market grew to 2011 and then remained flat (i.e. 0% growth), it would take Linux until 2029 to grow to the size of the Windows market. Lots of things can happen in the next 20+ years.

Now I know that OSS is larger than Linux OS. However, we simply have the most revenue data on the Linux OS market, which is why I use it in this post.

Roy S., I don’t want you or any of our readers to leave. Let me ask you what value you get out of this or any other blog if all you read is what you believe to be true? I have never said I am always right. I am willing to learn and change any of my views. I’ve always believed that the way to deal with adversity is to be honest with yourself about the situation. I don’t think that the OSS community is being honest with itself. (This is a personal view, and I am willing to be convinced otherwise).

It gives me no joy to be (one of) the messengers behind the news that OSS is great, but it’s not going to kill Microsoft or other large commercial software vendors. I know this is at odds with the often repeated view that OSS is the only path forward. There is simply no data that supports this claim. Yet, OSS luminaries are lauded for repeating this claim.

Just imagine if we agreed that OSS isn’t the spark that destroys and re-casts the software landscape as we know it. Would this change how OSS vendors look at their competitive differences, revenue goals and customers vs. users? I suspect yes. By simply repeating the claims that OSS will take over the world, are we doing anyone any good?

 

Yes, Sun should compete against Linux

When I read Dana’s post about leaving Jonathan & Sun alone, I couldn’t help but side with Dana. But then I read Amanda McPherson (Marketing director at the Linux Foundation) original post and now I’m torn. Then I read comments on Amanda’s blog from Sun employees, and I’m even more confused. (BTW, I urge you to read Amanda’s post…she makes some great points).

The core of this discussion boils down to whether it is “okay” for Sun to compete against Linux with OpenSolaris. I have written in the past that I believe it is perfectly valid for Sun, or any company to compete with Linux or any OSS project/product. I am a fan of competition. I believe it helps all parties raise their game.

How is the OpenSolaris vs. Linux discussion different from MuleSource vs. WSO2, JBoss App Server vs. Apache Geronimo or JasperSoft vs. Pentaho, etc?

In the past, Mike Dolan (a fellow IBMer) commented that the issue isn’t whether Sun should compete, but why they don’t collaborate:

“Instead of “competition”, think about what could happen if Sun worked proactively and in a contributory manner to help fight “Bug #1″? (See Ubuntu bug database…). If Sun’s so relevant and its technologies are so great, why waste time fighting a community that consists of HP, IBM, Dell, Oracle, SAP, Cisco, Google, BEA, and thousands of others? Why not join in that community and provide your value-add? In my opinion, competing for OS lock-in is “so 90’s” (as my youngest sister would say)…”

I can’t argue with Mike from a pure “OSS religion” standpoint. But, regardless of what Sun wants us to believe, pragmatism is behind their OpenSolaris vs. Linux strategy more than “OSS religion”. Few vendors would be able to walk away from the significant revenue that Solaris drives to Sun. And remember, Linux grew largely at the expense of Unix (Solaris was the #1 Unix OS vendor). It’s a tough position for Sun to be in…..especially since they want OSS to spell SUN.

Personally, I encourage Sun to continue competing against Linux. Let the market decide.

 

I Was Wrong About IP Assurance

I’ve asked a few times why IP assurance is a customer concern. But I’m not a lawyer, or one in training. Lucky for you, Luis Villa (a lawyer in training and OSS guy) jumped in to correct me.

“…make what appears to be the same error: comparing IP to “environmental rules or workplace safety regulations”. There is a critical difference, of course: if the EPA or comes after Microsoft, and I use Microsoft products, I can’t be sued. If a patent holder comes after Microsoft, and I use Microsoft products, I can be sued, since patent law allows penalties both for manufacture and use of infringing products. (Joe Shaw correctly cites the relevant law here.) That’s fundamentally different from most other forms of law, where customers typically aren’t liable for the sins of the vendor. “

I stand corrected on the law. Customers should act accordingly until vendors act in the interest of their customers on the IP Assurance front.

I don’t agree with the law and question the efficacy of such a law in the software landscape. But I do not want to propagate the misconception that IP is just a vendor concern from a legal standpoint.

 

Open Source Video Games Anyone?

Jimmy Atkinson emailed to point us towards his “Top 25 Linux Games for 2008” list.

I’m not a big video game fan, and we hardly ever cover gaming on this blog. But alas, I decided to head on over.

I’m glad that I did! Seeing #3 on the list, “FreeCiv” brought me back to my first all-nighter at the hands of a video game. I remember playing Civilization for ~12 hrs straight without getting up for food or a bio break. Good times.

Many of the games on Jimmy’s list are free and run on Linux, Windows and some on Mac. The majority are OSS.

Check out the list and let the rest of us know if you have a favorite on the list.

PS: Does anyone know how these OSS video games are impacting the overall video game market?

 

Microsoft to Renault: It’s Tax Time!

InformationWeek is reporting a deal between French automaker Renault & Microsoft :

“Under the arrangement, Microsoft will provide Renault with 1,000 “certificates” for Novell’s SUSE Linux Enterprise server product. The deal also includes a controversial “IP assurance” provision under which Microsoft pledges not to sue customers who use Linux distributed by its partner Novell.”

I’ve asked this before, but why should a customer care about IP assurance? IP indemnification is a vendor issue, just like ensuring environmental rules or workplace safety regulations are being adhered to. It’s a disgrace that vendors have made indemnification a customer concern.

“Last year, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer implied that users of Linux distributions from vendors other than those with which it has patent deals — the list also includes Xandros and Linspire — could be hearing from the company. “We’ve spent a lot of money licensing patents,” Ballmer said.”

For all the positive moves that Microsoft has made towards OSS, silly statements like this must drive Sam Ramji & team to pull out their hair.

You know, I’d actually love to see Microsoft sue a customer because of IP issues. Exactly how much would they sue for to offset the millions of dollars worth of negative publicity and brand destruction?

 

Compete Solely on Price, No Thanks.

A while ago Roy Russo had made a comment to the effect: “OSS needs to stop competing on price”. Regardless what you read about him on the Interweb, I say, he’s a smart guy! ;-)

I’ve never really looked at the price of Windows vs. RHEL or Ubuntu. The simple answer is that CentOS/Fedora (near RHEL replacements) and Ubuntu are free without commercial support, so end of discussion.

But, if you want commercial support and consider a typical Windows replacement cycle (~5 years), it seems that Windows is actually cheaper than purchasing RHEL+support or support for Ubuntu.

I’m quite happy to see this. Price isn’t a long term differentiator. Easier to use, faster, more secure, more reliable, etc. can be long term differentiators….price, not so much.

Take a look:

Here’s what I did:

The current Vista Ultimate price is $399, the upgrade price is $199. I used $399 in year 1 and $199 in year 6. This assumes you buy Vista today, run it for 5 years and then upgrade to the next version of Windows in year 6. You can pay $59/incident for commercial support from Microsoft. I assumed one would need no more than 2 support calls a year (I haven’t ever called MSFT in 20+ years for support). BTW, apparently you get 2 installation related support incidents for free with a Windows license. {Update} Mr. Russo pointed out that I missed the cost of an Advanced Support Incident. If you assume that a customer has 2 of these in a 6 year term, and when they do, the incremental cost is only $200, then Windows is still cheaper by ~$30 (ignoring discounts, hardware costs, other software costs, etc).

The current Ubuntu support price from Canonical for 9×5 phone support is $250. I could have used $900 for the 24×7 support, but that seemed excessive.

The current RHEL “Workstation with Standard Subscription” price for 12×5 phone support is $299.

Note that Canonical and Red Hat offer unlimited incidents, while I only assumed 2 incidents per year with Microsoft. This may be a bad assumption. But seriously, I can’t remember anyone I know actually calling Microsoft for OS support.

This ‘analysis’ is not a statement about total cost of ownership. It’s just simple math, and I thought you may find it interesting. OSS doesn’t have to compete on price…let’s move past that myth.

 

Red Hat by the Hour

The move away from commodity boxes running Linux continues. It’s nice to see Red Hat getting in front of this market trend. Very cool news about RHEL being offered through Amazon’s EC2.

“The combination of Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Amazon EC2 changes the economics of computing by allowing customers to pay only for the infrastructure software services and capacity that they actually use.

Base prices are $19 per month, per user and $0.21, $0.53 or $0.94 for every compute hour used on Amazon’s EC2 service, depending on whether customers choose a small, large or extra-large compute instance size, plus bandwidth and storage fees.”

It’s in limited private beta testing, but you can ask to join the beta here.

 

Bill Hilf Adds Windows Server Marketing Responsibility

Networkworld is reporting:

“The leader of Microsoft’s integration efforts around open source software and its proprietary technologies is expanding his role by adding the title “general manager of Windows server marketing,” further indication that Microsoft plans to crank up the volume on its Windows/Linux story.

…

“This expanded role is a natural evolution of the work Bill has led at Microsoft over the past four years – working together with Microsoft technology-development teams and the open source community to build interoperable solutions on top of the Windows Platform, and continuing the discussion around Linux and Windows,” a company representative said.”

Anyone know if a GM of marketing trumps a GM of development/engineering at Microsoft? I guess I’m asking if this announcement means that Bill will help drive changes to the Windows server product? Or is he responsible for having fewer “get the facts” marketing campaigns?

In any case, Microsoft continues in their march towards OSS (and maybe acquiring Red Hat, a Nostradamus-ish prediction of mine).

 

The Tale of Two Cities: Red Hat & JBoss

Red Hat reported great numbers today. The stock was down in after hours trading, and I suspect it will be down tomorrow. The stock movement will likely be based on comments about the JBoss division by Red Hat’s CEO. Forbes reports:

“Sales came in slightly higher than expected, with Red Hat reporting revenues of $127.3 compared to revenues of $99.7 million during the year-ago period. Analysts had expected sales of $125.7 million.

…

Over the past year, Red Hat’s shares have fallen more than 25% as the company has toiled to transform from a Linux vendor into a peddler of a broader array of software.

One big reason: Sales of the so-called application server software Red Hat acquired with its purchase of JBoss last year have disappointed. “The rate of JBoss bookings and revenue growth has not met my expectations,” said Szulik in a conference call with investors. “We know we can do much better.” “

Red Hat Linux is definitely firing on all cylinders. JBoss, in the words of Red Hat’s CEO “could do much better”.

Further comments via CNet:

“However, not all believe the JBoss deal is going swimmingly. Credit Suisse analyst Jason Maynard downgraded Red Hat from “outperform” to “neutral” Monday. “We believe our thesis of improved field execution and meaningful JBoss acceleration won’t materialize and deliver the anticipated upside to our forecast,” he said. “Our checks indicate that the organization continues to be in a state of flux as the company struggles through its transition to a multi-product company.”"

Here’s something I found funny via Reuters:

” Chowdhry of Global Equities Research said the prospects for JBoss were dim because its software was designed to work with the Java programming language. He said Java was losing market share as businesses embrace Ruby, a programming language that is easier to use and works with an open-source rival to JBoss known as Ruby on Rails.”

LOL. RoR is going to kill JBoss…Seriously?!?! If RoR is such a threat, why are other Java app server vendors “doing okay“? Is there something more here? (Hint: yes - I’ll get into it tomorrow).