Open Sauce Software
Tasty titbits from people using Linux and other open source software in business.
Monday 30 June 2008, 12:55 PM
With Gates gone, will Microsoft open up?
Amongst the speculation about what Microsoft will be like after Bill Gates' final retirement, some are wondering whether the company might become more friendly to open source.
Of course, the question - like Bill's retirement - is overstated. He's still chairman of the board, and you can bet the board will listen to him.
In large part though, according to this ZDnet blog from Paula Rooney, the answer will be about personalities. Bill Gates built the company by harvesting license revenue, but open source proponents believe we are in a different world now, which will take different people to appreciate.
No one expects Steve Ballmer to suddenly "get" open source, but other Microsoft people have increasing influence.
Scott Guthrie seems more aware of the benefits - as you'd expect from the head of Microsoft's Developer Division. He's already shown some .NET source code, and helped enable Moonlight, the open source implementation of Microsoft's Silverlight.
However, the real key to Microsoft seeing the benefits of open source is probably Ray Ozzie, currently in Gates' old seat as chief architect.
What does Ozzie think? According to my colleage Mary Jo Foley, Ozzie says open source is a more serious competitor than Google, and "much more potentially disruptive” to Microsoft’s business.
Ozzie's response is to make Microsoft's closed-source products integrate better with open source products from elsewhere.
That shows a certain level of awareness, and the open source community isn't going to complain about that, but it doesn't look like any sudden U-turns are in the offing.
Of course, the question - like Bill's retirement - is overstated. He's still chairman of the board, and you can bet the board will listen to him.
In large part though, according to this ZDnet blog from Paula Rooney, the answer will be about personalities. Bill Gates built the company by harvesting license revenue, but open source proponents believe we are in a different world now, which will take different people to appreciate.
No one expects Steve Ballmer to suddenly "get" open source, but other Microsoft people have increasing influence.
Scott Guthrie seems more aware of the benefits - as you'd expect from the head of Microsoft's Developer Division. He's already shown some .NET source code, and helped enable Moonlight, the open source implementation of Microsoft's Silverlight.
However, the real key to Microsoft seeing the benefits of open source is probably Ray Ozzie, currently in Gates' old seat as chief architect.
What does Ozzie think? According to my colleage Mary Jo Foley, Ozzie says open source is a more serious competitor than Google, and "much more potentially disruptive” to Microsoft’s business.
Ozzie's response is to make Microsoft's closed-source products integrate better with open source products from elsewhere.
That shows a certain level of awareness, and the open source community isn't going to complain about that, but it doesn't look like any sudden U-turns are in the offing.
Tuesday 24 June 2008, 11:23 AM
What will an open source Symbian do?
The announcement of that Symbian is going open source was a shock but in a matter of hours it seems inevitable - and very positive.
Despite its dominant market share in smartphones, Symbian has been looking increasingly under threat, from the enterprise-savvy of Windows Mobile, from the uber-usability of the iPhone, and (a little bit over the horizon), the promise of a free operating system from Google Android (as well as other Linux versions which already exist).
Symbian has been driving down its price, in the hope of getting its OS out onto more and cheaper phone - with a goal of displacing the purpose built OS on feature phones, but the last quarter's figures showed this wasn't happening fast enough, with the rivals around.
Nokia had most to lose, with its heavy reliance on the S60 user interface, and has taken a bold step - buy the whole of Symbian and then give it away.
When Android finally arrives (and it's facing delays), it will come up against an open source oeprating system which already has vast experience masses of applications and lots of users on multiple handsets.
Like I say, it's utterly logical, but a very big and (at first) surprising step.
update: And, the press conference just pointed out, this is the biggest single release of proprietary code into an open source model.
Despite its dominant market share in smartphones, Symbian has been looking increasingly under threat, from the enterprise-savvy of Windows Mobile, from the uber-usability of the iPhone, and (a little bit over the horizon), the promise of a free operating system from Google Android (as well as other Linux versions which already exist).
Symbian has been driving down its price, in the hope of getting its OS out onto more and cheaper phone - with a goal of displacing the purpose built OS on feature phones, but the last quarter's figures showed this wasn't happening fast enough, with the rivals around.
Nokia had most to lose, with its heavy reliance on the S60 user interface, and has taken a bold step - buy the whole of Symbian and then give it away.
When Android finally arrives (and it's facing delays), it will come up against an open source oeprating system which already has vast experience masses of applications and lots of users on multiple handsets.
Like I say, it's utterly logical, but a very big and (at first) surprising step.
update: And, the press conference just pointed out, this is the biggest single release of proprietary code into an open source model.
Monday 16 June 2008, 11:10 AM
BECTA - the track record
While open source experts rage at BECTA's new promotional project, let's remember earlier BECTA actions.
The group, which advises the UK educational sector on IT has had a long and problematic relationship with Microsoft, and seems to have difficulties deciding how to approach open source. To be honest, in one way or another, that's true of most people in the industry.
BECTA is currently being criticised for a program to promote open source in schools which is led by a consultancy with little experience in the field, and which doesn't involve any of open source leaders - a move which has open source promoters howling.
However, let's remember the group is also taking taking a complaint against Microsoft to the EU, although it was earlier criticised for being too closely aligned with Microsoft, to the detriment of open source.
Late in 2007, BECTA commissioned an open source project which was little reported - an interactive whiteboard viewer, with an open format so educational materials can be viewed and shared between schools without high licence costs.
But, as with the schools promotion project, BECTA doesn't seem to be able to please the open source community with its choice of partners - it is using schools IT supplier RM.
Now, RM is a name that no Linux company would choose for itself, and the company's main business is in Windows PCs tailored for education, but it does have the Asus Eee on its books, as well as Linux drivers for a lot of its peripherals, anbd.. that's about it, apart from a lonely mention of open source, on its page of accreditations from BECTA.
That doesn't impress Mark Taylor of the Open Source Consortium. "Which UK Open Source companies were given an opportunity to bid for the work? Or even told about the work?" he asks. "That would be none of them..."
As with the current project, Taylor's complaint is that Becta excluded "real" open source companies, and funnelled £150k "to the same old boys they've been funneling cash to for years, the same ones who got the education IT market into the mess it is in, and giving them their 'Open-wash' credentials at the same time..."
According to BECTA and RM pages, this whiteboard project is due to deliver its file format, on Sourceforge the end of this month.
We'll keep an eye out for it. There's no sign of it yet - though a quick search for "whiteboard" reveals a lot of similar sounding projects. I wonder if any of them could have been used or adapted, instead of starting a new project?
The group, which advises the UK educational sector on IT has had a long and problematic relationship with Microsoft, and seems to have difficulties deciding how to approach open source. To be honest, in one way or another, that's true of most people in the industry.
BECTA is currently being criticised for a program to promote open source in schools which is led by a consultancy with little experience in the field, and which doesn't involve any of open source leaders - a move which has open source promoters howling.
However, let's remember the group is also taking taking a complaint against Microsoft to the EU, although it was earlier criticised for being too closely aligned with Microsoft, to the detriment of open source.
Late in 2007, BECTA commissioned an open source project which was little reported - an interactive whiteboard viewer, with an open format so educational materials can be viewed and shared between schools without high licence costs.
But, as with the schools promotion project, BECTA doesn't seem to be able to please the open source community with its choice of partners - it is using schools IT supplier RM.
Now, RM is a name that no Linux company would choose for itself, and the company's main business is in Windows PCs tailored for education, but it does have the Asus Eee on its books, as well as Linux drivers for a lot of its peripherals, anbd.. that's about it, apart from a lonely mention of open source, on its page of accreditations from BECTA.
That doesn't impress Mark Taylor of the Open Source Consortium. "Which UK Open Source companies were given an opportunity to bid for the work? Or even told about the work?" he asks. "That would be none of them..."
As with the current project, Taylor's complaint is that Becta excluded "real" open source companies, and funnelled £150k "to the same old boys they've been funneling cash to for years, the same ones who got the education IT market into the mess it is in, and giving them their 'Open-wash' credentials at the same time..."
According to BECTA and RM pages, this whiteboard project is due to deliver its file format, on Sourceforge the end of this month.
We'll keep an eye out for it. There's no sign of it yet - though a quick search for "whiteboard" reveals a lot of similar sounding projects. I wonder if any of them could have been used or adapted, instead of starting a new project?
Monday 9 June 2008, 11:54 AM
Stallman comments on the Oyster
After our coverage of London's Oyster card, which uses Linux for its online payment system, we had a response from Richard Stallman, head of the Free Software Foundation.
The original article was Linux Opens London's Oyster, and we report Stallman's comments here .
The GNU system (often called "Linux") has been developed, since 1984, for the sake of computer users' freedom. Ironically it is now the basis for a system designed to smother the freedom of the people of London, through online payments to Oyster cards.
Each Oyster card has a unique ID, which it transmits when it is used. So if you make the mistake of connecting the card with your name, then Big Brother knows exactly when and where you enter the tube, system and where you leave. For the surveillance-mad government of the UK, this is like a dream come true. Since the card contains an RFID, it can be scanned any time, anywhere - not just when you think you are using it.
No wonder they would like more people to use on-line payments. There is no anonymous method of on-line payments, so anyone doing this will have to give them a name to tie to the card. The same happens if you use a credit card or debit card to pay.
Some have proposed that free software licenses such as the GNU General Public License should restrict use of the software to do unethical things. (Military use was the one most often suggested.) I've concluded that this would be misguided. A general tool will inevitably be used for all sorts of things. We cannot prevent surveillance, or wars of aggression, but trying to prohibit the use of certain operating systems for these purposes, any more than we could do so by putting restrictions on the use of pens or chairs. The worst evils are committed by governments, and since they make the copyright laws on which free software licenses are based, they could always vote themselves an exception -- or use non-free software.
We cannot stop London from implementing on-line payments for
surveillance cards, but we can refuse to fall into the trap it sets.
To protect yourself from surveillance, you must pay cash. It is also
a good idea to swap empty Oyster cards with other people from time to time. That way, even if Big Brother finds out which card you have today, he can't use its number to look up all your movements for the past N years. And keep the card in aluminum foil whenever you are not using it -- that way it can't be scanned when it shouldn't be.
Copyright 2008 Richard Stallman
Creative Commons Noderivs license
The original article was Linux Opens London's Oyster, and we report Stallman's comments here .
The GNU system (often called "Linux") has been developed, since 1984, for the sake of computer users' freedom. Ironically it is now the basis for a system designed to smother the freedom of the people of London, through online payments to Oyster cards.
Each Oyster card has a unique ID, which it transmits when it is used. So if you make the mistake of connecting the card with your name, then Big Brother knows exactly when and where you enter the tube, system and where you leave. For the surveillance-mad government of the UK, this is like a dream come true. Since the card contains an RFID, it can be scanned any time, anywhere - not just when you think you are using it.
No wonder they would like more people to use on-line payments. There is no anonymous method of on-line payments, so anyone doing this will have to give them a name to tie to the card. The same happens if you use a credit card or debit card to pay.
Some have proposed that free software licenses such as the GNU General Public License should restrict use of the software to do unethical things. (Military use was the one most often suggested.) I've concluded that this would be misguided. A general tool will inevitably be used for all sorts of things. We cannot prevent surveillance, or wars of aggression, but trying to prohibit the use of certain operating systems for these purposes, any more than we could do so by putting restrictions on the use of pens or chairs. The worst evils are committed by governments, and since they make the copyright laws on which free software licenses are based, they could always vote themselves an exception -- or use non-free software.
We cannot stop London from implementing on-line payments for
surveillance cards, but we can refuse to fall into the trap it sets.
To protect yourself from surveillance, you must pay cash. It is also
a good idea to swap empty Oyster cards with other people from time to time. That way, even if Big Brother finds out which card you have today, he can't use its number to look up all your movements for the past N years. And keep the card in aluminum foil whenever you are not using it -- that way it can't be scanned when it shouldn't be.
Copyright 2008 Richard Stallman
Creative Commons Noderivs license
Friday 6 June 2008, 10:40 AM
Some Firefox extensions aren't open source
Here's a surprise. Like most Firefox users, I've added some extensions. They come from the Mozilla site, and I've always assumed that they, like Firefox itself, are open source.
Well, it turns out, that some of them aren't. According to Command Line Warriors, the popular StumbleUpon extension, and probably others, actually have a proprietary licence.
My favourite extensions, the fabulous Adblock Plus and excellent Foxmarks are open source, it turns out. But StumbleUpon, it turns out, has a not-very-well-displayed licence, which denies you the right to reverse-engineer, or make derivative works from the tool-bar.
(It also says the licence is only for non-commercial use, so I guess I can't use it since I surf, read and write for a living.)
This is not a huge concern. Firefox is still open source, and the platform on which these extensions are built dose not (I presume) require all extensions to be open source.
These licences will be hell to enforce, since no-one clicks an "I Accept" button to install an extension, and since all Firefox extensions include their source code in a zip file.
But it's another illustration that things are more complex than you expect. Open source software (such as Firefox) can support proprietary extensions, just as easily as proprietary software (such as Windows) can support open source extensions (such as Firefox).
Well, it turns out, that some of them aren't. According to Command Line Warriors, the popular StumbleUpon extension, and probably others, actually have a proprietary licence.
My favourite extensions, the fabulous Adblock Plus and excellent Foxmarks are open source, it turns out. But StumbleUpon, it turns out, has a not-very-well-displayed licence, which denies you the right to reverse-engineer, or make derivative works from the tool-bar.
(It also says the licence is only for non-commercial use, so I guess I can't use it since I surf, read and write for a living.)
This is not a huge concern. Firefox is still open source, and the platform on which these extensions are built dose not (I presume) require all extensions to be open source.
These licences will be hell to enforce, since no-one clicks an "I Accept" button to install an extension, and since all Firefox extensions include their source code in a zip file.
But it's another illustration that things are more complex than you expect. Open source software (such as Firefox) can support proprietary extensions, just as easily as proprietary software (such as Windows) can support open source extensions (such as Firefox).
Previous
