- Latest News
- Comment & Metrics
- Magazine Articles
- Jason Stamper's Blog
- Open Source Blog
- Newsletter Sign-Up
- Jason Stamper's blog
- Open sources by Dave Rosenberg & Matt Asay
- Dana Blankenhorn's open source blog
- Stephe Walli's Once More Unto the Breach
- IBM's Bob Sutor
- Sun's Simon Phipps
- Stephen O'Grady of RedMonk
- Andy Updegrove's Standards Blog
- Zack Urlocker's The Open Force
- Linux-Watch
- Glyn Moody's open...
- Mark Hinkle's EncoreOpus
- Raven Zachery’s CAOS Theory
- Kaj Arno’s blog
- Open Source Unleashed
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
Open Source Weblog: July 2007 Archives
Qlusters raises $10m, loses $11m
July 31, 2007
You win some, you lose some. Open source systems management software vendor Qlusters has announced that it has raised $10.36m in Series C funding.
Nothing unusual there, apart from the fact that the company also announced that it “has raised approximately $23 million in total VC funding since the company was founded in 2001” which is clearly incorrect, not least because the company raised $16m in April 2004.
"I (don’t) want" doesn’t mean "I (don’t) get"
Last week I wrote that even if Microsoft’s Ms-PL or Ms-CL licenses are found to meet the 10 criteria of the Open Source Definition, does not necessarily mean that they will be approved by the Open Source Initiative’s licensing board.
The shorthand for that could have been “'I want' doesn’t mean 'I get'”. A similar phrase could be applied in the light of some of the responses to Microsoft’s intention to submit its licenses to the OSI.
“Most of us do *not* want Microsoft to participate. I would like to personally barricade Microsoft out, until it alters its negative, rapacious and hostile behavior toward the GPL and FOSS. And so should you,” writes PJ at Groklaw.
Unfortunately for PJ 'I don’t want', doesn’t mean 'I don’t get'.
Do Microsoft's licenses stand a chance of OSI approval?
July 27, 2007
So Microsoft is to submit its shared source licenses for approval by the OSI.
Do any of them stand a chance? Here's my (admittedly simplified) two-penneth.
Red Hat CTO on interop, virtualization and messaging
July 26, 2007
Yesterday I had the chance for a quick catch up with Brian Stevens, CTO and VP of engineering at Red Hat, about the company's plans following the release of RHEL 5.0.
Among the things we discussed were Red Hat's plans for the Libvirt virtualization API to create a VM-agnostic management layer, and more detail on how the company hopes to commercialize the Apache Qpid project, based on the Advanced Message Queuing Protocol (AMQP) specifications.
More on those discussions when I get a chance, but the other thing Brian noted was the company's work on Windows interoperability around virtualization, and how it compares to what Novell is doing via its controversial deal.
The headline "Red Hat says IP deal not necessary for Windows interop" pretty much sums it up, but take a look at what Brian had to say.
Open source licensing: the right (or wrong) tool for the job
The big news for today is definitely open source licensing, with SugarCRM going GPLv3, the OSI approving SocialText’s Common Public Attribution License, BMC selecting the BSD license for its open source projects, and the newly re-named xTuple introducing yet another license.
Despite the proliferation of open source licenses, what these announcements demonstrate is that license choice is about choosing the right tool for the job (even if you arguably get it wrong, but more of that later).
Should Microsoft buy Red Hat? And why the tech press doesn't get it.
July 24, 2007
I just read two interesting posts on different subjects that I think are worth a good look:
Savio Rodrigues's Why Microsoft should buy Red Hat
And
Krishnan Subramanian's Tech media doesn’t get open source
Both are worth reading in their entirety but a couple of points stand out.
Evaluate on Windows, deploy on Linux
July 23, 2007
Open source content management firm Alfresco has released the details of its Open Source Barometer, a survey of 10,000 members of its user community, and pretty interesting reading it makes too, not least because it turns on its head the assumption that users develop and assess on Linux before deploying on proprietary operating systems for peace of mind.
The survey also indicates that Novell’s deal with Microsoft has had an impact on its adoption, with adoption rates for Alfresco on SUSE essentially flat, compared to rapid growth for Alfresco on Red Hat.
Misys banking on open source success
I got wind of this development recently, but not on the record unfortunately. As the Sunday Telegraph reports, UK-based banking and healthcare software vendor Misys is planning on taking some of its software open source.
This is a pretty aggressive move for what has previously been seen as conservative company.
The ascent of software
July 20, 2007
The term ‘open source’ has become so synonymous with the term ‘software’ that it is easy to think that of the open source philosophy (for want of a better word) as a modern-day invention. Every now and then you come across an example in another field that proves this is not the case.
I am currently reading The Ascent of Denali by Hudson Stuck, my wife’s Great Great Uncle, who led the first expedition to climb the south peak of Denali (Mount McKinley) in 1913.
As the leader of the first expedition to climb the highest peak in North America, Stuck achieved fame, but in the book he gives due credit to his accomplices Harry Karstens, Robert Tatum and Walter Harper, as well as assistant Native American boys Johnny and Esaias.
It is not the credit he gives the rest of the climbing party that is relevant, however, but the credit that goes to former attempts to climb the mountain, and the eagerness with which those who took part were prepared to share their experience, even with ‘rival’ explorers.
Microsoft’s patent covenants cause confusion
July 19, 2007
When Microsoft announced the first of its patent interoperability agreements with Novell in November 2006, one of the major claims made in favor of the patent covenant agreement was that it would give customers peace of mind and ensure that they didn’t have to worry about issues such as intellectual property infringement.
“Customers told us that they wanted us to find a way to address the patent issues directly among ourselves in the industry, so they wouldn't have to figure out how to deal with these things instead,” commented Brad Smith, Microsoft general counsel, at the announcement.
Eight months, several further patent deals, and a new version of the GNU General Public License later, and the promise of simplification for customers is a hollow one.
In fact, Microsoft’s patent covenants have arguably made things more complicated for Novell, Linspire, and Xandros Linux users - not least because while the company insists GPLv3 code will not be covered by its patent agreements with Novell and Linspire, the covenant with Xandros customers makes no mention of GPLv3.
Xandros confirms Scalix acquisition
July 18, 2007
Xandros has confirmed via email that the DesktopLinux.com story that it has acquired Scalix is accurate but it is not shedding any more light on the purchase ahead of an official announcement.
It's an interesting move, particularly in the light of Xandros's cross-distribution BridgeWays Linux management project.
Is the company on its way to getting out of the Linux distribution business I wonder?
RHEL 5 certifications put Unbreakable in perspective
In what is surely not a coincidence given Oracle's announcement of Symantec a certified Oracle Enterprise Linux partner, Red Hat has announced that SAP has certified its applications on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.
In fact, Red Hat has also announced that Oracle has completed certification of Oracle 10g Release 2 on RHEL 5.
Is Unbreakable a long-term Linux play?
July 17, 2007
I was pondering this morning what progress Oracle had made on its Unbreakable Linux initiative since the last update but was too busy to follow it up.
A couple of hours later and the question was partially answered with the news that Oracle and Symantec are certifying Veritas storage management software on Oracle Enterprise Linux.
It’s a significant announcement for Oracle, that’s for sure, but in terms of Grade A enterprise software support, it remains the exception, rather than the rule.
OSI general counsel on GPLv3
July 16, 2007
I recently asked “what the most significant thing about the GPLv3?”. OSI general counsel Mark Radcliffe has proved that it is about more than DRM and patents with his list of no fewer than 10 major differences between GPLv3 and GPLv2.
IBM promises standards-based patent protection for all
July 11, 2007
I’ve just taken a first look at IBM’s promise not to assert its patents involved in implementing 150 software standards and it appears to be a work of art in its simplicity.
Not only does it grant royalty-free access to patents related to 150 specifications including ODF, SAML, SOAP and the WS-* standards, it also acts to protect those who implement those standards from third-party patent infringement claims.
Many happy returns? How much is an open source investment worth?
July 09, 2007
Savio Rodrigues asks an important question about the VC funding figures I published a while ago, which strikes to the heart of the questions as to why Series A funding seems to be diminishing: what returns are investors getting from their investments?
Using an average return of 57% predicted by a National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Savio sticks his finger in the air and guesses the $2.05bn invested in open source since 2000 could be worth as much as $30.7bn today.
“Wow. Is there any way that OSS vendors are worth that much today?” he asks, before requesting that I make some of the data I've collected available so we could get a better sense of the results. Intrigued, I've run the numbers myself, and it appears that Savio is right: the real figure in not that high.
The legal ramifications of Microsoft's GPLv3 position
The FSF says Microsoft is bound by the GPLv3. Microsoft says it isn't. Is there any way this can avoid a big legal battle? I don't see how - it's just a matter of who makes the first move in my opinion.
As Bob Sutor wrote: "Frankly, whatever they say, it might end up being up to the lawyers and other aspects of the legal system to decide what it all means."
So what are the clues that this will end in court?
Is open source running out of ideas?
July 05, 2007
Gianugo Rabellino, CEO of Sourcesense has posted an interesting follow-up on the Q1 and H1 open source investment figures I published the other day.
In it he suggests that while it is good news that significant amounts are being invested in open source vendors, there has been a decrease in the amount of funds invested in Series A rounds, suggesting that “the VC industry has filled the checkerboard and has moved to something else as far as startups are concerned”.
Is that correct? I ran through the numbers, and the results suggest Rabellino might have a point.
How predictable: Massachusetts’ about-turn
July 04, 2007
How predictable was Massachusetts’ about-turn on Office Open XML?
In September 2005 I wrote:
“What it definitely does mean, assuming the State's new Information Domain - Enterprise Technical Reference Model is not radically altered following its final period of public review, is that Microsoft's Office will not be on the desktops of Massachusetts State employees from the beginning of 2007. Not unless Microsoft can do something about it, that is.”
And do something about it Microsoft did, entirely predictably.
Open source funding back up in Q2
July 02, 2007
The level of funding in free and open source-related vendors rose over 33% in the second quarter compared to the same period last year, following a decline in the first quarter.
Investment in open source vendors rose 33.1% from $73.95m in the second quarter of 2006 to $98.45m between the beginning of April and the end of June this year.
The politics of open source
Having done religion I thought I'd have a crack at politics. In February Rob Enderle suggested that Cuba's adoption of Linux would make it a political issue and that no US politician could now dare be associated with open source software.
I responded at the time that Enderle was fixating on an imaginary threat. It has now become clear how imaginary that threat is.
A recent survey of US Presidential candidates' campaign web sites indicated that more are running Linux than Windows. If that wasn't enough, now one of the candidates has even gone on record as favoring the use of open source software for voting machines.
back to top