sorted by: recent | see :
popular
Content Tagged caostheory
Proprietary, open source systems management get closer
CA and IBM, two of the so-called Big Four in systems management software, announced this week a federated configuration management database (CMDB) system for interoperability of their software. Something like this comoing from two of Big Four (BMC, CA, HP and IBM) wouldn’t normally hold much meaning for open source players such as GroundWork, Hyperic and Zenoss, but it actually does for a couple of reasons.
First, part of the technology that CA and IBM are using to link up their systems management software, which allows it to share information between the two CMDBs, is actually open source software itself from the Eclipse Cosmos Project. CA and IBM said the Eclipse Cosmos software accelerated implementation of the CMDB Federation (CMDBf) specification and the two vendors plan to contribute code from their interoperability work back to COSMOS as reference code.
Second, we’ve been hearing from both open source and proprietary players that most mid-size and large enterprise systems management users rely on more than one vendor or suite to keep tabs on their servers, networks and applications. That trend seems to be continuing and all indications are that more and more open source systems management and monitoring software is sitting alongside the traditional, proprietary suites of the Big Four. In our report, CAOS 4 Managing in the Open, we we wrote about the significance of the open source players and others integrating with the entrenched, larger vendors.
It makes sense for the open source vendors to integrate and interoperate with the systems management suites from the Big Four of BMC, CA, HP and IBM, which makes developmental, divisional or trial use much easier. Why would these entrenched vendors want to integrate with other third-party monitoring and management products? Because customers are demanding it. Think about it, are CA or IBM better off with a continued strategy that says, ‘all us, only us or nothing’ or an approach that takes into account the reality of customer choice, which has broadened thanks to open source, SaaS offerings and other factors? Regardless of how deliberately the Big Four are integrating with open source and other components, customers are using different suites, both proprietary and open source, in combination. This is also helped by the use of open standards by both the open source companies and the traditional vendors.
This is good news for the open source vendors and even better news for customers that no longer have to choose between products that are too expensive and full of feature overkill, or assemblies of smaller, less expensive tools (including open source) that have often lacked commercial backing and require greater expertise to deploy. Now customers, who have commercial open source options, can use combinations of both, reinforcing the larger, ongoing trend of more open source and proprietary software used together in the enterprise.
Andrew Lampitt defines Open-Core Licensing
JasperSoft’s business development director Andrew Lampitt has kicked off his new blog with an interesting post related to business models used by open source-related vendors.
In it he attempts to define the approach utilized by the likes of JasperSoft and SugarCRM, which offer open source products with core functionality, as well as commercial extensions. The approach is a twist on the dual licensing approach made famous by MySQL* where the vendor, as copyright holder, makes the code available under both the GNU GPL and a commercial license for customers that would rather avoid the GPL.
The approach taken by JasperSoft et al is not to segment by user base but by features. As Andrew explains, “the commercial license is a super-set of the open source product, i.e., it offers premium product features that you will not see in the GPL license.”
The model is widely used (Hyperic, xTuple, Zenoss, Talend and GroundWork also use it) but has not been properly defined. Savio Rodrigues has referred to it as the “Product Driven OSS Business Model”, Carlo Daffara calls it Split OSS/Commercial, while I have used the term “Split Licensing”.
Andrew recommends referring to the model as Open-Core Licensing, arguing: “My feeling is that we would save a lot of confusion for communities, customers, and vendors if all recognize that a dual license ”open core” model is a sensible business model for all involved,” and that “In this way, it is clear to customers that there is a ?core? open source product that is GPL, and there is also additional high-value available as add-on features for purchase.”
Defining the model is important because it should help customers understand the actions and strategies of their vendors and, as Andrew puts it: “If you rename what it is called, you help to remove the “bait and switch” controversy by openly recognizing it as an emerging standard business model with specific attributes associated to it.”
(It is also important to distinguish between Open-Core Licensing and what I would call Embedded Open Source, where the open source code is embedded with a larger commercial package - for example IBM has for many years embedded the Apache HTTP server within its WebSphere middleware, while the Apache Geronimo project forms the basis of its WebSphere Application Server CE product. There is sometimes a fine line between the two models.)
The term Open-Core Licensing (OCL) certainly makes sense to me and I have decided to adopt it for The 451’s forthcoming report on business models related to open source software. I had originally used the term “split licensing” but have decided to switch to OCL as some people use the term “split licensing” interchangeably with “dual licensing”, such as in this research report from the University of Southampton. (Just to confuse things further, Carlo uses “twin licensing” rather than “dual licensing”).
Another example of “split licensing” being used to describe what I would call “dual licensing” is this blog post by Kirk Wylie, a software engineer in the financial services sector, which also eloquently describes why the OCL model is of interest to customers as well as vendors.
“Let’s say you’re an open source company, and you’re trying to figure out how to sell yourself to me in the Money… “What you have to do is give me something tangible if I give you money. It’s just that simple,” he writes.
“Give me a cookie. Seriously. Give me something I only get if I pay you… It might be development tools… It might be support tools… It might be domain-specific functionality… Heck, figure out how to leverage GPGPUs or Infiniband or whatever. Just find something that I’m going to have to pay you for, and make sure it’s of merit to me. Then sell me that with my support contract.”
(Kirk also concisely describes why the subscription services model doesn’t cut it for the company he works for: “No matter how good your SLA is, getting someone to remote diagnose a problem over a telephone line during a production outage with traders yelling at you is impossible… This means that support is mostly useful pre-production, and post-outage post-mortem. In the middle of the crisis, it’s less than useless. If you can’t fix it, you shouldn’t be running it.”)
One of the issues that Open-Core Licensing raises for vendors is deciding what that cookie will be (it’s what Matt Asay has called “the nettlesome question”). It is up to the vendor to try and decide what features should be commercial and how the balance between the core and the extensions changes over time.
Savio has suggested drop-feeding features from the commercial to the open source product over time, with new features added to the commercial product to ensure customers continue to be willing to pay.
Andrew cites “a timebomb on all commercial features after a certain period of time,” that “makes those commercial features become GPL” but notes that it may not be workable “as it would make a long-term business model a lot trickier”.
As this suggests, there is more to discuss with OCL than its name. Some of the plusses and minuses of the model were discussed here. Andrew also makes the point that it is also debatable whether the code for the commercial extensions should be visible or completely closed.
Naming the model is an important first in setting the terms for the debate, however, and even though it means re-writing my ongoing research report, Open-Core Licensing gets my vote.
*Commercial licensing, via the dual license model, was originally responsible for driving MySQL’s revenue growth, although in recent years subscription services have been a more significant revenue generator.
Open source is dead, long live open source
A couple of articles have been published recently that point to a growing realisation/admission about the role that open source will play in the future of enterprise software.
In “The Commercial Bear Hug of Open Source” Dan Woods details the various methods by which open source has become increasingly commercial in recent years, while in “The Microsoft-Novell Deal and Trust in Princes” Bruce Byfield discusses the relationship between business and open source.
Neither article is perfect. Woods, in particular, appears to paint open source in the role of the glorious failure - failing to surpass traditional licensing models and being subsumed into the mainstream (a subject I’ve touched on before).
For his efforts Woods earns the wrath of Dana Blankenhorn, who points out that Woods has confused the idealism of free software and Richard Stallman with the pragmatism of the open source and Eric Raymond.
“It [Raymond's 'open source' concept] accepted the idea of commercial interests from the start,” writes Blankenhorn. “It saw new business models evolving from shared development effort.”
For that reason, Woods asking “Isn’t open source a community-based movement that was set to overtake the world of commercial software? Wasn’t the famous LAMP stack, Linux, Apache, MySQL and Perl, Python and PHP going to open a world in which software existed outside the traditional realm of property?” is something of a straw man.
However, his central point that “commercial and open source are fellow travelers” is valid, as is his point that “it is almost impossible to tell the difference between the most popular open source software and commercial alternatives”.
That brings us to Byfield’s article in Datamation. While it is ostensibly a discussion about the extension of Microsoft’s Linux deal with Novell, the article focuses heavily on the relationship between business and free and open source software (FOSS).
“What tends to get lost is this: the fact that business is friendly to FOSS does not mean that it has adopted its values,” he writes. “The free software camp’s concern with philosophical and political freedom has almost certainly not been adopted by most FOSS-friendly companies, while the open source camp’s emphasis on increased software quality is probably shared by middle-management at best. Business –gasp!– is interested in FOSS to improve the bottom line, and often no other reason.”
This is a statement that leaves Matt Asay with mixed emotions. “Commercial open source is starting to find its feet,” he writes. “There isn’t a grand contradiction between giving code away (seeding the market) and suggesting a purchase (reaping the market). In fact, the two go together perfectly. As we realize this, open source will become even more dominant. Open source and business can be bosom buddies, not enemies.”
I would maintain that the relationship is closer than that. However, from Byfield’s viewpoint there remain barriers. “Sooner or later, an open source business is going to act more like a business and less like a citizen of the FOSS community,” he warns. “The two can certainly co-exist, and both can benefit from doing so. But, forced to choose, the average FOSS-based business is going to choose business interests over FOSS every time,” he adds.
The tone of Byfield’s article is driven in part by his evident belief that business and open source are at least partially exclusive. This, like Woods’ confusing of free and open source software, is a mistake in my opinion. Business and open source are intertwined.
It is worth remembering that open source is a business tactic, not a business model. Open source is not a market in and of itself, nor is it a vertical segment of the market. Open source is a software development and/or distribution model that is enabled by a licensing tactic. It enables new revenue generation strategies.
Companies that build revenue streams around open source software do not choose between business and open source, they choose business and open source. You could call this a commercial bear hug of open source, or you could see it as an evolution of commercial business models based on the economic principle that sharing development has the capacity to lower development costs.
Either way the result is the same - the increased adoption of open source as a development and distribution model by mainstream business. Which is, after all, what the open source movement is all about.
See also:
Commercial licensing is a double-edged sword
Asking the right questions of open source
Open source: assimilate and thrive
Judging open source business models
opensource
open-source
the
matthew
caostheory
aslett
mattaslett
Sometimes a developer community isn?t the answer
I was in San Francisco at the tail-end of last week and was fortunate to have some time to meet up with Josh Berkus, a member of the PostgreSQL core team and, until recently, a Sun employee.
Our conversation covered a lot of ground, including his reasons for leaving Sun (he didn’t go into detail but suffice to say he’s working a business idea), the future of the database market (more choice, more horizontal scaling, more use of specialist databases), the future of PostgreSQL (as a development platform), the level or authorization afforded to the Drizzle project, and the future of Sun.
I won’t go into the latter now, but the threads are there to be joined together.
We finished up our conversation talking about the attempts of one particular vendor (not Sun) to build a community of developers around its recently open sourced product. Given Josh’s involvement in the PostgreSQL community and the recent assertion that open source is “all about community” some may be surprised to find that Josh was arguing against the company putting its effort into building a developer community.
Why? It comes down to the strengths and weaknesses of a certain project. For those that are developed in the open like Linux and PostgreSQL, the developer community is vital. For those that are mainly developed by the employees of a vendor, it is less important.
Some may point out that vendors that fail to exploit the community development model fully are failing to enjoy the full benefits of open source and are keeping their development and marketing costs higher than necessary. Josh argued that idea that development costs are always lower for open source projects is a fallacy and that, depending on the vendor, the benefits do not always outweigh the costs.
He argued that for the vendor in question it would be doubtful whether an expansion of the developer community would contribute meaningful benefits and greater commercial adoption and that it might actually distract the company’s attention away from serving its core customer base.
The company would be better served, he believed, in targeting ISVs and SIs and on growing its partner community, encouraging them to take advantage of the availability of the code to increase their expertise in, and the overall quality of, the product.
Maybe the vendor in question is the exception, but it was interesting to hear someone who is so involved in a community project arguing against attempting to build a development community for the sake of placating the criticism of rivals.
Overall the message to vendors is that what works for one doesn’t necessarily work for all. That and the fact that ‘community’ does not always have to mean ‘developer community’. Vendors should play to their strengths rather than following the crowd.
Software
linux
Berkus
josh
451group
451caostheory
caostheory
One in, one out for Sun?s PostgreSQL team
Ever since Sun acquired MySQL the rumours have been rife that Josh Berkus, PostgreSQL core team member and Sun’s PostgreSQL lead, would soon be heading out the door.
Josh has now confirmed that he is indeed leaving Sun, but before the doomsayers start writing of Sun’s PostgreSQL support business completely, Josh also notes that Peter Eisentraut is joining the team as PostgreSQL software engineer. Peter has also confirmed his new role.
From the MySQL team, Kaj Arno does the hellos and goodbyes. Losing Josh is significant for Sun’s role in the PostgreSQL community but the quick appointment of Peter indicates that PostgreSQL still has a role to play at the company.
I certainly think there is room for both PostgreSQL and MySQL (and indeed JavaDB) at Sun, although I have been somewhat surprised that the company hasn’t yet come out and made a case for working with both databases and explaining their respective strengths and weaknesses. The details are there if you want to find them, but you have to be prepared to do a bit of digging.
Software
linux
MySQL
451group
451caostheory
caostheory
aslett
Could Google be stymied by a lack of openness?
It seems almost churlish to wonder whether Google could be even more successful than it already is with a different strategy, but the company’s approach to open source and open development has come into focus in recent weeks.
On last week’s podcast we discussed whether the company should see the AGPL as more of an opportunity than a threat following Jay’s post about the company releasing more code under open source licenses.
Nik Cubrilovic over at TechCrunch, meanwhile, has written an interesting article about Google’s acquisition strategy and whether its apparent insistence that acquired companies migrate to its technology platform (C++, Java and Python/MapReduce/Big Table/Google FS) causes the acquired projects to stagnate.
“One of the first main challenges for a company that has been acquired by Google is adopting the proprietary technology stack used within the company. Google does use Linux and open source, but their core technologies are all internal to the company,” states Nik.
“Because of the difference in technology, it can take a company anywhere from a year to three or more years to move over to the Google infrastructure and architecture,” he adds while detailing how the likes of JotSpot, Blogger, Dodgeball, GrandCentral and MeasureMap have lost ground during the move.
As he notes this issue isn’t unique to Google (it’s one of many problems associated Microsoft’s pursuit of Yahoo) but the widespread use of .NET and the Win32 API make it less of a problem for Microsoft in most cases. Meanwhile a significant number of the companies Google is targeting will be based on the likes of MySQL, Apache, Python, and PHP.
In concluding his article, Nik states: “The solutions for Google are either to adopt a more open stack in parallel to what they currently use, or to open source their internal technologies (as Facebook and Yahoo! are doing) in the hope that they will spread and gain adoption from more developers.”
However, Google has been open with the concepts behind technologies such as MapReduce and Big Table, if not the code, and the release of App Engine should help create a new generation of projects that are much easier to integrate into Google’s portfolio. It could be that the problem is a matter of the platform’s maturity and ubiquity, rather than its openness.
Then again, the company’s attitude towards openness related to the development of Android has also come in for some stick this week. Could it be that the company is about to find out that there is no such thing as being half-open?
fs
measure
Blogger
licensing
451group
451caostheory
caostheory
Sun full of open source and skepticism
Sun continues to take a performance pounding, and the rumors of replacements, layoffs and revamps are beyond swirling and now perpetuating skepticism of the company. It strikes me as odd that Sun, which has embraced open source and is also the defacto leading corporate open source software contributor, is continually dogged by doubts about its transitions and tenures despite well-respected technology and participation in open source. Part of this lies in the company’s continuing dichotomy in strategy — a reference to tepid support for Linux and continued preference for and focus on Solaris. This is a large part of Sun’s ‘handicap,’ IMHO when it comes to Linux and open source. Sun has its own OS, and therefore is in the same category as the dreaded Microsoft for many.
However, Sun has a longstanding, solid history with open source. OpenOffice, OpenSolaris, OpenSparc, Java, etc. While the company has generally benefited from its move to make Java open source under the GPL, its OpenSolaris and Solaris OS under the CDDL have been a somewhat different story. Nevertheless, Sun knows how to do open source right and continues to participate effectively in a variety of open source software communities, projects and enterprise products.
Let’s also not forget that it was Sun that started off this year with a billion dollar bet on open source, MySQL and its database software and business. When Jonathan Schwartz and co. were on the conference call for the acquisition in January, there were many references to Sun’s belief in the LAMP stack (along with the expected reference to the possibility of a SAMP stack that includes Solaris). And therein lies the dichotomy again.
Does Sun want to support and see success from Linux? Or does it want to see success from Solaris (and OpenSolaris)? The company may want to have it both ways and while it’s certainly possible and practical to support multiple operating systems in this day and age, Sun needs to make it clear whether it wants to fan the flames or fight the fire that is Linux. Let’s consider Novell. Is it putting much investment or roadmapping into Netware? No, the company is focused on Linux and integration of NetWare and Linux in Open Enterprise Server since it acquired SUSE in 2003. While an acquisition spurred the Linux embrace in Novell’s case, Sun does not necessarily need to buy a Linux vendor (there are fewer of those, too with Xandros’ recent purchase of Linspire).
The bottom line is that many if not most enterprise Linux wins come at the expense of Solaris and other Unix software. Sun would be wise to recognize this and it could go a long way toward clarifying its achievements and objectives with open source and getting its house in order.
LAMP
developers
linspire
Conference
451caostheory
caostheory
jaylyman
Open source champions of Europe
I?ve spent the past three weeks profiling open source policies and adoption projects at the 16 nations competing in EURO 2008. Congratulations are due to Spain, which deservedly won the football championship on Sunday with a 1-0 win over Germany.
Just for fun I thought I?d also declare a 2008 Tour of Europe Open Source Champion. In deciding the winner I decided to follow the same organizational structure as the football, so read on to find out which eight nations made it out of the group stages and how I whittled it down to an eventual champion.
If you disagree with any of my decisions feel free to add a comment explaining why, but remember: the referee?s decision is final. Although the football has finished, I?ll also be continuing the tour to take in some of the nations that did not qualify. So after a short break while I get my breath back, look out for further profiles in the weeks to come, including the UK, Ireland, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium and Estonia.
Group stages
Group A
It is a close call between three of the four nations in Group A, with Turkey bringing up the rear. However, with sporadic deployment projects already underway, good grassroots interest and government support for the Pardus project, Turkey is catching up and will pose a greater challenge in a few years. Switzerland, Czech Republic and Portugal are all more advanced with policies and/or projects in place. However, despite early successes the Czech Republic?s flow of open source projects does seem to have run dry and the recent deal with Microsoft is not going to help.
Portugal goes through as group winner with Switzerland runner up.
Group B
There was only ever going to be one winner from Group B but separating the other nations was not so easy. Poland shows a lot of promise but relatively few projects and a watered-down policy favouring open standards rather than open source. Austria and Croatia are hard to compare. Austria has established projects, but Croatia has the forward-looking policies. Ultimately though Vienna is more progressive in terms of open source adoption than Austria as a whole, and even that project has stumbled.
Germany goes through as group winner with Croatia runner up.
Group C
As was the case with the football, Group C saw three European heavyweights drawn together. Romania was always likely to suffer by comparison despite a lot of grassroots interest and emerging projects. Meanwhile Italy has been more progressive over the years but as Roberto Galoppini recently reported ?is still missing a clear strategy about how to foster the Italian open source ecosystem through training, education, research and outreach?.
France goes through as group winner with The Netherlands runner up.
Group D
It also a close affair in Group D, at least between the top two. Greece was the rank outsider thanks to its private partnership agreement with Microsoft, and while Russia shows a lot of promise it is definitely one to watch, rather than a current challenger.
Spain goes through as group winner with Sweden runner up.
Quarter finals
Portugal versus Croatia
A close one to call given Croatia?s commitment to open source as a means of reducing its dependency on suppliers, promote interoperability and match the EC?s position on open source. However, Portugal has the advantage of maturity enabling more projects to have got up and running. Croatia bows out with heads held high.
Portugal wins.
Germany versus Switzerland
A David versus Goliath match-up to be honest. Switzerland has one of the most forward-thinking open source software strategies and a number of significant national and regional projects, but nothing near the adoption levels seen in Germany.
Germany wins.
France versus Sweden
Sweden can boast Programverket, a project to help the public sector adopt or convert to open source software, as well as a number of deployment projects, and of course MySQL, but ultimately pales in comparison to France.
France wins.
Spain versus The Netherlands
A very close one to call, but ultimately while The Netherlands has seen a number of national and regional projects based on a policy of adoption of open standards in general and positive discrimination in favour of open source software, it cannot match up to the commitment to open source as an economic enabler seen in Spain. S
pain wins.
Semi finals
Portugal versus Germany
It could be said that the draw favoured Portugal somewhat in that it avoided some of the more significant adopters, but it more than meets its match in Germany. It would be interesting to see how different things might have been had a Portuguese bill that would have mandated the use of open source software in public administrations been approved in 2003, but that?s all ifs and buts. As it is the country?s significant adoption projects are focused on the education sector.
Germany wins.
France versus Spain
A very, very difficult one to call. However the political structure in Spain eventually swings the decision in France?s favour. Despite significant adoption across its autonomous regions what Spain lacks, compared to France, is a cohesive national strategy driving adoption. For example, there are at least eight different Linux distribution projects funded by local governments. Recent policy changes suggest that the national government is catching up and if Spain can link together some of its regional projects and replicate Andalusia?s open source repository to reduce duplication of effort, it could be a force to be reckoned with.
France wins.
The Final
Germany versus France
It?s the final that most open source industry watchers would probably have predicted, I guess. Germany and France have been the two heavyweights of open source adoption and promotion in Europe to date. In order to separate the two it?s necessary to take a closer look at the information we?ve been able to gather according to the categories of policy, national and regional projects, and vendor ecosystem.
Key policies:
Germany has been publicly committed to open source promotion since 2000 and in 2001 the Bundestag passed a resolution in to promote open source software in the federal administration, based on the principle that open source is a special opportunity for the European software industry. Several studies and guideline documents have followed, along with a key arrangement with IBM for discounts on Linux systems.
France considered but declined legal proposals to enforce/encourage the use of open source software in public administrations in 1999 and 2000. In 2001 ATICA took matters into its own hands with a decision to promote open source, which was followed by guidelines, recommendations, and practical guides. Recently an economic commission set up by France?s president Nicolas Sarkozy recommended that France should increase its use of open source software and consider tax benefits to stimulate open source development.
Score: Too close to call ? 1-1
National deployment projects:
German federal projects include Federal the Federal Finance Office, the Bundestag, the German Aerospace Centre, the Foreign Office, Deutsche Bahn, the Employers? Liability Insurance Association, the Monopolies Commission, German air traffic control and the Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources.
French national projects include the Ministry of Equipment and Transport, the Ministry of Defense, the Family Allowance Agency, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Tax Ministry, the Directorate General for the Modernisation of the State, the Ministry of Education, the Culture and Communication Ministry, the gendarmerie, and the National Assembly.
Score: Close again but 2-1 to France based on depth as well as breadth of adoption.
Regional deployment projects:
Munich is probably the most famous Linux deployment project in the world but Germany also boasts projects in Hall, Mannheim, North Rhine Westphalia, Lower Saxony, Heidenheim, Berlin, Treuchtlingen, Osterburg, Stuttgart, Frisia, Friesland, Freiburg, Nordrhein-Westfalen, and the German Alliance of Cities and Communes.
France also has a number of regional projects including Arles, Grand Nancy, Lille, Val d?Oise, Marseille, Brest, Grenoble, Lyon, and Rennes.
Score: Germany draws level ? 2-2
Key vendors:
Germany?s tradition as an open source adopter is no doubt due in part to its championing of SUSE Linux AG, now of course owned by Novell. Other German open source vendors, such as Open-Xchange and Collax, have also migrated to the US. While Credativ and Synerpy remain, Mindquarry came and went.
France has done a better job of keeping hold of its vendors, which include Mandriva, Ulteo, Nuxeo, Talend, and Linagora, as well as the OW2 Consortium.
Score: In the context of this study, the vendors remaining in Europe has to be a plus point. 3-2 to France.
Result:
France wins and is the 2008 Tour of Europe Open Source Champion.
Germany runner up.
Software
linux
caostheory
aslett
mattaslett
matthewaslett
the451group
Open source tour of Europe: Germany
Open source tour of Europe: Germany
To coincide with EURO 2008, I’m embarking on a virtual European tour, taking a quick look at open source policies and deployment projects in the 16 nations that are competing in the tournament.
It doesn?t matter what the competition is, or how well the team has been playing, when it comes to international football tournaments, Germany is always amongst the favourites, and the Germans are in the final once again despite a poor performance in beating Turkey 3-2.
Similarly, when it comes to open source adoption, Germany has a long tradition of leading the world. For example, a study of Linux contributors by Paul Jones of iBiblio in 2000 found that Germans were the second largest contributors.
Key policies:
“I am convinced that open source development can form the European base model in the information age,? stated the then German Secretary of State in the Federal Ministry for Economy and Technology, Siegmar Mosdorf, at LinuxTag 2000, signaling the federal government?s official support for open source software with the aim of cutting costs and improving security.
As is stated in the Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review?s article Government Preferences for Promoting Open-Source Software: A Solution in Search of a Problem (PDF), the Bundestag passed a resolution in November 2001 to promote open source software in the federal administration, based on the principle that open source is a special opportunity for the European software industry.
That support was followed up in 2002 as the Federal Ministry of the Interior signed a deal with IBM and what was then SUSE Linux that would enable government agencies to get discounts on Linux systems.
Also in 2002 the KBSt (Coordination and Advisory Agency of the Federal Government for Information Technology) published two reports, Open Source Software in the Federal Administration and Linux: An Opportunity for More Software Diversity in Public Administration (both PDF).
A year later the government published guidelines (PDF) to help federal agencies, state and local governments, and other public-sector administrations migrate to open source software and announced that no fewer than 500 agencies had signed up to make use of the IBM discounts.
An updated version of the guidelines (PDF) was delivered in 2005, followed by a third version this year.
Key projects:
It might be easier to list the projects that do not use open source. In June last year Heise reported that 59% of German companies said they are using open source software, based on a survey by Actuate.
Federal projects include the Federal Finance Office move to Linux on the mainframe, the German Aerospace Centre, the Foreign Office (also here), Deutsche Bahn,
the Employers? Liability Insurance Association, the Monopolies Commission, and German air traffic control. Additionally, the Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources is using the Ingres database.
In October last year the Foreign Office voiced its support for the OpenDocument Format, while this year it ruled out the adoption of OOXML (for now, at least).
Perhaps the most famous open source project of all is the move to Linux desktop in Munch. The city voted in 2003 to begin trials aimed at eventually moving 14,000 desktops to Linux and OpenOffice.org and drafted in IBM and SUSE Linux to help its efforts. In June 2004 it announced that the trials were a success and Munich would move ahead with the plan, which has a budget of ?35m ($44m).
Given IBM and Novell/SUSE Linux?s participation in the trials it was widely expected that they would get the eventual contract, so it came as a surprise when Munich announced that two local suppliers Softcon and Gonicus had won the tender and would create the LiMux distribution based on Debian. The decision was made to ensure the vendor-independence of the project.
Despite delays due to software patent issues and additional testing, the project began in September 2006. Novell did eventually get in on the act when it was announced that Munich would migrate from NetWare to Open Enterprise Server as part of a supporting project. In May Munich announced that additional applications developed through LiMux would be released under the European Union Public License. More on the LiMux project can be found here.
Other local and regional authority deployments include Schwäbisch Hall, which actually preceded Munich, as well as Mannheim, North Rhine Westphalia, Lower Saxony, Heidenheim, Berlin, Treuchtlingen, Osterburg, Stuttgart, Frisia, Friesland, Freiburg, Nordrhein-Westfalen, and the German Alliance of Cities and Communes.
Key vendors:
SUSE Linux may have been acquired by Novell in 2003 but its role in open source adoption projects in Germany is ongoing and cannot be overstated. The Open Source Barometer recently highlighted that while worldwide usage of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is double that of Novell?s SUSE Linux Enterprise, in Germany, use of SUSE is four times that of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Following the acquisition by Novell many of SUSE Linux?s key executives are now at collaboration vendor Open-Xchange. Formerly known as Netline, the company changed its name in 2005 as it moved its headquarters to New York but retains its German identity thanks to its executives an operations in Olpe and Nurnberg,
Another vendor maintaining its German identity despite entering the US market is Linux server vendor Collax. Collaboration vendor Mindquarry came and went, while open source services firm Credativ is focused on expanding its presence across Europe. Special mention should be made for Synerpy which is taking on SAP in its own backyard with open source ERP.
And another thing:
According to a ZDNet report from 2004 on Schwäbisch Hall?s migration to Linux, the German council found the secret to overcoming user reluctance to Linux: ?stuffed penguins and powerful women?.
As always we welcome your input. If you have examples of open source adoption in Germany that we’ve overlooked, please leave a comment below. For more stops on the European tour, see this post.
Software
linux
451caostheory
caostheory
aslett
mattaslett
matthewaslett
Open source tour of Europe: Sweden
To coincide with EURO 2008, I’m embarking on a virtual European tour, taking a quick look at open source policies and deployment projects in the 16 nations that are competing in the tournament.
Sweden crashed out of EURO 2008 last night a Russia qualified for the knockout stages with a well-deserved 2-0 win. As home to MySQL Sweden might be expected to be one of the more progressive adopters of open source but while there is significant interest, details of deployment projects are relatively hard to find.
Key policies:
The Swedish Agency for Public Management?s 2003 feasibility study identified a number of existing projects (see below) and recommended that open source software should be judged on a par with proprietary software in a procurement process.
In 2005 an association of county councils, municipalities, and private healthcare providers known as Carelink published a report (PDF) on Sweden?s legal framework for open source software which stated that ?wider distribution of open source software that has been developed internally by health and social services has the potential to enhance the effectiveness of IT in health services and would achieve faster diffusion of common solutions in health care.?
Also in 2005 the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions created Programverket, a project to help the public sector adopt or convert to open source software. Programverket is based on the principle that ?software development financed by tax money should in principle provide open source software, unless there are specific reasons to the contrary.? Further details on the projects can be found here.
Key projects:
Examples included in the Swedish Agency for Public Management?s 2003 feasibility study included the Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, the Premium Pension Authority, the National Labour Market Administration, and Malmo General Hospital.
Since then a number of further projects have been added to the list. Not surprisingly MySQL has had some success in its own back yard, including a project with the Swedish National Police, which saved the equivalent of 400 fully-equipped police cars on moving to an infrastructure based on Linux, JBoss, and MySQL.
Other state projects include Apoteket Sweden?s largest state-owned pharmacy chain, which migrated to Red Hat Enterprise Linux at 900 pharmacies as part of a move to Intel hardware, and the Swedish Armed Forces? deal with Red Hat to enable migrations from Windows NT to Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Key vendors:
MySQL is the leading Swedish open source vendor, or at least it was until the Sun acquisition, but Sun?s new database business unit is keen to stay true to its roots. The country also boasts a host of open source services firms and consultancies, as can be seen from the member list of Open Source Sweden.
And another thing:
As always we welcome your input. If you have examples of open source adoption in Sweden that we’ve overlooked, please leave a comment below. For more stops on the European tour, see this post.
Software
linux
451caostheory
caostheory
aslett
mattaslett
matthewaslett
Open source tour of Europe: Czech Republic
To coincide with EURO 2008, I’m embarking on a virtual European tour, taking a quick look at open source policies and deployment projects in the 16 nations that are competing in the tournament.
The Czech Republic team was just three minutes away from qualifying for the knockout stages of EURO 2008 on Sunday before Turkey managed to turn a 2-1 deficit into a 3-2 win. Publicly available information on Czech open source deployment projects suggests that the country has had rather more luck when it comes to open source.
Key projects:
There was early success in 2003/4 when the Vysocina Region deployed two open source-based projects: e-PUSA, the electronic portal of the regional self-governments and KEVIS, the regional registration and information system.
The e-PUSA backoffice portal links Czech regional and local governments to facilitate data sharing and was expanded in 2005 to connect to the then Ministry of Informatics, and the Ministry of Interior (which later subsumed part of the Ministry of Informatics).
KEVIS, meanwhile, is a regional registration and information system based on Apache, PHP, and MySQL. Software consulting firm Marbes was involved in both projects.
2004 also saw the migration of Czech Post to Linux for 4,000 servers at 3,400 post offices across the country, as well as at 12,000 client terminals used by 20,000 employees. Novell?s SUSE Linux got the nod for both server and desktop roll-outs. Other deployment projects include long-term adoption in Ostrava.
Key policies:
Following these projects the then Informatics Minister decided to encourage the use of open source and helped form the OSS Alliance to provide technical analysis, recommendations, cases studies and support services to schools and public administrations.
A survey of open source usage followed, as well as the Open Government 2006 conference and training courses for students in Linux, Mozilla and Thunderbird. Since then, however, news of open source projects has run dry.
As was pointed out in the comments below, Liberix is a Czech non-profit organization set up to support the development, documentation, translation, and distribution of free and open source software.
Additionally, as noted by Kyo in the comments, the Czech Republic recently signed two strategic agreements with Microsoft for software licensing and a proposed security partnership that are designed to save the government CZK 700 million ($42m). Those may well have an impact on future open source deployments.
And another thing:
Red Hat invested 1.3m euros in opening a development centre in Brno in the Czech Republic in 2007. As I pointed out at the time, based on my limited experience of Brno if extraordinarily cheap lager, good food, bizarre desserts, strange tequila shot combinations, friendly locals and a warm welcome is what Red Hat had in mind, then it chose the right place.
As always we welcome your input. If you have examples of open source adoption in the Czech Republic that we’ve overlooked, please leave a comment below. For more stops on the European tour, see this post.
Software
linux
451group
451caostheory
caostheory
aslett
mattaslett
Open source DB2? I don?t think so.
ZDNet and its sister sites ran an interesting story yesterday indicating that IBM might be preparing to release its DB2 database under an open source license. If true, it would be a fascinating turn of events that would have a significant impact on the database industry. Unfortunately, it’s not.
I was immediately suspicious when reading the initial story. For a start it quotes a UK IBM executive: IBM’s UK director of information management software, Chris Livesey. With all due respect to him, if IBM was even hinting at open sourcing DB2, it would surely be rolling out the big guns.
Additionally, I’ve had briefings in the last couple of weeks with both IBM’s data management and open source executives, neither of whom thought to mention open sourcing DB2. That didn’t rule it out entirely of course.
Then there was what Livesey was actually quoted as saying:
“We have a light version of the product offered for free, which is a step towards exposing our core [DB2] technology. Looking at IBM’s heritage in contributing to the open-source market, we’ve been particularly keen to lead that market. Open source is an interesting space as a whole. As the future unfolds and the economics become clearer, there’s going to be more commitment to open source by everybody. We’ve made good steps towards that.”
To me it just smacked of theorizing, while ZDNet’s opening gambit “IBM is positive about the possibility of bringing out its DB2 database-management software under an open-source licence” is similarly speculative.
Then of course there is the issue of why IBM would open source DB2. Where is the business driver? Despite solid competition from Oracle and Microsoft, the company is doing pretty well with DB2 as it stands, thanks very much, and open source databases have had minimal impact on the established vendors.
Also, while the company has open sourced some proprietary products in the past, the company is not open sourcing everything it has a la Sun, and prefers where possible to sponsor, or build on top of, existing projects.
The interesting thing about IBM when it comes to speculation is that it genuinely doesn’t comment on it. Unlike some companies that drip-feed a response or hide their real response behind a platitude, you generally know where you are with IBM and “IBM does not comment on speculation”.
It takes a pretty special bit of speculation to get IBM to diverge from this mantra. In this context, IBM’s statement is about as unequivocal as it gets: “IBM has no plans to open source DB2″.
Software
linux
451group
451caostheory
caostheory
aslett
mattaslett
Open source tour of Europe: Poland
To coincide with EURO 2008, I’m embarking on a virtual European tour, taking a quick look at open source policies and deployment projects in the 16 nations that are competing in the tournament.
According to statistics presented by Roberto Galoppini, 2.4% of visitors to SourceForge are from Poland, a statistic which serves its purpose of being both interesting and pointless at the same time.
Also statistically meaningless in terms of open source adoption, but nonetheless interesting is the news that Polish deputy prime minister, Waldemar Pawlak, is a user of PHProjekt.
Tom Foremski reported late last year that Poland is poised to play an increasing role in the IT industry, and not just as a source of cheap developers. With an educated workforce and strong science background, it is one of a number of European countries that sees the IT industry as a way to grow the local economy.
Key projects:
Poland boasts a number of active open source adoption projects, including Gdansk which began migrating its mail servers from Windows NT/Exchange to Red Hat/Postfix in 2001 and has also adopted PostgreSQL, MySQL and OpenOffice.org. Previously, in 2003, the Forum for the Development of Free Software was initiated by the Ministry of Science and Information to support wider use of open source software in Poland.
Key policies:
The Polish government has also had a couple of attempts at delivering a set of guidelines for the adoption of open source software, before recommending the use of open standards in 2007. Meanwhile adoption projects have continued in Warsaw and Krakow.
And another thing:
Hope lies with the Poles: Poland?s profile in the international software industry rose considerably in 2004 when the Polish government managed to prevent the adoption of a European software patents directive by the Agriculture and Fisheries Commission. If you don?t remember this unfortunate episode, the fact that a software patent directive was about to be adopted by the Agriculture and Fisheries Commission tells you everything you need to know about what a political mess it was.
As always we welcome your input. If you have examples of open source adoption in Poland that we’ve overlooked, please leave a comment below. For more stops on the European tour, see this post.