Larry Augustin's Weblog

OSDL Success

Matt Asay today on his blog made the statement (links added) that “Open Source Development Labs (OSDL) and other industry organizations have miserably failed”.  I take exception to that. OSDL, today the Linux Foundation (LF), has had an important and positive impact on Linux. I think people forget the original premise of the organization when it was founded, what it has done to advance Linux, and how it has evolved to serve the changing needs of the Linux vendors and the Linux community over its lifetime.

OSDL was originally founded to make advanced hardware (hence the “Lab” in OSDL) available to the broader Linux kernel development community. The original idea being that access to a variety of hardware, in particular large-scale hardware with (at the time) advanced features such as 4-way and greater SMP systems, was necessary to advance Linux and not generally available to most kernel developers. This enabled, for example, the first TPC workload testing tools for Linux available to the community. The array of systems available also allowed OSDL to develop and make available to the Linux kernel development community regression testing to help converge stable kernel releases.  I could go on, but many of the successes of OSDL during its “Lab” phase focused on the infrastructure of Linux, and are not as likely to be visible at the open source application level (like Alfresco), but were still important in the broader success of Linux, particularly in the Enterprise data center. This doesn’t even consider services such as providing a safe and neutral environment place for people like Linus Torvalds.

Over time it became apparent that the “Lab” function of OSDL was becoming less necessary to the success of Linux.  I believe, in part, due to the fact that more and more Linux development was moving to paid employees at larger companies who could provide access to the types of systems OSDL was hosting. OSDL, preserving the original vision of advancing Linux, began to look at other barriers to the adoption of Linux.  IP is one example where OSDL was able to respond to industry needs, creating the Linux Legal Defense Fund in response to the SCO lawsuits. In addition, OSDL addressed patent issues with the Open Source as Prior Art (OSAPA) and Patents Commons Project initiatives.

OSDL Workgroups were also formed to bring together people interested in enhancing Linux to make it suitable for new and broader markets.  These included everything from development efforts to support telcos and desktops.

Late in 2006 it became apparent that OSDL needed to undergo yet another transition to continue its broader mission of advancing Linux.  In early 2007 OSDL merged with the Free Standards Group (FSG) to form the Linux Foundation, finally bringing the important role of standards together with the other efforts to foster the growth of Linux.  Today the Linux Foundation incorporates three broad classes of activities:

1. Protecting Linux - LF continues the efforts around IP, patents and legal protection launched by OSDL, including as I already mentioned the Open Source as Prior Art project, the Patent Commons Project, and sponsorship of the Linux Legal Defense Fund.  In addition, the Linux Foundation also manages the Linux trademark.

2. Standardizing Linux - LF produces the Linux Standard Base (LSB) and the Linux Developer Network.  All major Linux distributions comply with the LSB.

3. Promoting Linux - LF serves as a neutral spokesperson to advance the interests of Linux and respond with authority to competitors’ attacks. It also fosters innovation by hosting collaboration events among the Linux technical community, application developers, industry and end users.

So while one might argue that OSDL/FSG/LF might have done more or been more effective, saying it “failed miserably” is I think totally unwarranted. I’m a firm believer in Jim Zemlin and his vision for the organization today, and trust that with the support of board members like Mark Shuttleworth, James Bottomley, Tim Golden and many others he will continue to help Linux grow.

Thanks to Matt Asay for a great OSBC

I've spent the past two days at OSBC in San Francisco, and this was probably the best OSBC ever.  The conference was packed with many interesting people, both speakers and attendees.  I want to make sure to thank Matt publicly for putting together such a fantastic program.  The content was incredible.  This was one of the few conferences I've attended lately where not only did I want to attend the sessions, but they lived up to their expectations.  Thanks Matt for all the hard work.

One Patent Per Developer (OPPD)

Last weekend Fortune Magazine published an article in which Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith and licensing chief Horacio Gutierrez claimed that Free and Open Source Software infringes on no fewer than 235 Microsoft patents.  The resulting blogostorm (including my own contribution) generated a lot of sound and fury, but did it really accomplish anything?

I know that it’s an obscure reference, but I’m reminded of a favorite quote from a tongue-in-cheek game I used to play in high school and college called Junta.  Junta involves taking control of a small dictatorship by battling for such important strategic spots as the bank, television station, etc. One of the event cards in the game reads, "Students Protest: No Effect". How do we turn the uproar around Microsoft’s recent patent assertions into something useful, and make sure the result is not just "no effect?"

Microsoft did take some notice of the uproar.  Bill Hilf, general manager of platform strategy and director of Microsoft's work with Open Source projects, answered some of the criticism and clarified that Microsoft’s strategy is "to license, not litigate."  But as Matt Asay blogged, that’s not entirely a comforting clarification, and the Open Source community needs to respond.

And respond we can.  Now I know that many people have issues with the current patent system, particularly as it pertains to software.  We need to continue efforts to reform the system.  But until the system is changed we need to work with the existing patent system.  Open Source developers have now for decades been contributing code to the community.  But as we are learning contributions of code are not enough.  We must fight fire with fire. We must build an Open Source patent portfolio to rival commercial portfolios.  We have a start at that already in the Open Invention Network (OIN) and the Patent Commons. Last week OIN CEO Jerry Rosenthal said that OIN stands "ready to leverage our IP portfolio to maintain the open patent environment OIN has helped create." OIN to date has accumulated more than 100 patents.  We can do a lot better than that.

Scott Collison, CEO of Ohloh, tells me that Ohloh tracks 39,664 contributors to Open Source projects.  The vast majority have contributed over the last year or two. If every Open Source developer contributed just one patent to OIN we’d have a patent portfolio that would rival most any in the industry. Famous patent troll Intellectual Ventures only owns somewhere in the range of 1,000 to 5,000 patents.  One Patent Per Developer (OPPD) - that's all we need.

Let us then take Microsoft's patent claims as a call to action for the Open Source community: One Patent Per Developer.  It's a lofty goal, and not one that will be achived easily.  But one that we can achieve.  With every contribution of code we each must be thinking, "one patent".  That's all it takes to help keep this code free - one patent.

LinuxWorld Podcast with Don Marti

I had a chance to talk with LinuxWorld Editor Don Marti recently about Microsoft's claims of patent infringement by  by Linux and other Open Source software.  The podcast is available here.

It's Time for Microsoft to Put Up or Shut Up

An article published Sunday reveals that Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith and licensing chief Horacio Gutierrez told Roger Parloff of Fortune Magazine that Free and Open Source Software infringes on no fewer than 235 Microsoft patents.

For some time now Microsoft has been claiming infringement of its patents by Open Source software.  Gutierrez even claims such infringement is willful:

"This is not a case of some accidental, unknowing infringement," Gutierrez asserts. "There is an overwhelming number of patents being infringed."

Setting aside questions of Gutierrez’ command of grammar, I take offense at the notion that anyone in the Open Source world is willfully violating a Microsoft patent, particularly since Microsoft refuses to disclose any potential violations:

"Gutierrez refuses to identify specific patents or explain how they're being infringed, lest FOSS advocates start filing challenges to them."

Gutierrez and Microsoft aren’t interested in intellectual property rights.  They’re not interested in allowing the Open Source world to defend itself. They’re not interested in a fair fight.  Like a bully, they refuse to face the Open Source world in a fair fight, instead hinting at willful infringement and making backhanded threats.  Why?  Like any bully they fear that when faced with a fair fight in the light of day they will be revealed for the bully they are.  Like any bully they fear that which they threaten.

I work with many companies that have partnerships with Microsoft. For many years I’ve tried to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt and watched them slowly move from anti-Open Source to an Open Source supporter, or at least a company that recognizes the importance of Open Source ISVs to the future of the Windows platform.  But this bullying has to stop now.

If Microsoft believes that Free and Open Source Software violates any of their patents, let them put those patents forward now, in the light of day, where we can all evaluate them on their merits.  If not, then stop trying to bully customers into paying royalties to use Open Source.  It’s time for Microsoft to put up or shut up.

Open Source Venture Investment Through Q1 of 2007

Matthew Aslett over at Computer Business Review has been tracking the flow of venture capital into Open Source startups and was kind enough to share some of his data with me this week as I was preparing for the upcoming Software 2007 and OSBC conferences. The data was originally collected and published by Matt Asay and Robin Vasan.

The level of VC investment flowing into Open Source is impressive and growing. Last year $481MM was raised by 48 startups. Since 2000 Open Source startups have raised over $1.9B in financing. Here are the last three years:

2004	$298MM	36 deals
2005	$306MM	41 deals
2006	$481MM	48 deals

I plotted the amount of investment and number of deals by quarter since 2000 and came up with this graph:

For the last three years VCs have been investing in about 11 deals per quarter (trending upward slightly) with increasing average deal size. The first quarter of 2007 continued this trend with $100MM flowing into 11 deals.

So much for the historical data; what’s the Open Source venture climate likely to look like for the next few years?

I think the number of investments made per quarter, as Matthew is currently tracking them, will stay flat to decline in 2007 and 2008. There are two reasons for this. First, the venture business is a portfolio business. For most funds it doesn’t make sense to focus all of your investing on one sector. Typically a venture fund makes money off of 2 or 3 highly successful investments. So a fund makes one or more investments in multiple sectors, spreading the risk across both the companies and sectors. It’s the principle of diversification. Once a venture firm has a few Open Source investments they’re not as likely to do another one lest they risk over-weighting their portfolio too much to one sector. (Of course I personally am a counter-example, being heavily invested in Open Source; So much for diversification!) A lot of firms already have their handful of open source deals. This creates an interesting dilemma for entrepreneurs. It becomes more difficult to get funding from the experienced Open Source investors because their portfolios already have several Open Source investments.

Second, the ability to make a large return on an investment in an open source company is still largely unproven and investors are going to hesitate to plow more money into Open Source until they have more evidence of success. Yes, we have a few success stories: Red Hat, JBoss, TrollTech, and SourceFire. But that’s a pretty thin list. Further, JBoss, while a success at a $350MM acquisition, was not evidence of the $1B target venture investors would like to see. Also, SourceFire has stumbled and is now struggling with a market cap just over $300MM. Again, a success, but a modest one in the VC industry and not the evidence of the ability to reach $1B that venture investors need to see. Based on the maturity of the existing private Open Source companies, I don’t think we’re likely to see another large proof point until 2008, and multiple proof points until 2009. I think MySQL is a first quarter 2008 IPO if they can successfully transition to US GAAP accounting and demonstrate predictable growth in 2007. After MySQL there are several private Open Source companies that will do more than $20MM in bookings or revenue in 2007, positioning themselves for $40MM+ in 2008 and an early 2009 IPO. That means we’re at least a year, and maybe 2, from the more significant proof points needed to encourage more investment.

But you may have noticed that at the beginning of this posting I qualified my comments with the phrase “as Matthew is currently tracking them.” The companies tracked in Matthew’s data are those that identify themselves as primarily Open Source. Where we will see an increase is in the number of companies using Open Source as an element of their strategy. These companies won’t identify themselves as Open Source companies, but they will use a number of Open Source elements in their strategy. For example, companies like UBmatrix whose model is more traditional but also provides some core Open Source components.

In many ways that’s not bad. It means Open Source may be becoming more common. Rather than being an unusual strategy, it’s becoming something that virtually every software company will adopt at some level.

HP Open Source podcast

I was thrilled to be invited to speak recently at an HP internal seminar series on Open Source.  HP has made a podcast of the talk available on their Open Source blog.

"20 Years of Linux" Panel Now Online

At LinuxWorld Expo in San Francisco this summer I was lucky enough to host a panel discussion among Dirk Hohndel, Eric Raymond, Jon "maddog" Hall, and Chris DiBona.  We talked about the first 15 years of Linux, and what the next 5 years would bring.  The session was recorded and is now online.

Eric Raymond stole the show by calling for more cooperation between Open Source developers and proprietary software vendors.  Specifically, Eric believes that the desktop operating system for the next 30 years will be determined in the next 5 years, and if Linux has not achieved critical mass on the desktop by 2011, we will have 30 more years of Windows.  (Sort of like a 30-year plague...)  But what stirred up controversy was Eric's call for more open support of proprietary media software (specifically CODECs) on Linux.  Eric argued that support for the iPod and similar proprietary media devices was the critical factor in attracting a new generation of Linux desktop users.

I don't agree with Eric.

During the panel we all agreed that one of the key tipping points in Linux history was the decision by Oracle to port to Linux.  That decision gave Linux the legitimacy it needed to be a viable choice among server operating systems.  I believe that we need a similar tipping point for the desktop.  We need a major desktop software vendor to announce Linux support.  I believe that such an announcement could be the tipping point that encourages other vendors to port and users to switch.

Of the major desktop software vendors, there are really only two that are likely to port and would carry significant weight: Adobe and Intuit.  When Novell ran their survey of most requested Windows applications, 11 of the top 25 most requested applications were from Adobe or Intuit.  So rather than pursue proprietary CODECs on Linux, I believe we should be working to encourage Adobe and Intuit to port.  Either Adobe or Intuit would lend credibility to Linux on the desktop and trigger an avalanche of users converting to Linux.

Search for ACM Distinguished Engineers

The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) is searching for nominations for Distinguished Engineers.  Distinguished Engineer is a new ACM member grade recognizing those ACM members with at least 15 years of professional experience that have made significant accomplishments or achieved a significant impact on the computing field.  I've been an ACM member since 1985.  The ACM has traditionally had a greater focus on academic Computer Science.  It would be great to see more participation from and recognition of Open Source practitioners.  The creators of many of the core Open Source projects out there are certainly deserving of Distinguished Engineer status.  Please consider nominating your favorite Open Source guru.

Podcast with Tom Berquist of Ingres and MR Rangaswami of the SandHill Group

I had a great conversation with Tom Berquist, CFO of Ingres, and MR Rangaswami, co-founder of the Sand Hill Group, a few weeks ago on the subject of Open Source software.  The podcast is available at sandhill.com.  Tom and MR have been around the world of Enterprise software seemingly forever, and it was great to get their perspectives on the industry changes.  Before taking the CFO job at Ingres, Tom was previously a research analyst at Citigroup and Goldman Sachs covering software and has an incredible depth of expertise in the industry.