Life in Cloud Cuckoo Land

On Open Enterprise blog.

Open Enterprise Interview: Fabrizio Capobianco

On Open Enterprise blog.

GNU Affero GPL: Second Draft

One of the vexed questions in the free software world is what should be done about software as a service, when the service is based on free software:

All versions of the GPL allow people to use modified version of the software privately without being obliged to make their modified source code available to anyone. When people put software on a public server, the question is less clear: is that private use or public use? This was called the "software as a service" issue, or "SaaS".

The FSF's answer is a special licence, known as the GNU Affero GPL, which is now in its second draft.

Beyond the gPhone: the gPC

On Thursday, WalMart begins selling the Everex Green gPC TC2502, a $198, low-power, Linux-based PC designed primarily for running Web 2.0 applications.

When users first fire up their gPC, they'll get a Mac-like desktop with a series of program icons "docked" across the bottom. The icons are bookmarks to popular and useful Web 2.0 services from Google and other vendors. There are icons for Google Docs, Gmail, Google Maps, and YouTube, for example, as well as Meebo, Facebook, and Wikipedia. Sprinkled into the lineup are some non-Web-based apps, like Skype and Gimp, but the novice user won't know, initially, which are local applications and which are Web services.

There are two really interesting things here.

One, of course is the price, which would be impossible with Microsoft Windows. The second is the way the manufacturer is trying to create a machine whose software is based around Web apps. One important aspect of this approach is that it decouples user software from the underlying operating system. So the fact that this machine is running GNU/Linux is almost at the level of what BIOS it uses.

As Google fills out its SaaS vision, so we can expect more of these extremely lean machines, for equally lean prices - and increasingly lean times for Microsoft.

Update: Apparently, this is on older Windows machine, but with a leaner OS. Why?

“Windows Vista has its own market, but it’s not on the $200 end. Those experiences aren’t good. Our Vista Basic units were selling well at $498, but it was the highest return rate ever, because the client was so heavy” and overwhelmed the hardware capabilities. To Kim, the message is Windows needs the power of a premium machine.

And as The Innovator's Dilemma teaches us, the premium market is *always* cannabalised by the cheaper models as they gain more capabilities for the same cost.

SaaS in a (Jump)Box

One of the big benefits of Software as a Service (SaaS) is that you don't need to install or configure it. The downside is that it's "only" online. Well, how about this idea for getting the best of both worlds:

A JumpBox is a virtual appliance that bundles an entire server based application into a single pre-configured unit. With a JumpBox, you have quick and simple installation on a variety of virtualization platforms.

It has the virtues of SaaS simplicity, but with the power and control of a local installation. Of course, you can only do this with free software, otherwise those closed source types go ballistic over "illegal" downloads. Poor them for missing out on this very clever idea. (Via Read/WriteWeb.)

GPLv3: Thrice the Brindled Cat Hath Mewed

Judging by the some articles, everything is now sweetness and light regarding GNU GPLv3, with those big buddies Richard and Linus gazing langorously in each other's (metaphorical) eye.

But someone sees things a little differently:

Last night, I read the last draft of GPLv3 on my cell phone during dinner in Orlando. I went looking for the provision they had in the last draft, the one that closes the GPLv2 ASP loophole that forced me to create HPL. In a nutshell, it is the ability of running GPLv2 software as a service (SaaS) without returning any changes to the community, because distribution of software as a service might not technically be considered distribution of software (therefore circumventing the copyleft clause that made open source what it is today). That is what Google does, making gazillions of dollars thanks to Linux and open source but keeping its secret sauce concealed from the rest of the world (but contributing in many other ways, therefore cleaning its conscience, I guess).

The provision is not there. Gone. They dropped the ball. Actually, it has been made very clear that the ASP loophole is not a loophole anymore. It is perfectly fine to change GPLv3 software and offer it to the public as a service, without returning the changes to the community.

This is an interesting point, although I tend to view SaaS as yesterday's big idea, so it may not be a major problem. See also the comments on the above posting for more (and more coherent) thoughts on this.

Update: More negative vibes here. It will be interesting to see how this develops. I've not read the latest draft yet, so don't really have a strong view either way.

Microsoft's Open Source Windows

It looks like at least one person at Microsoft gets it:

One of the things that I’d like to see us do as a company is release a free, Open-Source, stripped-down version of Windows. There are so many benefits, IMO. We could cut out much of the “integration and innovation” and ship a bare-bones, essentials-only operating system with source that would allow the Open Source community to take a look at our code and really build on it. As SaaS (Software as a Service) and Web 2.0 apps take center stage, there is less and less motivation for customers to plunk down their dollars for a completely proprietary OS, and I see Linux gaining steam in that environment unless we are able to do something significant.

Now, the interesting question is whether this is an officially-sanctioned bit of kite-flying or not. I don't think it is; but I do think we will see an open source Windows one day.... (Via Digg.)

SOA, Web 2.0, SaaS, and...?

There's a fine flurry of activity in the blogosphere at the moment, dissecting the relationship - and occasional antagonism - between two great buzzphrases: Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) and Web 2.0.

Both draw on the older SaaS idea - that software is provided as a service across the network, with the twist that the software services are now merely components of a larger, composite application - a mashup of sorts.

But what seems to be overlooked by many is that all these ideas were first explored by free software. Or rather open source, since it was Linus who really refined them: Stallman may have come up with the idea of free software, but the defining development methodology evolved in Linus' Helsinki bedroom.

Indeed, it was the isolation of that bedroom, where the Internet was the only connection to the growing band of hackers that rallied around the Linux kernel, that helped drive that evolution.

Linus had to make it as easy as possible for others to join in: this led to a highly modular structure, which allows coders to work on just those areas that interested them. It also makes the code better, because the modules are simplified, and the interfaces between them are well defined.

It allows people to work in parallel, both in terms of different modules, and even on the same module. In the latter case, a kind of Darwinian selection is employed to choose among the various solutions. Moreover, the Net-based open source development structure is flat, almost without hierarchies - archetypal social software à la Web 2.0.