Once More unto the Breach

Open Source Business Tactics in One Slide

I recently found a slide I used six years ago to explain open source software in a business context to Jim Allchin back when I worked for Microsoft and Jim was executive VP of all Windows. My job was to develop an open source engagement model, working in a team called Platform Business Management, which reported directly to Jim. Jason Matusow was responsible for driving the Shared Source agenda, initially working in the Windows marketing team and later as an immediate peer in PBM. The meeting itself would have been sometime in June 2003 (so shortly after Sun's threatened injunction against Windows). I tried to ground the tactics in product practices Microsoft already well understood and with company examples pulled from other large multi-billion dollar corporations, i.e. while our shining open source company examples might have been Red Hat, MySQL, and JBoss, they were meaningless examples to Microsoft based on revenue size. The slide worked. Jim understood why Microsoft needed to adopt its own open source practices, and how we might start. [There were other slides in the presentation discussing options for engagement and contribution that are confidential.] The execution was another matter entirely within the software product executive culture of the company, and isn't relevant here.

There are a few things to consider as you read the slide and the notes I used to present additional material:

• The information density of the slide is normal at Microsoft (or was in my day) for exec presentations. It complemented a style of discussion that's come to be known as precision questioning. You simply don't have the discussion and decision making flow required if you're trying to drive a particular train of thought through a slide build and flow. This sort of info density is about presenting the maximum amount of related material visually and letting the exec drive the questions. It's amazingly effective if everyone understands the protocol.
• I've not changed any of the wording on the slide or the associated notes. [There's nothing confidential.] Some things may feel dated, and I've certainly evolved and expanded some of my thinking, but I still stand by what I wrote. There are few words I would change today and while I might pick more current examples, these ones were absolutely relevant at the time.

Here's the slide:

Here are the notes I used with the slide:

OSS Development Projects (technology buckets):

Bullet 1 and 3. Good developers develop good software. Good developers have discipline and process. They don’t know how not to have discipline. So version control, CM, design reviews, strong vision communication, automated build management, coding standards, automated test harnesses, bug tracking, peer code review, strong tool support. All understood and published for decades. None of this is attributable to OSS as a development methodology or licensing mechanism. You can think of this in the inverse: of the thousands of OSS projects hosted by SourceForge, why are so few (relatively speaking) noteworthy? (There's also a couple of good papers on how few people actually anchor the few key projects.)

Bullet 3. The projects in the OSS world that matter are anchored by good developers and they're developed using a UNIX development mentality. They have all been developed since the advent of "cheap" networking (at least between the universities and major corporations) through the Internet (email, netnews, and ftp). The Internet enabled the rise of OSS -- not the other way around -- and it was the low-friction medium through which people could share the software. Add a license that requires source code publication and permits libre use of the source code onto the UNIX component model and you have the techno-social movement.

Bullet 4. Examples: the individual contributor to Apache (gives “3” bug fixes but gets back 100s), versus Shell Int’l contributions in a team (code/$$) with management approval to Samba.org (while deeply protecting their own software assets), versus Sun contributing the accessibility features to the gnome desktop in return for a complete desktop for an advanced “UNIX” based desktop.

Bullet 4. People value the work they do differently in different contexts: think of a technical publications person using their writing skills to complete documentation at work, helping their child’s class room complete a writing project in a parent-child project, and writing a sonnet to someone they care for. Same skill set in all three situations, one for money, one as a contribution in community, one as an act of friendship. Or a program manager that spends time on a not-for-profit board in their community using the same skill set they use at work for money.

So what's next?

Applied OSS:

Bullet 3. Msft is an expert here. Publish specs to drive complement value add. Provide certification programs to ensure lots of service providers. Buy, integrate, and bundle. Etc.

OSS Becomes Big Business

Bullet 2. From IBM’s point of view in the product marketing space: every apache installation is a potential customer for Websphere. From a Linux perspective, they are driving home the message that OSS and Linux are the fulfillment of all “our” investments in open systems and open standards, using multiple congruent tactics of OSS participation, standards participation, and patent license management to control the AIX commoditization – which they publicly state is happening – then quickly qualify the remark to a 10 year time frame. With Eclipse, it’s no longer “buy” versus “build” versus “borrow”, it’s “share” to control the java development space and drive complement value add around their world.

Microsoft Starts Codeplex Foundation

Updated [14 Sep 2009, 15:50]: Added a pointer to Andy Updegrove's excellent analysis of his concerns with certain structural aspects of the Codeplex Foundation. It's analysis like this that will keep discussions in the first 100 days lively.

The Codeplex Foundation began on 10 September, 2009, with initial funding from Microsoft. It's mission simply stated "is to enable the exchange of code and understanding among software companies and open source communities."

Today that means:

The Codeplex Foundation provides a framework to facilitate the participation of commercial software developers in open source projects, either through intellectual property contributions to the foundation or through time volunteered under the auspices of the foundation to enable development work on open source projects. The Codeplex Foundation also provides a channel of communication from the open source community back to Foundation partners and other commercial software companies, advancing the dialog between commercial software companies and open source communities.

There's an excellent mini-presentation and voice-over interview with Sam Ramji, the foundation's interim president on SlideShare:

Introducing The CodePlex Foundation

View more presentations from CodePlexFoundation.

The foundation has an interim board of directors (that includes Miguel de Icaza) to take it through the next 100 days, and an advisory board that includes an experience group of people from both outside Microsoft (e.g. Larry Augustin, Aaron Fulkerson, Robert Gobeille, Monty Widenius) and Microsoft employees that continue to do good work in the open source community (Phil Haack, Scott Hanselman, John Lam, Jim Newkirk).

I've agreed to participate as an advisor as well. I believe this is an important step for Microsoft. While there is obvious benefit to Microsoft to continue to participate and develop the open source world with respect to its core revenue streams, there is a lot that can be learned from developing such a foundation in and of itself (as IBM discovered in its own time). There is a gap in the discussion between commercial developers wanting to do more in the open source community and this organization may be in the right position to help foster that discussion. Over time I hope to work with the board and the advisors and contribute as I best can to build that organization.

There's good coverage on a number of channels, some from advisors explaining what they see is the opportunity, some from the press and analysts asking good questions about the future of the foundation:

• Matt Aslett's 451Group commentary.
• Scott Hanselman's (Advisor) blog post.
• Miguel de Icaza's (Director) blog post.
• Bill Staples (Director) blog post.
• Peter Galli's Port25 blog post.
• OpenSource Magazine reportage.
• eWeek article from Daryl Taft.
• InfoWorld article by Paul Krill.
• PCWorld article from Elizabeth Montalbano.
• Andy Updegrove's analysis of the structural aspects of the new foundation.

Microsoft and the Release of Linux Drivers Under the GPL

Microsoft announced that it is releasing a collection of software drivers under the GPLv2 to better enable Linux to run as a first class citizen on their Hyper-V technology. Matt Aslett and Stephen O'Grady provide excellent commentary [as always] and I won't rehash their discussion here.

This is a significant move by Microsoft.

It isn't the first time Microsoft contributed code under the GPL. In the early part of the decade (~2000) the Interix team contributed a reasonable amount of code to the gcc compiler suite that was accepted. We assigned rights of ownership to a Microsoft asset to the FSF as needed. We published the sources as the license required. But that was a different time and a different climate and the last thing Microsoft wanted to do was admit they were contributing to a free software project outside their walls, or that they were shipping software covered by the GPL in a Microsoft product.

Neither is it the first time they've shared their own code. Rob Mensching has been running the Wix project since 2003. That's a project started on SourceForge using a non-Microsoft license (the IBM Common Public License) using a software tool base that is still in significant use inside Microsoft for delivering products.

But then things appeared to shut down from a code perspective. Much of the past five or six years has been Microsoft contributing anything but code. Money to Apache or Eclipse, providing a site where others can contribute code, ensuring third parties make arm's length contributions rather than Microsoft staff, and esoteric contributions such as requesting approval for licenses from the OSI. Their messaging remains guarded. The "position paper" released in March co-incident with the Open Source Business Conference had the same move-to-the-middle ambiguous messages and excuses that began in ~2002 with the Shared Source Initiative. [Misquoting a study to try to demonstrate open source software is still rough and only developer friendly doesn't win them points either.]

The current Linux contribution is significant. It's a significant quantity of code. It's an attempt at direct participation in a major mainstream open source software project to meet business objectives. It should be encouraged. It's an opportunity for the Linux community to embrace-and-extend Microsoft.

As Stephen O'Grady observes at the end of his commentary:

"Microsoft is, this week’s contribution notwithstanding, still holding open source at arms length, in contrast to an IBM who embraces it strategically in certain areas in service of a larger strategy.

But while it is not a conversion, it is important news, a welcome development, and a job well done for those involved. "

The Microsoft SD Forum Open Source Event

Microsoft and the SD Forum jointly sponsored the Zero Day event this year before the Open Source Business Conference. The past two years this has been a Microsoft sponsored day for ISV partners developing businesses around open source. There was time dedicated in each event to presentations of the relevant Microsoft programs for ISVs, and Sam Ramji would kick off the day with a good Q&A session discussing Microsoft's positions, accomplishments, and announcements around open source software. This year the content was broader, with the afternoon's sessions being organized by the SD Forum. Participants that wanted to engage with Microsoft around their programs could talk with any of the program directors present.

This being the age of Twitter, people were encouraged so to do under the tag #msoss09, and there was some reasonable discussion throughout the day. I also posted a few photographs on Flickr.

www.flickr.com

Bryan Kirchner is now Director of Open Source Software at Microsoft. He acted as master of ceremonies and kicked things off in the morning with a brief discussion of his hopes to continue developing a mutual understanding and deepening relationships with the open source community at large.

Sam Ramji then took the stage. What followed was interesting. This year, with not much new or contentious before OSBC got underway, he chose to talk about the health of the Windows ecosystem in the context of the current economic crunch (reminding people that a staggering 96% of Microsoft revenue comes from partners, i.e. no direct account control). Microsoft is seeing CIO training budgets dropping to zero and many projects are deferred so there was a definite move to cost savings around virtualization and consolidation. (It's interesting that this is how the world started to move when the bubble burst seven years ago.) He also talked about the growth of Windows in the low cost server space and on netbooks. Sam was essentially conveying that the Windows platform is healthy and people should continue to consider it as a deployment platform for open source. He also discussed the new Web Application Gallery initiative at Microsoft as an attempt "to connect markets and forges" around open source so users can easily install and support PHP-based web applications. It's not that the Gallery is particularly an open source initiative, but rather that it supports the sharing of applications written in PHP.

Matt Aslett from the 451 Group took the stage next presenting his latest analysis from their report Open Source is Not a Business Model. Essentially, the 451 Group analysed 114 vendors using open source software within their businesses, against (i.) their choice of open source license, (ii.) their development model, (iii.) their own vendor licensing strategy, and (iv.) the actual revenue trigger. Matt's blog post covers a lot of the ground he presented, so I won't cover it here. I will be debating with him soon on other things to consider in the report. (An added perk for morning participants was a copy of the report.)

Next up was a panel on "Working together in an Open Source World in a New Economy" moderated by Cliff Reeves, who runs the Emerging Business Team at Microsoft which runs the BizSpark program. Panelists included:

• Clint Oram, VP Product Management, SugarCRM
• Erica Brescia, CEO, Bitrock
• Aaron Fulkerson, CEO, MindTouch
• Dan Merrits, VP Marketing, Eduify

It was a good discussion. SugarCRM and Mindtouch certainly saw the rise of downloads and leads as the economy failed and people became more interested in low cost open source based solutions. There was also interesting honest discussion from the participants on what it's like working with Microsoft as a partner, with concerns being expressed about the complexity of the programs at times, as well as praise for engineering support (FastCGI and PHP being the typical example cited).

After lunch we got to the more general open source part of the program organized by SD Forum. Larry Augustin kicked off the afternoon with his keynote on "The Future of Software: Why Open Source is the Safe Bet". [Larry has kindly allowed me to host his slides. Download SDForum-20090323-v4.pdf (493.5K).] Larry started the presentation with the idea that just like no one got fired for buying IBM in the past, at this juncture in history no one gets fired for buying open source software. He then went on to present the health of the open source based business world from the perspective of investment and adoption (with several case studies).

Next we had two brief mini-talks.

• Andrew Aitkin (Olliance Group) talked about his views on open source adoption differences between Europe, North America, and Japan.
• Sam Ramji returned to give a shortened version of his morning's presentation for those that just joined for the SD Forum part of the program.

The final two sessions of the day were panels. First we had "Is there still Open in Open Source" with Mike Fauscette (IDC) moderating, and Jack Repenning (CTO, CollabNet) and Adam Blum (Rhomobile). It was an interesting panel and very much a development process perspective. Discussion revolved around the idea that it's not about the source code, but about the openness of the development process, the social contract, the transparency, and building a community that wants to contribute.

Last up was the venture panel on "Where's the Money?" Mark Radcliffe (DLA Piper) moderated Robert Theis (Scale), Andrew Braccia (Accel), Tim Guleri (Sierra), and Peter Sonsini (NEA). Not surprising but the VCs want us to know they're still open for business, and they're interested in Software-as-a-Service and Cloud related technologies. Also not surprising we learned VCs will fund deals with a compelling solution to a customer problem, or a compelling way to monetize a solution. [This is why I generally don't have a lot of time for VC panels.] There was one point where Peter Sonsini (NEA) observed there needed to be a compelling way to monetize the community for an existing project (with which I violently disagree), but Andrew Braccia (Accel) supported the richer idea that rather than trying to monetize the community one should look at upstream value of a new solution based on the project.

All and all a worthwhile experience. We finished the day with the hosted reception!

OSBC Keynote Competition between Sun, Microsoft, and IBM — IBM Won

I continue to stand in awe of IBM's ability to market. Here's how the line-up of executive keynotes went down this morning at OSBC.

First up was Jonathon Schwarz, Sun CEO. Jonathon always gives good presentations, although he seemed a little brittle this morning. His messages this morning:

• It's all about the cloud.
• We are it.
• It's still about business.
• [Please] buy our hardware.

Microsoft stepped in with Robert Youngjohns, President of Microsoft North America. An excellent soft speaker that quickly established his historical geek credentials and breadth of technology interests beyond Microsoft tech. He apparently even worked at both Sun and IBM. His messages this morning:

• It's all about interoperability.
• We get it [finally].
• It's still about business.
• [Please] buy our software.

Robert Sutor, IBM VP of Open Source and Linux, then finished with a virtuoso performance. It was about collective action. His messages this morning:

• It's all about open source and open standards.
• Linux is an amazing mature flexible solution for the world's information processing problems. "It's not a hammer, but a collection of fine tools." Our involvement in the Linux community is ten years old.
• It's NOT about business. It's about solving hard problems. [A nice paraphrase of Drucker's the purpose of a company is not to make money.]
• We [collectively] have the tools to solve these problems. We [IBM] can help you.

I think the only time he actually mentioned IBM was when he said in passing that they had broken the petaflop barrier last year. It was masterful. It was designed to remind you that IBM has depth of technology experience, and the tools (people, hardware, software, knowledge) to help you with your information management problems. It was a conversation starter between the company and customers. It wasn't about selling technology but rather tailoring solutions — just tell us what you need.

It doesn't matter what you think about each company. Good executive keynotes are performance art delivering a marketing message. (Bad executive keynotes are product announcements to audiences that paid good money to learn something other than the latest thing they're going to be forced to buy.) While all three presenters today are consummate performers, one message was about solving problems, the other two about selling stuff.

Long after Sun's been cut up for parts the way DEC was, and long after Msft stops trading, IBM will still be humming along as a technology solutions company with a mixed-margin portfolio offering, terrifying as that might seem for some. Well done, Bob.

Third Annual Microsoft Open Source ISV Event at OSBC

Microsoft is sponsoring a zero day event for open source ISVs again this year, just before the Open Source Business Conference kicks off. These events are always interesting. Sam Ramji, Microsoft Sr. Director of Platform Strategy always hosts an excellent open discussion at the start of each day. While the world still hesitates over the use of "Microsoft" and "open source software" in any sentence, Sam continues to evolve the dialog. You may not agree with all Microsoft does or doesn't do, but the discussion is always worth it, and this event is a great way to interact with Sam directly.

The ISV team continues to work hard to help independent software vendors using open source software in their solutions to get the most out of a relationship with Microsoft. This year they are evolving the event's focus to include people from the Microsoft BizSpark program, which works to help new start-ups. I'll be moderating a panel in the afternoon focused on start-ups, with a number of technologists and VCs participating.

Attending the Microsoft event provides a discount off your OSBC registration. I hope to see you there.
Registration Site for the 3rd Annual Microsoft Open Source ISV Event

The Microsoft versus TomTom Patent Debate is about the Mobile Internet not Linux

The Linux community is up in arms over Microsoft's filing a patent infringement suit against TomTom, the Dutch navigational unit manufacturer, determined to convey this as an opening move in the debate about what patents Linux does or doesn't infringe. This suit is very likely NOT about Linux. Let's look at the patents. From the complaint, Microsoft patents in the case (collectively, “the Microsoft patents-in-suit”):

• 6,175,789 (16 January, 2001) Vehicle computer system with open platform architecture
• 7,054,745 (30 May, 2006) Method and system for generating driving directions
• 6,704,032 (9 March, 2004) Methods and arrangements for interacting with controllable objects within a graphical user interface environment using various input mechanisms
• 7,117,286 (3 October, 2006) Portable computing device-integrated appliance
• 6,202,008 (13 March, 2001) Vehicle computer system with wireless internet connectivity
• 5,579,517 (26 November, 1996) Common name space for long and short filenames
• 5,758,352 (26 May, 1998) Common name space for long and short filenames
• 6,256,642 (3 July, 2001) Method and system for file system management using a flash-erasable, programmable, read-only memory

Also from the complaint, we have this statement (line 15):

6. Upon information and belief, Defendants are in the business of developing, manufacturing, and selling portable navigation computing devices and software for use on those devices, personal computers, PDAs, and smartphones (hereinafter known collectively as “Portable Navigation Devices and Software”).

This feels much more like positioning for location-based services and the coming mobile Internet war. Microsoft has been the "PC company" for a long time. It got there on the backs of a standardized PC "device". (In a Christensen economic world of a network of complements, Microsoft captured the innovation premium in the OS on commodity hardware.) That world is changing rapidly since Apple demonstrated what the mobile Internet can look like with the release of the iPhone. There has been a rush of delivering iPhone competitors to market since then. Nokia bought Navteq, then Symbian (the predominant mobile OS), to be released royalty free and as open source sometime in the future. Google released Google Maps with instructions to drive places, and then developed and released Android. There are considerably more handset devices on the planet than PCs [see note below]. This feels like a much bigger fight than the first shots in a Linux patent fight. This could have much bigger ramifications for Nokia (and the other handset manufacturers), Google, and Apple than Red Hat et al. These are the players that need to be naming themselves to this patent litigation suit.

Related commentary:

• Microsoft v. TomTom: Patent war, or no?, () Matt Asay's fine blog commentary
• Microsoft sues TomTom for alleged patent infringement, (25 February, 2009) by Ina Fried
• Has Microsoft's Patent War Against Linux Begun?, (25 February, 2009) Glyn Moody's commentary
• Beating the TomTom: Drums of War? (Not), (26 February, 2008) Andy Updegrove's excellent commentary
• Microsoft lawyer 'won't speculate' on Linux suits, (25 February, 2008) Ina Fried's CNET interview with Microsoft's Horatio Gutierrez, senior IP lawyer
• The Microsoft Press Release, (25 February, 2009)

Note: Communities Dominate Brands pointed out that there were 3.3 Billion mobile subscriptions in 2007 versus 900 Million PCs. Or to put this in better context:

Now as the phone handset makers like Nokia, Samsung, Motorola, SonyEricsson and LG ship over a billion phones annually (IDC, Jan 2007), we have a colossus of an industry of high tech pushing ever more powerful gadgets into our pockets. And yes, Nokia alone ships one million phones every day of the year, Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays included. For contrast note that the PC industry shipped 250 million new PCs in 2007, of which about 100 million are laptops (Computer Industry Almanac Jul 2007).

OSBR Article on Open Source and the Mobile Internet

The Open Source Business Resource is an academically sponsored body of work published each month out of Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. I've an article in this month's issue. Regular readers will recognize a lot of themes they've read here or heard me discuss and present. The focus is on the coming mobile Internet and open source software. I would encourage people that want to comment to hold the discussion on the article's website.

The Arrival of the Mobile Internet Thanks to the Economics of Open Source Software
Walli, S. 2009 Jan 5. The Arrival of the Mobile Internet Thanks to the Economics of Open Source Software. Open Source Business Resource [Online] 0:0. Available: http://www.osbr.ca/ojs/index.php/osbr/article/view/818/790

A Standards Primer

Photo by Dauvit Alexander

I have recently had several long discussions about the motivations and machinations that surround the development of technology interoperability standards. Over the past few years, I've also captured a lot of ideas and experience on the blog. I pulled it all together into one place in the following paper, "Understanding Technology Standardization Efforts" (PDF 86.2K).

For the record, I was a long term participant in the POSIX and UNIX standardization efforts. I was a working group participant, balloted many pieces of the standards and their amendments, and participated in the management of the standards effort at the IEEE as both an inaugural member of the Project Management Committee and a voting member of the Sponsor Executive Committee. I was an international participant at ISO, as document editor, and participated on behalf of three different national body delegations (Canada, U.S., UK) over a number of years. I began my participation in 1989 as a customer (working for EDS with GM and the U.S. government as their primary POSIX-interested customers), but quickly ended up as a vendor, working for MKS developing a conforming POSIX.2 implementation that formed the basis of implementations from IBM, DEC, HP, UNISYS and Sun. In 1995, I put my money where my mouth was on the importance of applications portability, standards and the coming juggernaut of NT and co-founded Softway Systems, implementing the POSIX and UNIX standards on NT to enable UNIX applications to be directly migrated to the platform. A large amount of free and open source software was incorporated into the product. Softway Systems was acquired by Microsoft in 1999, and I worked there for five years. Over the years I've been in regular contact with people standardizing C#/CLI, the Linux Standards Base, and ODF.

Several friends and colleagues from the standards world have reviewed the paper and provided excellent comments. The paper is much better for it. All mistakes obviously remain my own.

Microsoft Office 2007 and Open XML: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

Last week Joe Wilcox (Microsoft Watch) observed that Microsoft Office 2007 apparently doesn't conform to the Open XML standard (ISO/IEC 29500) that Microsoft has rammed through the system. Alex Brown has the full test here. No surprise. I've argued for the past year that the product must have diverged from the standard under construction. It's a normal thing in the standards world as Joe and Alex observe. They each challenge Microsoft to declare itself with respect to the standard and the future of the product.

But here's the problem: Microsoft already has declared itself. Last August Microsoft commissioned a study from IDC on the adoption of document standards. The "study" names Office Open XML as the obvious favourite. "Among the XML-based document standards, Office Open XML seems to be creating the most traction in the market." In the PR push leading up to the September 2007 votes on ISO/IEC 29500, Microsoft was already equating the standard with Microsoft Office 2007. That's what the sales field will be telling customers, with graphs culled from the "report". [srw — If you really want to read the report, follow the link from Mary Jo Foley's editorial. I still refuse to give the paid report link cred, small as it may be.]

Here's more writing on the ISO adoption and next steps:
Microsoft Claims Success with ISO and Open XML Standard