« March 2008 | Main | May 2008 »

April 2008

Building a Blog in 60 days

Pix60birthdayx Milking The GNU is two-month old! Over a post every 2 days and as a result  close to 30,000 reads, thanks to all of you! BTW since some of you have requested an easier access to older posts, MTG has a new home page with a direct access to all the posts  at once categorized by topics.

So now it’s your turn. Please leave comments, news, ideas, suggestions, critics  (kudos too) and requests in this page or email me  And if you want s'more, don't forget to tell your friends about Milking The GNU.

  • 1st rank on Google: (search: Milking  GNU)
  • 1st page on Google Blog's (search: open source gnu)
  • 1 post every 2 days on average
  • 5/5 on the Free Software Credibility Index  (thanks Roy)
  • 19 different countries with feed-registered users
  • 24 as in Technorati trust index (i.e. top 0.4% most-cited blogs)
  • 60 days writing  and fighting with TypePad
  • 400-500 hits/day (with a couple of 4,000+ hits/day)
  • 1280+ references on Google web
  • 27,000 reads since 03/01

MTG has registered users (you too can register here) in the following countries:

  • America: Brazil, Canada, U.S.A.
  • Europe: Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, U.K.
  • Africa: Nigeria
  • Asia: Australia, India, Iran, Israel, South Korea
  • Antarctica:  I'd have thought other penguins would be interested ... sigh

                                 Special thanks to all of you  and also to:

Movers & Shakers  reading MTG

Power Bloggers quoting MTG: (comments are those of mtg not the other way around :) )

  • Pamela Jones on   Groklaw.net: The best site around, period
  • Mike Masnick on TechDirt: Imagine Slashdot w/o the stupidity of the crowd
  • Matt Asay in  c|net blog The Open Road: one intelligent thought a day, that's a lot
  • Roy Schestowitz on  Boycott Novell: Blogging investigation to its finest

And also for commenting, linking and/or  interacting:

Posted at 11:39 AM | | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

|

Linux funny and otherwise edifying factoids

Did you know?

  • Linus: Do you pine for the nice days of minix-1.1, when men were men and wrote their own device drivers?  Here is this original founding post  for the Linux community. Do women make good drivers?
  • Yup, Linus complete name is Linus Benedict Torvalds. I guess the poor Tux was just inches away to be named Benedictux. Do penguins look like they are wearing clergymen clothes?
  • Before it was licensed under the GPL, Linux  prohibited any commercial use (unlike the GPL that has no qualm with it as long as it is properly redistributed). Note that most of the Linux kernel is licensed under the GPLv2 only. Did Linus want to sell Linux?
  • Novell has a seat on the board of the Linux Foundation, the foundation sponsoring Linus so that he'd be free to work on the Linux kernel. Yup, the same Novell from the ominous Microsoft-Nowell agreement related to Linux patenting. Do board seats have any odor?
  • Andrew Tanenbaum to Linus Torvalds:  I still maintain the point that designing a monolithic kernel in 1991 is a fundamental error.  Be thankful you are not my student.  You would not get a high grade for such a design :-) O Tanenbaum, kannst du mir sehr gefallen?
  • Astoundingly  enough the GNU/fsf/rms team could never (to this date)  deliver a decent micro-kernel (Tanenbaum's suggestion) for GNU, hence the  "adoption" of Linux as a  kernel for the GNU system. Will Debian's help help?
  • More Linux fun (Easter eggs, comic strips, etc.) on LinuxHaxor

 

Posted at 02:10 PM | | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

|

Google as a shield from RIAA lawsuits

According to Reuter the RIAA just sued Project Playlist  a site allowing people to share and to play bookmarks of music they’ve found online.

Thanks to the RIAA, the 25,000,000 Project Playlist users will see their number  boosted by the Streisand effect. 

Defendant is well aware that the overwhelming majority of the sound recordings in its index are infringing the RIAA continued. The overwhelming majority of the third-party Web sites that host these recordings do so illegally. reports CNet.

This poses an interesting question: if music links were to be search engine queries instead of direct links, what would happen? Assume a site pointing to a Google query which answer page displays the “interesting” link as a first result or even among the top 3:

could the RIAA sue anybody else than Google with a legitimate reason?

 

Posted at 02:15 AM | | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

|

MySQL so busy becoming PostgreSQL it forgets its community

The best storage engine for MySQL is by far InnoDB (and yes some applications can live with MyISAM only, but that's not the point). InnoDB (now part of Oracle) is also dual-licensed and has had an agreement with MySQL for several years now.

On the surface everything is looking  smooth:

  • MySQL distributes proprietary MySQL+InnoDB to those who wants to embed them in their proprietary applications
  • The open source community can work with  GPL MySQL and GPL InnoDB.

In practice it doesn't work quite that way:

Firstly because InnoDB hot-backup feature for instance has never been open source released. So contrary to the recent brouhaha, MySQL  has fostered  proprietary components for a long time.

Secondly because even so  SUN  has globally a good relationship with Oracle when it comes to selling Oracle DB on SUN servers, it is unlikely that SUN will let its pricey acquisition be driven (through InnoDB/Oracle) by an outsider. Conversely,  the day Oracle perceives MySQL+InnoDB as a threat, the existing agreement won't be renewed.

So MySQL is on the run to develop a replacement for InnoDB (since they cannot use the GPL version of InnoDB with their proprietary release/license). A new storage engine named Falcon is currently developed by MySQL, concurrently with yet another storage engine: Maria (which is for now a crash-safe version of MyISAM).

Now think about the resulting effect on MySQL open source community:

  • 2 MySQL teams working concurrently to develop various storage engines that nobody really needs in the open source community since they have InnoDB which is GPL
  • MySQL teams working on plenty of new features so that to build a MySQL enterprise system with plenty of features that  PostgreSQL/EnterpriseDB already has.

Where are the resources dedicated to the community? How long will it take  for MySQL to reconnect and to produce something they can give back?

Where is the light, fast version that promoted MySQL original adoption? SQLite is growing fast for those 2 reasons, does it ring a bell?

Already MySQL community is much less active than that of PostgreSQl, in large part due to a dual licensing model that tends to attract less open source contributors: in order to stay open source,  MySQL needs a new business model. As Glyn Moody noted, has MySQL forgotten all it learnt?

But after all, if SUN wants both a large contributing community and another proprietary Enterprise Database there is a solution. Remember,  PostGreSQL has a BSD license and SUN owns the trademark MySQL therefore:

Why not release a proprietary licensed PostGreSQL under the name MySQL 7.0?

PS: You might be interested by this post about the perverse effects of dual licensing

This post is quoted or cited by:

Posted at 11:45 AM | | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)

|

Open source police force

Pixukpolicevolunteer Matt Asay has this  funny and innocent post about a new initiative from the London Police. In short you can become a non-paid-volunteer police officer (they are called Special Constables) provided you can free 8 hours over a period of 2 weeks.

There are basically 2 ways to look at such initiative:

  1. Cynical: If you're in a  hard-core and violent neighborhood and  unemployed, why don't  you  join big brother instead of being watched yourself and get an opportunity to denounce your neighbors rather than standing idle smoking pot all day long and dreaming of your next quick-money scam?
  2. Optimistic: Why not contribute to  reconciling police with citizens through some kind of proximity initiative in difficult  neighborhoods where there is often a blatant disconnect between police forces and socially challenged people?

So I went to the website and snooped around (click on the picture above to see the banner):

First there is this  interesting motivation banner that tells you why you should apply. The arguments go this way:  Special constables are volunteer police officers

  • They have the same uniform
    • Translation: If you have low self esteem (or too many holes in your jeans) here is one to boost your ego
  • They have the same powers and responsibilities
    • Translation: Nobody will step on your feet anymore: you're in charge!
  • They help police London:
    • Translation: Ever dreamed of forming a militia? Here is your chance!
  • Discover what it feels like to be a special constable yourself
    • Translation: Do you feel it? Arrrgggh do you feel it? Feel the poooower!

Ok, so obviously they know how to attract the best people with the right motivations... Seriously why would you try attracting people with such weird border-line motivations?

Let's look at the application process itself. The application form goes as follow:

  • Do NOT  send a CV
    • Translation: Your real professional background is of little  importance
  • You must provide a clear color picture of all of your tattoos
    • Translation: Hope the same tattoo is not worn by a known (or future) felon
  • You must accept to have a DNA sample taken
    • Translation: Unlike real police officers... Yup you know, just in case you left a few cells at the wrong place
  • You can fill up a form (for the purpose of balanced workforce) that discloses your age, your sexual orientation, your religion and of course your ethnic background. Ok, but look at the options you're given:
    • You're not just white but Irish, British or Other
    • You're not just Asian but Indian, Bangladeshi, Pakistani or Other
    • You're not just Homosexual, Heterosexual or other (as a matter of fact there is no option called Homosexual): you're Heterosexual, Gay/lesbian (not only homosexual but militant, I suppose), Bisexual or Prefer Not to say (convenient if acting on your sexual orientation is illegal in UK)

So the question is: what happens to all this information if your tattoo is worn by the wrong guy? What happens if your DNA was left on this bag you throw out on what you didn't know was a (passed or future) crime scene? Do they really discard  "voluntary information"  before to investigate further a crime?

This brings us directly to a third interpretation for this initiative, neither cynical or optimistic just a stern reminder that a cause (even a good one) is never worth more than the means by which it is fought for.

London Police to trouble neighborhoods: please come forth and register, please be denied forever most of your civil rights since you're much more likely to participate or to have been involved  in a crime.

Still wondering why those ads are specifically targeting borderline personalities?

Posted at 11:35 PM | | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

|

SUN, MySQL needs you to be bold, go for the cloud!

SUN wants to deal with MySQL like a small open source companies would: offering a few proprietary components on top of a free platform. This is so wrong: not only does it anger the community but it doesn't bring SUN anywhere near a solution that would leverage the long tail of MySQL adopters. How could you invest $1B in a company and subsequently foster such petty thoughts? Time to think differently.

MySQL is a special case in the open source world.  There are really 3 kinds of markets defined by those 200M+ downloads (correction: 6M-12M active installs depending on sources):

  1. Zillions of small shops and start-ups
  2. Medium-sized companies growing out from the above ones
  3. Large companies whose technology guys are stealth-using MySQL in every corner

Good,  My SQL is all over the place but:

  1. The long tail doesn’t have much money and those companies already have a few LAMP guys on board
  2. The middle tier is going to be harvested efficiently by Microsoft and Oracle all-powerful sales force with which SUN cannot really compete
  3. The F1,000s don’t even know they are using SQL and if they do they are more likely to be convinced to use ORCL IBM or MSFT light products depending on the shop who owns them

Bummer.  Time to ask the real question: what does the market need?   

  1. Small guys have specialty needs and process issues:  scalability, security,  back-up and limited cash:  incremental  investments only.
  2. The low-end middle tier needs reasons and incentive to stick to  MySQL instead of switching to MSFT/ORCL. They need help turning into "real", 1,000+ people companies.
  3. The high-end middle tier needs help building their own IT infrastructure
  4. The F1,000s need Enterprise integrated MySQL support with their Linux deployments.

Now, what is the right model for MySQL? As pointed out by Matt in a really great article, some lessons have to be pondered about. Here is a suggestion to SUN:

1.    Drop the non-scalable part of the business and pass it on to Redhat

Carve an agreement  with RedHat: allow them to use the trademark, pass on those download listings to RedHat salesforce, have Red Hat help distribute the service below.

2.    Focus on the long tail

  • Offer what nobody else can offer: a convenient, on-demand  MySQL service coupling  virtualization, load-balancing, security and automatic back-up. Think Google apps or Amazon Rainbow (sounds nicer than SUN's cloud) but from a much larger install base, with a standard/universal interface (SQL) and therefore with NO fear of lock-in. People can prototype on MySQL and the day after they can launch; Who would say no to speed-to-market?

  • Collect money on growing companies: (i.e. consuming too much bandwidth/Disk space/CPU) but keep it a much more interesting valued prop than that of Oracle or Microsoft (shouldn’t be that hard). That way, growing companies won’t be tempted to switch to much more expensive technology from the big guys: outsmarts Oracle and Microsoft on every single deal.
  • Offer a transparent transition to enterprise data centers: Some companies want everything in-house: offer them an easy way to transparently transition   that you will  support with RedHat. Up sell your CISC servers at the same time. Use SUN virtualization technology to make the process completely seamless.
  • Keep the community alive, separated and growing: give back everything developed in house and doing so further the strength of MySQL. With this model you can be bold, your force lies in your infrastructure. That way, many more developers will be inclined to contribute than with this narrow dual model, more suited for smaller companies and that often piss off entire communities.

As a side effect, you will have an opportunity to put to work all of those soon-to-be obsolete RISC architecture-based processors into a useful ...cloud. Remember  when I told you that MySQL needed a new storage engine? Well, here is an opportunity to give it a cloud-based storage engine.

Let's summarize:

  • A F1,000 presence through RedHat
  • A happy and thriving community
  • A dual cloud/grid ultra-storage infrastructure à la Amazon/Google (and also a good way to keep them in check)
  • An opportunity to leverage obsolete RISC-based processors
  • A new MySQL strorage engine pluging directly into SUN cloud/infrastructure
  • A clear way to outsmart MSFT and ORCL on their midle-range market
  • An opportunity to sell (CISC) servers  and to generate scalable, recurring service revenues
  • Cost? Maybe 10-15% of MySQL acquisition
  • Time to Market? SUN has the ability to start a closed trial in just a few months.
  • Wall street? Happy as a ClamAV without TrendMicro. It's going to be useful when those bad  numbers are going to be released during Q4

Developers -and yes, open source developers too- have a great respect for SUN.  Guide them instead of disappointing them. Go one step further: enroll the community to develop your cloud/grid: build a data center and give it to the community. Let's make it an ever lasting Summer of (distributed) code!

 

Why would  SUN largest investment in the future  be dealt with yet another model, another idea of the past?

 

Article quoted or cited by:

 

Posted at 04:18 PM | | Comments (8) | TrackBack (0)

|

Affero: Google answers Milking the GNU

Chris DiBona, open source manager at Google and former OSI board member (don't mind the date it's no April's fool :) answered the post Google to users: you're not the boss of me now and we ended up having a few back and forth (in the comment section). Here is the dialog, verbatim (should Chris continue answering,  I'll post it here as well)

Also a few notes so that to better understand the context:

 

Milking The GNU (mtg) :

Same here, I don't know Chris nor do I know the other protagonists. Just happened to read various posts/threads and found it funny at times so I thought I would share my findings.

Chris, if you read this, the beer (or better the vine*) is on me. :)

update(*): I guess I meant 'wine' but hey, must have had the 'grapevine' in mind ...

Chris DiBona  (Chris) :

I enjoy Beer and Wine, so you're covered :-) Find me at Oscon?

I am sometimes a little autocratic, and while it is easy to look like a nutjob when you bring in these various quotes, they're consistent with our various open source related missions.

For instance: We're fighting license proliferation and at the same time we want to preserve the history of open source software. Those two missions sometimes look inconsistent. Add in our support of other licenses via our funding activities and our projects like the summer of code, and it looks even more inconsistent.

Should we ban groups from the SoC that use licenses we feel are redundant? We don't think so. We think that would be bad for our other mission of creating new open source developers.


mtg:

I'm glad to learn SoC is open to all projects, including those with licenses not allowed on Google code.

But then, why make Google code less ... open then? I mean, why the difference?

Also I don't want to sound picky but Google doesn't 'create new open source developers' only project opportunities for FOSS developers to emerge ... and also to get noticed by Google recruiters? ;)

This being said SoC is a great initiative indeed.

Chris:

Actually, we think that creating individual pools of software that cannot be shared amongst other licenses is less open, which is why we are against license proliferation.

SoC isn't much about recruiting, but more about creating more open source code and developers.


mtg:

So the argument is that of compatibility? (e.g. creating less 'pools') but then by the same token you could have only the X/MIT license ...

It raises another issue though: does it mean Google doesn't really trust the OSI?

What if OSI starts delivering say an "Open Choice Repository" label to those repositories offering all OSI-approved licenses; does Google code want to end-up next to Microsoft CodePlex which denies hosting to GPLv3 projects?

 

Posted at 09:00 AM | | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

|

Feedburner to Google: I'm crashing because of you

Pixfeedgooglier_3 Apparently not everybody at Feedburner was happy about being acquired by Google last year.

Well, that or those guys have a very cool and irreverent sense of humor or  an old message has found its way up during the crash (as Napoleon was saying: never attribute to conspiracy what can be attributed to sheer incompetence ...)  ;-)

Today around 9.30PM PST Feedburner went down for a good 10 minutes and java throw out  an  amusing SQLException  (click on the image for more details)

Posted at 10:11 PM | | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

|

Google to users: you're not the boss of me now!

Those are  excerpts from conversations between Chris DiBona, Open Source program manager at Google and  Google code users. Enjoy!

Can you remove my project? (I)

  • User: ..Therefore, I kindly request you to remove the above code projects ...
  • Google: Why should they be deleted? (..) removing old version from the reliable repository internet is a bad thing for the program, computer history and for open source.

Go to the post. Obviously Google is the Internet repository. And removing from Google is bad for open source. So... project leaders are irresponsible?

---------

Can you remove my project? (II)

  • User: ..Please delete project "fsog". It's covered by the AGPL license ...
  • Google: Done. Thanks.

Go to the post Well, that was fast. No questions? You're sure? It's baaaad for open source!

--------

Google psychic

  • User: .. Only if the provisions of the Affero license became part of the GPL would they be of interest to us...
  • Google: Then it wouldn't be GPL and thus you shouldn't use the site. Sorry.

Go to the post Impressive psychic ability: how does he know it won't be GPL? The GPL will be released only 3 months later (and without the Affero clause which inclusion was on discussion)

-------

Ideologist ... yet pragmatic

  • User: ...Not to press the issue, but why the push to restrict licensing choices ...
  • Google: .. ideologically, we feel that the number of open source licensing reduces the overall effectiveness of open source .

Go to the post So are we in the realm of ideology or in the realm of pragmatism? I guess pragmatism if you look at Google track record in China...

--------

You're not the boss of me now!

  • User: ...Thanks Chris, but I need you to disambiguate that a bit. Are you saying ...
  • Google: You need me to disambiguate for you? I think you need to go find my employment documents and find out where it says I work for you.

Go to the post From his wiki: Mr. DiBona is an internationally known advocate of open source software and related methodologies. 

Advocate? That's another word for lawyer, right?

UPDATE:  answers from Chris DiBona to MilkingTheGNU

More posts on Google:

 

Posted at 09:03 PM | | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

|

GPL for dummies: mixing GPL and PROPRIETARY code

Pixbeneton3xx I'm receiving a fair amount of questions as to how and what-if I want to run/distribute/mix/compile GPL v3 code and proprietary code.

Here is my best try at shedding some light on those issues but remember: IANAL and even if I were I wouldn't be yours (nothing personal :-) )

Many FAQs/Forums are a bit disingenuous in that they don't always insist on what's possible (or might be)  if it does not exactly fit their particular ethic. 

Even so I have strong opinions on what people should and should not do (even if they can) with open source, I'm also a firm believer that once a cat (well, a license) is out of the bag it's better to trust people and to provide them with as much information as possible so that they can choose by themselves.

Bottom line: Benevolent dictatorship should be limited to project management and never apply to people free thinking.

In the following, keep in mind 3 things:

  • Since so far the GPL hasn't been much tested in court ( GPL v3 hasn't at all)  all we know all we can reasonably try to rely on  (in addition to the license itself) is the  intent of the authors as reflected by the FAQ of the fsf site for instance.
  • Even so you're under the impression you're following instructions or licenses to the letter, a judge will likely take into account both your intention and that of the authors  (in addition to the license itself, the jurisprudence of copyright and any  other applicable references). This is especially true if you're not in the US (i.e. local copyright legislation  might differ severely)
  • Since under the GPL the end-user can do whatever they want with the code (short of redistribution constraints), the end-user can always PULL various software on the Net and choose to combine and use them in any way they wish (assuming all parts are legits and legitimately obtained of course).
    • This DOES mean that I can combine any proprietary software I have a license for with any GPL software I wish and use it as I please as long as I don't redistribute any of it.
    • It does NOT mean that I can offer (PUSH) to the user a proprietary software that has been conceived with the goal/intent of being combined with a GPL software (whether it is deemed to be combined before or after distribution). It does not mean that it's impossible either and that's precisely what we  discuss here.

Remember: the following answers are here to give you a sense of how I think it works, they are not and cannot be construed as legal advice.

CAN I mix and match the following without PROPRIETARY source distribution obligations?

  • GPL program + PROPRIETARY module or PROPRIETARY program + GPL module
    • see this part of the GPL FAQ
    • Bottom line:
      • NO the combined software must be released under the GPL
      • YES IF all of the authors (maybe you only if you're the sole author) of the GPL part  agree to relicense the program to you under a permissive license like the X/MIT for instance
  • GPL program + PROPRIETARY plug-in or PROPRIETARY program + GPL plug-in?
    • see this part of the GPL FAQ and also this one
    • Bottom line: 
      • YES IF in good faith you think that the 2 codes are not tangled (ideally they run within 2 different processes), that the interface is clean and minimal (no large data structures shared)  then you should be ok.
      • YES IF all of the authors (maybe you only if you're the sole author) of the GPL part agree to relicense the part under a permissive license like the X/MIT for instance
  • GPL program + PROPRIETARY library?
    • Bottom line:
      • YES IF the library is really a system library (in the GPL sense) then you  can distribute  w/o  the source of the PROPRIETARY lib
      • YES  IF the library is not a system library  then you must provide an exception to the GPL license (described in the FAQ above) in order to distribute w/o the lib source: this does mean you have gotten the authorization of all of the authors if you need to introduce the exception (works just fine if you're the sole author).
      • YES IF all of the authors (maybe you only if you're the sole author) of the GPL program agree to relicense the program under a permissive license like the X/MIT for instance
  • PROPRIETARY program + GPL library?
    • see this part of the GPL FAQ 
    • Bottom line:
      • YES IF the Library is a LGPL library (see the LGPL )
      • YES IF in good faith you think that the codes are not tangled (ideally they run within 2 different processes), that the interface is clean and minimal (no large data structures shared)  then you MIGHT be ok.
      • YES IF all of the authors (maybe you only if you're the sole author) of the GPL library agree to relicense the program under a permissive license (X/MIT for instance) or under the LGPL.
  • Can I publish my experience of combining GPL and PROPRIETARY software even in the case I'm not allowed to distribute the combined work?
    • In the US Freedom of speech give you that much but I wouldn't link directly to a GPL download site, just to stay safe. Also if you are part of the authors of the NON-GPL code it's probably a big no-no.
    • Overall you cannot collude with third-parties so that for instance one would describe (or publish a tool) how to combine, one would distribute the GPL part and the third one would  distribute and/or sale the NON-GPL part. (remember: intent is key)
  • Can I X/MITize or LGPLize by wrapping around a GPL code?  Bottom line:
    • NO you cannot.
    • YES IF all of the authors (maybe you only if you're the sole author) of the GPL code agree to relicense the program under X/MIT or LGPL
  • Is it legal to reverse engineer (GPL) code? Maybe if  you do it properly: consult a lawyer

Related articles:

Posted at 04:44 PM | | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

|

Next »