October 31, 2007
by sjvn01
0 comments

SFLC, BusyBox and Monsoon agree to dismiss GPL lawsuit

On Oct. 30, the Software Freedom Law Center, acting on behalf of the two principal BusyBox developers, and Monsoon Multimedia jointly announced that an agreement has been reached to dismiss the GPL enforcement lawsuit, which had been filed by the SFLC.

This was the first time in the United States, according to the SFLC, that a company and software vendor, Monsoon, was going to be taken to court for a GPL violation. Previously, alleged GPL violations have all been settled by letters from the FSF (Free Software Foundation) or other open-source organizations, pointing out the violation.

Monsoon makes consumer devices primarily for home multimedia users. One such device was Hava, a place- and time-shifting TV recorder similar to the SlingBox. It was the Hava that got Monsoon in hot water with BusyBox’s developers.

BusyBox is a set of tiny versions of many common Unix/Linux utilities into a single small executable. By providing replacements for most of the utilities ordinary found in GNU fileutils, shellutils, etc., developers get much of the expected functionality of the GNU utilities without the space requirements. Thus, the BusyBox programs are used in many — perhaps most — embedded Linux-based devices, such as Numark’s iDJ2, a Linux-based DJ mixing console built around the Apple iPod; Drew Tech’s DashDAQ car engine computer; and Pinnacle Audio’s Athenaeum music server.

BusyBox is open-source software licensed under the GNU GPLv2 (General Public License version 2). One of the conditions of the GPL is that re-distributors of BusyBox are required to ensure that each downstream recipient is provided access to the source code of the program. Monsoon’s sin was that it had used BusyBox in its Hava line without providing access to the BusyBox code.

Once the matter came to the point that the SFLC filed suit against Monsoon, the company quickly agreed to comply with the GPLv2 requirements. That in and of itself, though, wasn’t sufficient.

Lead SFLC attorney Daniel Ravicher explained that the delay was because “simply coming into compliance now is not sufficient to settle the matter because that would mean anyone can violate the license until caught, because the only punishment would be to come into compliance. I can’t discuss the details of what additional things are being sought by our clients, but hopefully we’ll be able to shed light on that if/when we do reach an agreement.”

Now, that agreement has been reached. As a result of the plaintiffs agreeing to dismiss the lawsuit and reinstate Monsoon Multimedia’s rights to distribute BusyBox under the GPL, Monsoon Multimedia has agreed to appoint an open-source compliance officer within its organization to monitor and ensure GPL compliance, to publish the source code for the version of BusyBox it previously distributed on its Web site, and to undertake substantial efforts to notify previous recipients of BusyBox from Monsoon Multimedia of their rights to the software under the GPL. The settlement also includes an undisclosed amount of financial consideration paid by Monsoon Multimedia to the plaintiffs.

“Although we really hated having to ask our attorneys to file a lawsuit to get Monsoon Multimedia to abide by the GPL, we are extremely pleased that they worked so hard and so fast to come into compliance,” said Rob Landley, a developer of BusyBox and a named plaintiff in the lawsuit, in a statement.

“Going forward, we are confident that Monsoon Multimedia will be upstanding members of the open-source community and we wish them the absolute best of luck with their business,” said Erik Andersen, the other BusyBox developer named as a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

“We are happy to put this behind us and move forward,” said Graham Radstone, chairman and COO at Monsoon, in a statement. “The fact that Monsoon Multimedia and BusyBox have reached an agreement amicably shows that settlement is far better than costly litigation. We will ensure that we are in compliance with the agreement in the future. Monsoon Multimedia is a highly innovative company and occupies a leading position in the emerging place-shifting market; therefore it is essential that we set an example for compliance for others.”

October 29, 2007
by sjvn01
0 comments

Freespire 2.0: Better than you might expect

When I downloaded Freespire 2.03 for review, I wasn’t sure what I was going to get. The company behind it, Linspire, was in disarray, it had shifted from Debian to Ubuntu for its foundation, and the development of its key feature—CNR (Click ‘N Run) download and install—seemed to have stalled out.

What I found was a solid, fast Ubuntu-based desktop Linux with an extremely easy-to-use KDE interface. However, I also found it to have more than its fair share of quirks.

When the core idea behind Freespire, a Linux that included all the legal proprietary bits that Linux could hold, first came out in 2006, people either hated it or loved it. By 2007, though, the idea of open source and proprietary programs in one Linux distribution had become commonplace.

Continue Reading →

October 23, 2007
by sjvn01
0 comments

Microsoft’s Mobile Device Manager Is No BlackBerry Killer

The Microsoft System Center Mobile Device Manager 2008 is about as likely as to kill off the BlackBerry as the Tampa Bay Devil Rays winning the 2007 World Series.

How many times do we need to go over this? Just because Microsoft enters a market, doesn’t mean that it’s going to own it.

The latest “Microsoft is coming! Microsoft is coming! Run for your lives!” rumor can be seen in the recent report that Microsoft announced plans for its System Center Mobile Device Manager 2008 on Oct. 23.

Where to start? First, we’ve been down the “Microsoft is going to kill off RIM (Research in Motion) and its BlackBerry” rumor road before. In 2005, the RIM killer was supposed to be Windows Mobile 5.0 with Exchange Server 2003 on the backend and the Treo for Windows in users’ hands. Despite a nasty patent lawsuit that bled RIM’s bottom line into red ink, RIM wasn’t worried about Microsoft.

October 22, 2007
by sjvn01
0 comments

SanDisk Sansa TakeTV video player and the point is?

I believe media extenders, like the Apple TV, will be the next big thing in home entertainment. These devices are still having trouble catching on, which is why SanDisk’s introducing the Sansa TakeTV video player makes no sense to me.

In a statement, SanDisk senior VP for audio/video, Daniel Schreiber, said in a statement that the Sansa TakeTV video player is “the most easy-to-use, straightforward solution for watching downloaded personal video content and other shows in the comfort of the living room.”

Ah, no it’s not. Here’s why.

Continue Reading →

October 22, 2007
by sjvn01
0 comments

Oracle Linux is no longer simply an RHEL clone

First, let’s make this clear. Oracle Unbreakable Linux was, is now and is for the foreseeable future going to be based on Red Hat’s Red Hat Enterprise Linux codebase. It is not, however, going to be simply RHEL’s twin in every way.

When Oracle first announced the release of Unbreakable Linux, many people saw it as a purely anti-Red Hat move. Larry Ellison, Oracle’s CEO, doesn’t like competition. What he likes is winning. If that means cutting Red Hat out of the deal for Oracle’s enterprise databases, not to mention getting some revenge for Red Hat stealing JBoss out of his grasp, then so be it.

Something funny has happened along the way. Unlike companies like CentOS, StartCom and White Box Enterprise Linux, which make no bones about simply taking RHEL’s code, taking out the Red Hat branding, recompiling it and selling it, Oracle is taking Unbreakable Linux down a different path.

Some of these additions were only to be expected. For example, Oracle is open-sourcing an OCI (Oracle Call Interface) database driver for PHP. According to Oracle, this brings “breakthrough scalability to PHP applications” and enhances its viability as a development environment for mission-critical applications. This driver supports Oracle Database 11g features such as connection pooling and fast application notification so a single x86 server can support, Oracle claims, tens of thousands of database connections at higher availability.

Prior to this, in June, Oracle also released improved PHP modules for Linux applications. These included new modules for Apache, MySQL and XML that were first made available in Oracle’s own Linux.

The goal here is clearly to not only provide better Oracle DBMS performance, but to gain access to the low-end Linux server market. For Oracle, which usually keeps its eye on the enterprise market, this is an interesting appeal to the SMB (small and midsize business) market, which has proven to be a stronghold for Linux servers.

What is more surprising, though, is that Oracle recently chose to make Yast (Yet Another Setup Tool) part of its distribution. Yast tries to make system administration easier by providing a single utility for configuring and maintaining Linux systems. It’s also tied at the hip to Novell’s SUSE Linux Enterprise distributions and OpenSUSE. Yast, a tool that tends to gain either fans or enemies, had never before been ported out of a SUSE system.

Still, while this gives system administrators an entirely different way of running a Linux server, it doesn’t fundamentally shift Oracle from its RHEL roots. Indeed, Oracle guarantees that not only will it track the Red Hat distribution closely to ensure compatibility for users, it will also support any ISV’s application that has been certified for use with RHEL3, RHEL4 and RHEL5. Oracle also doesn’t require that an ISV do anything special to test and certify its application against Unbreakable Linux. If a program certifies against RHEL, Oracle will support it on Unbreakable Linux.

As Oracle Vice President of Linux Engineering Wim Coekaerts said, “Oracle Enterprise Linux is compatible with RHEL and what we do is provide a great support service on top of either or both. We didn’t launch a Linux distribution business; we started a Linux support program. I think we have made that very clear many times.”

That is not to say, however, that Oracle doesn’t do its own work on Linux. For example, Coekaerts said Oracle is working with Intel on the LessWatts project to increase the efficiency of Linux systems and make it a greener operating system.

Still, when all is said and done, as Sergio Leunissen, a senior director for Oracle’s Linux Business Solutions, noted in a UK Unix group newsletter, Oracle hasn’t “talked about how our Linux is better than anyone else’s Linux. Oracle has not forked and has no desire to fork Red Hat Enterprise Linux and maintain its own version. We don’t differentiate on the distribution because we use source code provided by Red Hat to produce Oracle Enterprise Linux and errata. We don’t care whether you run Red Hat Enterprise Linux or Enterprise Linux from Oracle and we’ll support you in either case because the two are fully binary- and source-compatible. Instead, we focus on the nature and the quality of our support and the way we test Linux using real-world test cases and workloads.”

So, while Oracle may add features, such as Yast, that sit above the core operating system or improve PHP functionality, at its heart, Unbreakable Linux remains RHEL’s identical twin. On the surface, however, the two can no longer be mistaken for each other.

A version of this story was first published in Linux-Watch.

October 18, 2007
by sjvn01
0 comments

Playing Microsoft Patent Poker

It’s become an annual event. Steve Ballmer shoots his yap about how Linux and open source violate Microsoft patents. The open-source community says, “OK, show us your cards, your patents,” and Ballmer shuts up for six months or so.

This time around, though, Microsoft’s FUD campaign is playing out in a different way. First, Ballmer, Microsoft’s chief poobah says those nasty, old Linux and open-source developers are still violating Microsoft’s precious IP (intellectual property). What property?

Come on, by my count, this is the fourth time Ballmer’s made the exact same claims, and not once has Microsoft produced even a solid accusation, much less any proof. And, for the fourth time, the open-source community has asked Ballmer to show his cards, and once more, rather than show his hand, for all intents and purposes, he folds.

This time though, while Ballmer slinks away to try to con … convince people that Microsoft Unified Communications somehow offers people more than what Cisco’s VOIP (voice over IP) been offering customers for years, a patent attack finally launches at Linux. Specifically, IP Innovation, a subsidiary of Acacia Technologies Group, has filed a patent infringement claim against Linux distributors Novell and Red Hat.

So was it just timing, or was it something more? Let’s take a look at the players. Acacia now has two new corporate officers. There’s Jonathan Taub, Microsoft’s director of strategic alliances for the mobile and embedded devices, who’s now an Acacia vice president. And, just days before IP Innovation launched its suit against Red Hat and Novell, Acacia hired Brad Brunell, a top Microsoft executive who was formerly Microsoft’s general manager of IP licensing, as a senior vice president.

Oh, and what’s this? Back in 2006, Jacob Hawley joined Acacia as an engineering VP. Prior to joining Acacia, he was a Microsoft architect.

Of course, it could be mere coincidence that IP Innovation sits down to the table to play patent poker with two Microsoft senior executives helping to guide it. Personally, I’d rather bet on trying to draw to an inside straight. Which, I might add, if you’re not a poker player, is a really, really stupid bet.

Let’s stop pretending, shall we? This is just SCO all over again. We now know that SCO never should have even sat down at the lawsuit table. After all, since Novell literally owned every card in SCO’s hand—the actual ownership of Unix’s IP—the only real reason SCO had to sue was for its insiders to collect money from investors. One of which—Microsoft— bankrolled SCO’s lawsuits with its own roll of cash and with $50 million in chips from BayStar.

SCO is, for all practical Microsoft purposes, completely busted. Microsoft needed a new proxy to throw FUD at Linux and open source, and, whatever else patent troll companies may be good at, they’re certainly great at making good companies look bad.

This time, though, I think that Microsoft has some of its own at the table to make sure that Acacia doesn’t make stupid plays. After all, Microsoft wants to make as much FUD about Linux and patents as it can for as long as it can … just so long as it doesn’t have to sit at the table.

A version of this story was first printed in Linux-Watch.

Practical Technology

for practical people.