A Public Challenge for the OSAF: No MORE YAOSLA

YAOSLA = Yet Another Open Source License Agreement.

For people that don't understand Open Source, getting their mind around the variety of Open Source license agreements is just plain staggering.  BSD.  Artistic.  GPL.  Apache.  The list goes on.  It seems like every open source project, of note, or irrelevant wants to innovate at this level.  Note to all Open Source Projects, come on!  Write code NOT law !

So here's the challenge to the OSAF -- write code, not law. 

Here's a good list from 1998 of the different Open Source licenses.  There are even more today.  [ Go ]

9:30:02 AM      Google It!   comment []    IM Me About This   

Refresh Window.  Read First.  Check the Comments.  THEN Blog.  Or "I Feel Dumb"

I see now that others have written excellent commentary on Don Park's essay [ Comments ] / [ Chuck ] (via Dave).  I foolishly went to sleep, woke up with my response (below) pretty much complete in my head and just pounded it out.  I didn't think to refresh Don's page which only showed 2 comments.  Now it has

So my new blogging guidelines are read first / blog later or:

1. Refresh the window with a post I want to respond to.
2. Read it again.
3. Read the comments.
4. THEN and ONLY THEN blog.

Of course I still would have written the essay :-) .

9:16:48 AM      Google It!   comment []    IM Me About This   

In Defense of Mitch Kapor or "A Rebuttal to Don Park"

As pointed out on Scripting, Don Park, [ Go ], has writting an eloquent commentary on Mitch Kapor's new OSAF software initiative which is focused on building an Open Source PIM.  [ Mitch's Blog ] [ OSAF ]  I understand his comments and I appreciate them but I disagree.  And, yes, I'm coming in on the side of pro Open Source.  I don't think that Mitch's effort is bad at all.  I do think that assuming it will be successful isn't a given.  But let's dive in and analyze Don's response.  But first we need to understand my biases and let's do that up front today.

 

Bias Explanation: I'm not a card carrying, GNU based "software must be free", Stallman-esque communist.  I've spent my career building and selling software for $$$ and own a house paid for by selling software (and a software company).  There are lots and lots of reasons why Open Source is a wonderful thing beyond "freedom" and "it's not Microsoft" but the most important one people forget is simple:

It Makes Better, Stabler, More Secure Software (imho). 

Bias Disclaimer 2: I currently run a consulting company which makes the bulk of its money from delivering solutions based on Open Source so I do have an economic interest in Open Source.  Make of that what you will.

Bias Disclaimer 3: Despite the positions in this article, I currently have a for profit software business launching.  [ Go ].  Clear proof that I see both sides of the industry continuing to exist.

 

What I'm going to do in this essay is add my commentary below Don's clearly delimited with [FuzzyBlog: ].  I don't want to misquote Don or get accused of quoting him out of context.  Don's copyright is clearly his own and if he has issues with this approach I'll pull it and rewrite it (and then get accused of making those mistakes).

 People

• Andy Hertzfeld - Andy has a great talent for creating innovative and highly polished GUI for consumer software.  I can trust him to deliver a GUI that knocks people out.
• John Anderson - Another guy who has proven his talents for building consumer software.  His WriteNow was simple and easy to use.  I haven't used any of his NeXT applications, but I have heard great things about them.
• Tim O'Reilly - With him on OSAF board, one can expect constant stream of guerilla marketing and publicity from O'Reilly.

[FuzzyBlog: So what's wrong about O'Reilly putting out publicity?  Is it any different from how Microsoft has books ready to go the day something ships?  And I'd point out that Andy Hertzfeld hasn't set the Open Source world on fire, an awful lot of us hated Eazel and Nautilus and MagicHat was interesting but not a success.  WriteNow was, indeed, awesome.]

OSAF Mission

OSAF's mission is to create and gain wide adoption of Open Source application software of uncompromising quality.  PIM is just the first project.  What will be next?  Which is worse, Microsoft announcing a competing product in the name of profit or OSAF doing the same in the name of community?

[FuzzyBlog: So what?  You seem to be taking it as a given that they will succeed.  I'm not.  Getting an Open Source project started is far more than just saying "We're Open Source".  It's a multiple year endeavour of creating a community around it and having the patience, endurance and brilliance to stick to it.  Whether or not the OSAF will succeed is open to the test of time but I do wish them luck.  And, big deal if they want to do this.  They have that freedom to try.  And, in case you hadn't realized, this particular market, PIM, is already gone to Microsoft.  It simply doesn't exist for anything that's NOT free or NOT bundled with hardware (Palm Desktop).  Sure they may try other projects but it takes a long time to incubate and create great software.  This isn't going to happen overnight.  ]

OSAF Financing

Mitch Kapor is putting up $5 million of his money.  That should be enough for three to four years with a staff of 14, some of them volunteers.  Once the first product is released, I am sure donations from box makers will start rolling in.  In return, the box makers will ask OSAF to build rest of the Office killer suite so they can ship Linux boxes with application suite of uncompromising quality.

[FuzzyBlog: Well $5 million actually isn't all that much money.  It could all be gone in a year.  Or it might last.  I have no idea what the budgets are.  And I wouldn't guarantee that "donations from box makers" will flow in.  The margins in hardware are tiny right now and they may well not have it.  I don't hear that Walmart is donating to Lindows nor that Dell is donating back to the Linux Kernal project.  Sure it could happen but it's not a given.  And we do already have an application suite of uncompromising quality -- OpenOffice is actually damn good and more likely to get there before OSAF (not on the PIM side but on the suite side) since it's already 95% there.]

Sense of Value

In countries like Korea, there was no software market because people did not see software as something you pay for.  When they bought a PC, it came with every software you will ever need.  Office?  AutoCAD?  dBase?  No problem.  While much has changed since, software piracy is rampant in Korea because people have no sense of value when it comes to software.  If they pay for it, its only because they might get raided.

What I am afraid of is the erosion in the sense of value for software.  If OSAF succeeds, consumers will have access to a wide array of high quality software for free.  Most likely, every PC will start to ship with them preloaded.  Every time a new OSAF product ships, a market segment will dies.  OSAF paints a picture of the future where consumers are expected to pay for contents and services, but software is free.

[FuzzyBlog: Ah.... There is already NO sense of value for software on this country -- at least depending on the market segment.  If you are a consumer buying a $500 computer then you don't value software.  And you really don't even understand how a CD-ROM of office can be worth the same as the computer.  It just doesn't "compute" (sorry for the pun).  And the blame for this has to go to Microsoft for bundling strategies, hardware makers for including Office so frequently and with Apple which is destroying the sense of value with all the bundled OS X software.  And, you know something, markets change.  In high tech we're big on bashing the RIAA for not getting it and realizing that their industry's economics have changed.  Well, guess what?  The software industry's economics have changed.  Given that:

1. So much software comes free with hardware these days
2. Hardware prices are now cheaper than software in a way that people not in the high tech business can't even begin to understand "you mean that CD of Office-X is 40% of my iBook?  What are you freaking nuts?"
3. The advent of free software
4. The simple fact that most software makers don't do a very good job making stable, quality products
5. software has more features than we need OR can even understand (example -- I use a 1999 copy of Acrobat regularly to produce PDF files)

our economics too have forever changed. 

The huge for profit software business of the 80s where real people, not enterprises, regularly bought software applications in the $100 to $1000 space is forever gone.  Wave bye bye to it now.  What's emerging is a new type of software industry where real people get their software from sources like these:

• Free or cheap (less than $50)
• Bundled with software
• At work
• They might buy one or two pieces of highly specific software, perhaps for a hobby or passion, but they need to be real enthusiasts and more on the "power user" side of being a computer user

This is already happening.  The OSAF isn't going to change this very much except create more Open Source software.  Which would happen anyway.  Just to repeat -- the sense of value for software is long gone.

Personal note -- the last pieces of software I personally bought in the past 3 years?  Radio Userland ($39) (hobby), FTP Voyager ($39) (work) and the Wise Install Tool (work). 

end of FuzzyBlog commentary; sorry for the length]

Path of Destruction

While Mitch may say and believe otherwise, I believe OSAF is a richman's Destructive Crusade against Microsoft's monopoly.  At strategic level, I agree with him that there are very few viable options against Office.  If the only path with reasonable chance of success leads to destruction of value, a cornerstone of market economy, should you take it?  My answer is no.  I'll admit that I am not 100% certain what lies at the end of OSAF's road.  I'll bet Mitch doesn't know either.

[FuzzyBlog: So what if it is?  Rich men also crusaded and put libraries in most towns in America (Carnegie) and they are currently trying to vaccinate people against disease (Gates).  Even if Mitch has this as his goal, he has that right. But don't try and blame him for the destruction of value -- this is a complex, multifaceted issue that has been going on for some time and isn't something that the OSAF will even affect very much (sorry Mitch).  Industries change and the commercial software business is just changing.

Now let's say that Mitch is out to destroy Microsoft, bear in mind that Microsoft isn't this wonderful thing -- initiatives like Palladium are unbelievably scary and if the OSAF destroying value is what it takes to stop Microsoft then more power to him.  I'll sacrifice the commerical software industry gladly to achieve that.  Computing hardware and software, coupled with things like Palladium, have the potential to make Orwell roll over in his grave and say "I told you so".  And, yes, there will be huge loss of jobs and economic dislocation if all software jobs are lost but NOTHING is 100% and everything takes time.  We're not going to see thousands of great coders on the streets with signs "Will type for food".  Given that hardware without software is basically useless, new economic models will emerge as they always do.  And, no, I don't know what they are.]

Wishful Thinking?

If I had a magic wand, I would:

1. Break up Microsoft into little companies around products.
2. Require all file formats to be documented and made public.
3. Forbid application bundling by publishers and box makers.

[FuzzyBlog: I agree with #1 and #2 although I see clear trade secret law issues with #2.  If you are going to make #2 a "requirement" then you need to ask the Coca Cola company to publish their recipe since that is a clear "file format".  But let's push on #3 -- you are going to buy your digital camera and then not have some level of picture software bundled with it?  Or Palm can't bundle Palm Desktop?  This would effectively raise hardware prices significantly.  Is that what you want?  Or are you defining "application" differently?  What about software that is in ROM?  There is, for example, a new product (which I can't remember the name of) which accepts a digital camera card and has image resizing and cropping and such.  What about that?]

8:12:19 AM      Google It!   comment []    IM Me About This   

To the Nosuch(s): A Virtual Toast

I see from the Nosuch blog that the wedding pictures are finally up.  Congrats Guys!  All the best to both of you.  [ Go ]

Oh and an aside: Fall must be wedding time in BlogLand -- first Nosuch and soon Scoble. 

7:18:39 AM      Google It!   comment []    IM Me About This