Stories (RSS)
Bringing Microsoft to the table: Can MS become an open source contributor?
(8 votes, average: 3.63 out of 5)
Loading ...
Novell is working with Microsoft to help Microsoft cooperate and contribute to open source projects under open source licenses, and sticking with the existing standards to do so. Keen observers of the tech industry might note that this is a bit of a rarity, but it’s something that I hope we’ll see more of from Microsoft.
The announcement went out today that Novell and Microsoft are collaborating around the OpenPegasus project and other system management tools.
Thanks to Novell, Microsoft is going to be contributing to several open source projects — and making Linux easier to manage. Yes, you read that right. It will also make Windows easier to manage using Linux tools — which is going to be a breath of fresh air for Linux admins tasked with managing Windows boxen as well.
I spoke to Eric Anderson, vice president of engineering for Novell, about the agreement and got some additional details on how the deal came about, and a little background. Eric says that Novell was approached by Microsoft for help working on these projects and that we happily agreed to do so, as long as Microsoft work with those communities and contribute back to them.
Of course, one of my first questions was “what licenses will Microsoft be contributing under?” The OpenPegasus project itself is licensed under the MIT license, and other parts of the project involve providers under the SBLIM which is under the Common Public License, and providers that are under a BSD license.
Microsoft will also be submitting some code under one of its OSI-approved licenses.
Why this is important
Getting Microsoft involved, as an equal participant in the project, is a huge step. Microsoft has started to take tentative steps into the open source community, but this is one of the first times that Microsoft is going to be participating on equal footing with the rest of the open source community on a project started externally.
I may be an idealist — OK, I am an idealist — but I think nothing but good can come from getting developers to sit down together and work on common code — even when, maybe especially when, one of the parties at the table is Microsoft.
It’s hard to maintain a hard-line stance when you sit down and work with another person on a common problem. I don’t expect an overnight cultural change at Microsoft as part of this collaboration, but I think it will have a positive effect. The only way to find out is to try.
This is, of course, good for Linux and the community too — anything that makes it easier to manage Linux boxes along side Windows (or in any heterogeneous environment, for that matter) is going to help Linux adoption. Giving Windows admins tools to easily administer Linux boxes will help to remove some of the barriers to adoption in Microsoft environments.
I talk to admins all the time who express frustration in getting Linux into their environment, who have to fight arguments against Linux because it lacks the standard management tools that come with Windows. Well, that argument will be easily dismissed in the not-too-distant future, and I think that will help accelerate the adoption of Linux in the enterprise even more.
Of course, this is good for Microsoft as well. Its customers have been asking for Linux, and by providing better Linux support, Microsoft makes its customers happy, and helps Microsoft remain relevant with those customers. But this also means that Linux will continue to spread through the enterprise, and that’s not a bad thing at all.
It’s not just Novell and Microsoft in the management boat, though — this is something that has been a sore point for Linux for years, and we’re hoping that the community can work together on this front to make Linux management easier.
Eric stressed the opportunity in this arrangement for the Linux community to help improve Linux management capabilities as well. Eric says he’d like to see the Pegasus community work on writing management providers so that every service (where it makes sense) is manageable through this framework and so that the Linux management experience is as cohesive, powerful, and easy as any other platform on the market.
I couldn’t agree more — the easier it is to manage and work with Linux systems, all the better for Linux adoption.
Let me share a story with you that I learn as a child.
A fox was about to cross a small river when a scorpion emerged from behind a rock and asked:
scorpion: Can you help me get to the other site?
fox: (with suspicious tone of voice) And how do you propose I do that?
scorpion: Well … I can climb to your head, and that way I will not drown.
fox: I do not think it is a good idea, you could sting me and I would die.
scorpion: Why I would do that? I would drown and die too.
fox: Well … you got a point. Get on my head.
The fox is about half way in the stream of waters when it felt a terrible pain on its head.
fox: You sting me!! Why, why did you do that !? Now we both will die
scorpion: I’m sorry … I could not help it. It is my nature.
The moral of the story is: If you associate yourself with people untrustworthy expect to be harmed by them sooner or later.
Microsoft and its top managers (Bill Gates, Steve Balmer ) have proven to be untrustworthy in the past … why would I trust them to help Open Source and Linux all of the sudden?
The wise thing to do is live them “on this side of the river” and move on.
Just my opinion.
R.
Do you have any idea how people like you spread so much negativity about the Open Source world? Microsoft has been a pioneer of the proprietary model and they are taking some steps towards working with Open Source in harmony. I appreciate Microsoft’s moves, while keeping in mind their past actions towards the FOSS world. All businesses are increasingly moving towards Open Source, because FOSS is the future. FOSS helps you establish yourself in the market, get a huge user base and fight competition better because you work with the community. FOSS is as much about acceptance as it is sbout sharing
You know, I’ve always enjoyed that fable, and I think it provides a valuable lesson — don’t put yourself in a position to be fatally stung by someone untrustworthy. However, in this case, what could Microsoft do that would be vastly harmful? I think the worst-case scenario would be that Microsoft would fail to contribute, and they weren’t contributing before, so… what’s to lose?
On the other hand — what’s to gain?
Do I blindly trust Microsoft? Of course not! However, remembering the fact that Microsoft is a company made up of individuals who might be persuaded that open source contributions are in their best interest (and let’s be clear — most corporate participants in open source communities are doing so because of pragmatic considerations) I think it’s worth working with them and providing that learning experience.
What’s to lose?
How about infecting open source projects with patented code. Only to say so when it’s spread among many other projects or other projects depending on the ‘infected’ project. Microsoft is getting ready for a patent based FUD campaign and what better prove to have that a project is infringing your patent then putting the infringing code in yourself. That way you can sue the users who got the software through other ways then your approved channels (like Novell?)
think about it… triple E strategy, they are at the first E now…
W.
I seriously doubt that Microsoft is going to try to game the system in that way — I am not a lawyer, but I can’t imagine MS having a case with “well, we contributed the code, but now we’re going to claim that it infringes on our patents, even though we contributed it in the first place.”
I appreciate the concern, but I don’t think that’s a reasonable scenario.
Well, it depends entirely on the licence the code is contributed under. Many Free Software licences say nothing significant about patents so whilst the copyright status of the code is clear it can still be covered by a patent owned by the contributor, or a third party.
Anyone working with Microsoft (or any company which has software patents) should make sure that any code they contribute is under a licence which makes clear that that patent will not be asserted against _any_ use of said code. (In fact I’m not sure a copyright licence can ever give such a strong guarantee, but it should do its best).
Microsoft’s record to date does not inspire blind trust on such matters (although in fact they have not (yet?) gone round suing Free Software writers over patents).
and a stupid opinion at that. Just more of the anti microsoft bullshit that puts people off linux. Really. The linux community is full of hostility. Hostility towards Microsoft, towards other distro’s, towards desktop environments. It’s time the linux community, or some members in it grew the hell up.
This is a great move, that will bring much progress to linux. Thanks Novell for having the balls to step aside the linux bullshit and work with microsoft. I personally see a time where we will be able to use microsoft applications on linux without needing wine, which is great for businesses who use windows but would like to move to linux, however are restricted because of the applications they use.
Thanks for the opinion, and I agree with the sentiment — but it could have been expressed without the vulgarity. I hope you’ll continue to read and contribute to my blog without feeling the need to offend some of the other readers.
GNU/Linux does not need Microsoft in any way, except for it to keep hands off.
With years of thousands of millions of dollars of investment, all they do is utter crap. In *what* way could they help up the community?
Only by keeping hands off.
@HardyUser,
Microsoft IS a convicted monopolist (and more than once at that), so I do not think I’m too off the mark to say they are untrustworthy. The last time I checked the government of the United States and Europe had the same opinion. Sure, that does not make me right but I believe that Microsoft must do far better efforts to show it has learnt from the past and is willing to amend its ways. The dishonorable behavior displayed by Microsoft handling the ISO certification process of OOXML does not help my view, or that of most people in the FOSS community for that matter. I respect your point of view but respectfully disagree with it as both examples I have used here are *very* recent.
@ anon,
People that have an intelligent opinion do not need to resort to insults or swearing so I’m disregarding your post as that of a Microsoft fun boy or just an immature teenager, either way you may want to apply your counseling to yourself: “…grew the hell up”.
R.
Blah, blah, blah…
> Microsoft is going to be contributing to several open source projects
Blah, blah, blah….
Wake me up when they do contribute because its nothing more than the sound Charlie Brown’s teacher makes.
I want to see one open source project they participate in and none of these bastard licenses the OSI let them have.
Show me a project where they will contribute just like IBM, Intel, Sun, Hewlett-Packard, AMD, Fujitsu, and Oracle and others do and Ill change my tune.
Until then, well, you know…
Btw, Im old enough to remember when IBM was the evil empire so I have no problems seeing Microsoft contribute to a GPLed project but considering the rhetoric that comes from the head of Microsoft, I have heard or seen anythting yet.
And dont tell me that what Ballmer says doesnt matter. He is still the head of the company and whether some middle management geek wants to turn to open source means nothing. You dont ask what the US foreign policy is from the secretary of the assistant of the secretaty of agriculture.
So until the guy who pays the bills says otherwise, nothing has changed.
Until I see one line of GPLed code that Microsoft has contributed, your words have no weight whatsoever.
And if you are honest, you know that there is no reason to believe anything until we see proof.
Or until monkeyboy says otherwise and nothing he has said in the last year proves the contrary.
Of course, Im a Non-Compensated Individual Hobbyist Developer, which means Zonker and his group give a flying ….. about what I think.
Then again, I dont react to blackmail and extortion as well as Novell and Joe do.
“Plutôt mourir debout que vivre à genoux” c’est pour le monde avec des couilles et des convictions profondes pas les carrieristes.
This is awesome news! This could be an historic moment (in a positive way). If Microsoft cannot resist adjusting to FOSS, who else can resist adjusting to FOSS?
I am glad Novell has listened to its customers rather than its competitors or some open source demagogues who do not contribute to Novell. As a result, we have had many positives. To name a few:
better inter operation with Microsoft products (ODF/OOXML, Samba/Active Directory, virtualization, etc.)
several business desktops/laptops preloaded with Linux
much Novell code open sourced
open source developers paid by Novell
a great openSUSE product that will jump several notches in its next release
Once again, great news! Thank you, Novell
I personally find it really strange that pro-microsoft lobbyists try to post comments on that article to make it look like this decision is welcome in the Community. It’s also strange that a ‘Linux Company’ is advertising together with Microsoft to promote ‘interportability’ (lately seen on Heise.de)
Microsoft is already able to adopt well known and already accepted formats like ODF e.g. but they don’t. And they know why. But OpenSource projects should include technically poor semi-open ’standards’ like OpenXML.
It’s time to change the role. Maybe we are the Scorptions (but friendly ones
Best Regards
Marcus