|
| Thursday, July 26, 2001 |
 |
Coming up for air 
| | A few minutes after I wrote the item below, Dan Gillmor caught me in the hall and said "You've been Slashdotted." In fact, we both were — to the degree that I couldn't get back on and do shit for hours. It didn't help that the O'Reilly conference network was swamped as well. Now it's not, and I'm back. |
| | I'm sitting at another meeting — a terrific one on business models. I'm in the front row and this is a "town meeting"; so writing is in kinda bad form. |
| | Later tonight I'll get back on and fix up all the errors below. Please in the meantime bear in mind that I wrote this stuff with full exposure to multitasking, short term memory and plain old bad typing errors in full effect. |
| | Meanwhile, I'm gettng a chuckle from Mike at BlackHoleBrain: An Egosystem is what Microsoft's Windows *operating* system will eventually become. |
Smackdown
| | Tim O'Reilly just took the stage to give the introduction, and began with this: "As our friend Doc Searls wrote in The Cluetrain Manifesto, 'markets are conversations'..." And I'm supposed to be an objective journalist? Sheesh. |
| | But a few minutes ago, when I failed to wedge my head into one of the giveaway red hats, I said "My head's too big." "We knew that," somebody else said. "But it still fits up your ass," came a third remark. Puts matters in perspective. |
| | Now Mundie is on stage, saying nothing. "Create a dialog... long term implications..." |
| | Hah: Mundie put up a slide of himself plus a mini-me version: Dave Stutz. That helps. |
| | Microsoft has no beef, he says, with open source. "In fact we think it's part of an ecosystem ... worldwide." |
| | Now comes the wedge: "Open source isn't the issue." He's cocking his gun to shoot at the GPL. |
| | "Long term preservation of the software ecosystem. They evolve over a long period of time. Intellectual commons -> Industry -> Customers -> Government -.> Industry (in a circle). "We only play a small role in this large software ecosystem.... |
| | Now he's giving government and education credit for initiating the Net. Customers too. "The base business process is being captured in the software that runs the business..." Open source plays a key role... the intellectual commons. The idea that customers should have access to source code has merit. It's one of the things Microsoft has learned from this community. Microsoft is a learning machine. We listen to customers. The Microsoft we know today that has changed five or six times in its 25 year history. And right now we're in a time of flux... listen to all the members of this ecosystem... " |
| | "The reality is that everybody (not just consumers) want choice." Government. Customers. A slide: "It's all about choice — |
| | Language, commujnity, source model, platform |
| | open source, sharewhare, freeware, commercial and mixed ("we haven't... we're learning from your community") |
| | BSD ("great work that was done by Bill Joy and others"), shared source licenses ("we do find reasons to offer quite an array of shared source licenses... 2 or 3 in May; today, 8"), traditional commercial licenses, GPL, public domain |
| | Services, packaged software, aggregate 'distributions,' appliances, hardware |
| | Each choice has policy implications" |
| | Next slide: "Software as a business |
| | Microsoft's choice: the commercial software model |
| | Software industry: intergral part of the U.S. economy |
| | $120 billion exported from the U.S. |
| | Next slide: "Learning from Open Source |
| | Expanded community programs |
| | Expanded source access: 'shared source' |
| | Range of licenses for different customers, partners, and the intellectual commons |
| | Still provided under a commercial model" |
| | Now he's wrapping. Hm. He didn't attack the GPL. |
| | Okay, now Michael Tiemann is coming up, intro'd by Tim. |
| | To be rather than to seem... to build an arch of trust, it is better to be open rather than to seem open, to be trustworthy than to seem trustworthy. Such an architecture ... we believe that a lesser architecture will crash and burn, stunting a future for us all... |
| | If awrence Lessig is correct, code really is law. We as citizens want Microsoft to do what it right. Of all the choices Open Source makes it easier to be, rather than to seem. From this perspective there is no reality to shared source. It's like the alternative minimum tax. it's neither. it has no reality other than to seem like something new... |
| | There is only one reason why it would try this new deception when all its prior deceptions earn $2 billion a month. |
| | Now Michael is talking about the Halloween Documents. Lots of jokes and laughs about 'smartness'. |
| | Something about 'strong' and 'weak'. "Microsoft has benefitted from strong licenses protecting its own software. Red Had has benefitted from strong protection of freedom... Protected from somebody with more market power from embracing, extending and extinguishing us." Bragging about hitting profitability numbers. "Who says the GPL is bad for business?" |
| | "When Microsoft bought Hotmail, they not only became one of the largest free email providers, but one of the largest FreeBSD sites... When they switched to Windows, the inevitable happened..." |
| | Gracioius thanks for XML contributions by Microsoft. "Smart people inside of Microsoft are getting it." |
| | "This shared source thing... has nothing to do with building community outside of Microsoft. "It's a treaty.... while microsoft tries to quell its own civil war..." |
| | "Craig, you were brave to come here..." Applause. Very gracious by the audience. |
| | "When you allow freedom at higher levels, we will welcome you ... on that day, plenty of free beer and free software." |
| | Tim is back. "Sounds like some of Michael's speech was a treaty with the free software community." Now he's introducing others. Brian Behlendorf, co-founder of the Apache project and head of CollabNet. Clay Shirky, Dave Stutz, Mitchell Baker, "Chief Lizard Wrangler" at Mozilla, Ron Johnson, attorney and chair of computer and internet law institute.... |
| | (Aside... I'm grooving on doing this live. I LOVE wireless.) |
| | Craig: Among 50k "smart people" there is a single purpose focus. Management is not uncertain about making decisions and consistent leadership. The company is clear about what it will do. As a member of the management committee, many of the ways things going on inside the company... there is no civil war at the management level and no observable civil war among the rank and file... |
| | Brian: it's not a one-directional relationship (between items on Mundie's slide). It was important when writing apache to make it a strong force... understand the need to reinvest... need to create licenses and regimes that are bi-directional. I invite Microsoft to continue... I'd rather look at source than not look at it. .. all a matter of experimentation... but there are 10 million microsoft developers out there. |
| | Craig: there are many different ways to give back. Giving tax back is another way. (Tim: How much tax does Microsoft give back? Mundie:... billions). In the first three days, 10k people downloaded the source tree. We were quite happy to see that when offering it for noncommercial use — for academics — the response was so enthusiastic... we will continue to seek ways to share, to give backi. |
| | Dave: There are a lot of people who have paid attention to the open source community. The process of sharing source is a lot different than selling binaries. We're still learning. People do ask for more and more access to source code. It's becoming much more central. We're developing all kinds of licenses. What I'm working on is by the same standard as Miguel is working on with Mono. Download the license. It's clear and simple, and one page long (holds up a copy). |
| | Michael: I'd like to move from the nuance to the substance. it sounds to me like the logging companies that will be real nice guys as long as they can cut down trees. In the software world, in spite of what shared source might offer, we are concerned about how patents prevent full participation in what the internet will be... |
| | Tim: What's wrong with setting the terms for relationships with your own customers. |
| | Michael had a great response, but I couldn't transcribe it. Damn. |
| | Mitchell: There is a flaw in that slide, and it's a flaw of choice. Thanks to the good people in microsoft, a great deal of the data that flows is dependent on one company. That is not a healthy ecosystem. The issue is that creativity gets filtered through the business plan of one company. We need unexpected and serendipitous... public policy considerations should promote the flow of open source and free software. To characterize open source and free software as bad ... (she's scared it might succeed). |
| | Craig: There is no attempt to characterize open source as bad. The ecosystem of the software of the future will not just be about computers. Microsoft has little sway with telephone companies, consumer electronics companies.... Little success in getting our software adopted (someone claps). That's your opportunity. |
| | Clay: the number of times software is running on another box is going to explode. The meta issue in an ecosystem is interoperabiolty, not merely open sourcel I[m more concerned about open interfaces than about source behind those interfvaces, which are not always exposed. My question is about hailstorm. It's fine to see hailstorm runningn on multiple end points. Mac. Can I use a hailstorm schema allow contact between a palm and a linux server without workijng through a Microsoft schema? |
| | Dave: we always come from a customer perspective. If customers want that, we'll do it. It will happen. |
| | Michael: But by then everybody else is dead. |
| | Clay: Not true with device classes where mictosoft doesnt; have a monoply. Can I have a yes no on a hailstorm transaction without phoning home to microsoft. |
| | Dave: I'll say yes. But a caveat: if hailstorm is widely successful, it is highly likely that the palm will want to (obtain microsoft authoentication). |
| | Clay: Choice or requirement? I hear you saying choice. |
| | Craig: The API was the protocol and schema of an operating sytem. But we couldn't depend on everything happening in one machine. That wasn't the right model. YOu needed loosely coupled systems, broadly defined. Data is not akin to apis. Microsoft has always published APIs. Once we pubolish protocols and schmeas along with APIs, I see no reason why... |
| | Tim: There is this feeling that Microsoft has a control strategy, and if it's not through binary programs, it's through patents. |
| | Craig: we're in the business of licensing intellectual property. Should we license the patents in the fuiture? You're always welcome to ask us if... |
| | Brian: Question of centralization. DNS has been privatized. But the fact is right now that this is a critical point in our infrastructure. We have a similar concern that .Net and hailstorm may have inherent centralizationj. What drives people towared open source is freedom from that cedntralization. |
| | Craig: we've gone out and told people 'this is what we're going to do.' We did not deliver a fait accompli...We do not yet have a franchise in this area. |
| | Tim: You guys still see yourselves as a relatively small player in other businesses. But in this ecosystem you are what McNealy calls the top predator. We have created a situation where it is very very difficult for new entrants to make money. Open source is about people who want in, who want their ideas to flourish. You've made it difficult for others to succeed. How do we get to a healthy ecosystem.l Is what's good for microsoft good for the industry. |
| | Dave: The expectations of consumers is set by the quality of the software. We've writtenj some pretty good software (that has set the bar high). |
| | Tim: (Somebody comes up with a good idea and Microsoft takes over the market. This is discouraging.) |
| | Dave: I've seen plenty of failures, viewed from the inside. |
| | Mitchell: You have lots of money to give browsers away for free and soforth. You can extract money out of all kinds of areas. A world without direct payment is the only way to get innovation in some areas. |
| | Dave: We've been trying to be clear about what our intents are. And we want to carve out safe places. We need to develop ways to develop businesses based on free markets to exist, and to foster innovationl |
| | Tim: are you shifting from hunter-gatherer to farmer? |
| | Craig: Microsoft would be nothing if people didn't write millions of apps and put them on PCs. If you don't have a sybiotic relationship between a platform, its developers and users, it would fail. We've been farmers. As this world have changed, and the number and type of platforms have diversified, we've been forced to recognize to realize that we can't transfer to these other platforms. |
| | Brian: the GPL tells me what I can and can't do. The shared source license says contact you if you want to write software for commercial pruposes. How many in the audience (write software for noncommercial purposes)? (Few.) |
| | Mundie: Give us a call. Talk to us. We'll give you a price. |
| | Ron: The trouble with the GPL is that the language that tells you what you can do without being subject to the redistribution provisions is expressed about 4 different waysk, none andy different thant he redistribution provision s of the copyright law. We've been litigating that standard for 20 years, and we have very little guidance from the courts abouty what constitutes a derivative work. It's clear that it goes into code, and levels of abstraction above code, but beyond that... the trouble with integrating commercial software with the GPL (has) huge uncertainty. |
| | Brian: Richard is working on Version 3. How about joining in ... |
| | Michael: If I look at microsoft softare, I'm infected. |
| | Ron: in other contexts, where you are trying to create generalizeed stndards... |
| | Tim: as a layman I can say that the GPL and Microsoft's shared source license have a lot in common. They're both strong intellectual property licenses. |
| | Audience questions ... Bradley Kuhn, reading a written statement (not yet a question). "We'd like to challenge you to a second debate with the authors of the GPL. We have a conference in Washington DC on November 12. Will you be there? |
| | Craig: I'm willing to discuss it. Contact (didn't catch name). |
| | Another audience member: There's little debate in this room that many software patents are (poor). Will you enforce all your patents, even (unfair or bad) ones? |
| | Craig: Absolutely.... We grant patents as one form of intellectual property protection. Should we have patents? That question was answered a long time ago.... if the examiners give out a patent, it bears weight. (Issues a challenge to go ahead and fight a patent.) |
| | Same audience member: Even if we have no money? |
| | Craig: Get your money. (big audience negative reaction) |
| | Craig Claiborne of (?) engineering: Says he was a member of both communities. I don't recall you calling Microsoft a community. The CIA calls itself an intelligence community. The LAPD calls itself a community. Is anybody at microsoft ... disagree and are free to leave? |
| | Craig Mundie: We have a variety of communities. We have used that term for a long time. We are investing heavily in our development community. |
| | Another audience member: In the traditional software market, you have an overwhelmingly dominant position. It's hard to maintain a growth of 15-20%. ... is it time for Microsoft to declare zero revenue growth. |
| | Craig: I don't think so. Our job is to provide a return to shareholders. Microsoft tries to be a good corporate citizen.... At a personal and corporate level people really do step up on matters of corporate responsibiltiy. |
| | "Just a sysadmin" with the EFF: The only thing that seems free any more is the free speech, software and internet community. It seems to me that your community has taken a hostage in Dimitri for (exercizing free speech). |
| | Somebody from the crowd: "Did Microsoft lobby for the DMCA." |
| | Tim: Does microsoft like the DMCA? |
| | Craig: There are things we like about it and don't like about it. Like you. |
| | Tim: There's nothing I like about it. |
| | Audience member: (Something about monocultures being bad for ecosystems). How are your going to protect yourself...? |
| | Dave: It's very important to our business as well as yours to protect (the) ecosystem. |
| | Brent Glass, from audience: The problem I see is that the GNU is also a winner take all strategy. The GNU manifesto says it wants to eliminate competion. Why should we go to another extreme (that wants a monoculture)? Why not offer something betweenj both camps. |
| | Tim, wrapping up: I think the university licenses are the best balance between freedom and the abilityto make money. I respect the right of Microsoft to put out software under a proprietary license. The right to offer your work under terms that work for you... Let people use whatever license they want to use... we are entering an era of greater choice. Microsoft's past history is past. The future is open. We can make the future be what we want it to be. |
| | Whew! Now I have to go back and correct a bunch of this. Meanwhile it was fun to write this live on the Web. See ya'll soon enough. Music out: Grateful Dead's Sugaree. |
| | [Later note: Here's the Dr. Dobbs Technetcast page, which has archived streams for all the above.] |
Catching up
| | While I'm working on writing up Day Two and Three of my San Diego stay (Day One is here), Craig has posted his take on Day Three of the Catalyst conference, which is put on by The Burton Group, which he founded back in '89 (but left five years ago). And his take is both optimistic and (as always) very forward-looking: |
| | The future of computing will shift away from a single vendor monopoly to poly-ownership of community defined Internet Services. These community-defined and implemented services will make up the IntenetOS. No single vendor can own or control the InternetOS. No single individual, organization, government, or "movement" (open source, free software or otherwise) can control the net. The net already has a life of its own... |
| | Context: I don't know a better prognosticator than Craig. His prescience is uncanny. |
Blogrolling
| | I knew Paul Boutin was going to be on a radio show, talking about embedded Linux. I didn't know he was going to be a regular on Rob Black's show, The Bottom Line. Black is, for my money (not that I'm spending any), the best of the money talk radio breed. And I see here that he's off the air in San Francisco, which sucks. That's one more reason it's good to be living in Santa Barbara now. We can get Rob every morning on 1340am (which isn't doing oldies any more, even though the station's Web site suggest that's what's still happening). |
| | Anyway, it's way cool that Paul will be on Rob's show. They both rock. |
discuss
Copyright 2008 The Doc Searls Weblog
|
