Intelligent design, European style

Geoffrey Moore: “Taking the shuttle from the train station I met a European executive and his wife who commented to me about how odd America’s denial of evolution and preference for intelligent design seems to a European sensibility. […] Today, as I participated in a series of economic workshops, I was struck by an ironic reversal: In the world of economics, it is the U.S. that believes in natural selection, and it is Europe, specifically the EU and its leading countries, which clings to an outmoded ideology of intelligent design.

New gig

It’s official: I’ve joined the Free Standards Group as Chief Technology Officer and chair of the FSG’s Linux Standard Base (LSB) workgroup. (The FSG made some great additions to its board too.) This promises to be a breakout year for the LSB and for free standards in general, and I’m excited to be a part of it. Some of the things on tap for the coming year are:

  • The LSB 3.1 release (which adds Desktop functionality to the ISO standard LSB Core, among other things)
  • A crisp, well defined roadmap for LSB 4.0 and beyond, with increased emphasis on synchronicity with the major distros and stability, predictability and consistency of the LSB ABIs/APIs over time
  • A renewed emphasis on increasing direct involvement of distros, ISVs, and upstreams in the LSB development process
  • A developer outreach program that will make it easier than ever for software developers to target the Linux platform in a portable way (hint: ever wish there was a Linux Developer Network?)
  • A franchised certification program that will allow third parties to integrate LSB certification into their own value-added certification offerings (our recent announcement that we’ve teamed up on a certification center in China is a hint of things to come here)

As with most major life changes, this one’s bittersweet in some ways, as in the process of embracing this exciting project, I’ve had to step away from another, namely Progeny, the company I co-founded way back in 1999 (!). It’s always hard to move on from something that’s been a big part of your life for such a long time, and it’s particularly hard when you don’t feel like you’re “done” yet. On the positive side, I leave Progeny in excellent hands, and I’m able to remain involved in that wonderful position called “advisor”.

Speaking of Progeny, I’m exceedingly proud of all we accomplished over the years. Not only did we survive the .com bust, but we successfully reinvented ourselves in the midst of it all. Furthermore, we not only survived, we pioneered: we were among the first (if not the first) to build a business model around the customization and integration of open source code, a model that’s been adopted by some of the hottest open source startups of the past few years. I’m also immensely proud of the DCC Alliance—indeed, my new role with the FSG is, in a lot of ways, a natural progression from that latest waypoint in a string of projects that date back to 1993.

That’s it for now. Watch this space for additional news about the LSB as it continues to unfold. Better yet, get involved and help make it all happen!

GPLv3 won’t affect Linux-based products

eWEEK: “The DRM provisions are designed to go after companies like TiVo, which uses Linux but collects information on consumers’ actions. While TiVo complies with GPL 2.0, it may have more difficulty complying with GPLv3’s anti-DRM provisions.”

Not true. As far as I know (I’m not an insider), TiVo is not a derivative work of Linux in the legal sense—it’s simply a Linux application that happens to ship with a Linux distribution bundled as a complete package.

Given that it’s not a derivative work, the anti-DRM provisions (or anything else for that matter) in GPLv3 can’t affect TiVo at all, nor can they affect similar products that simply bundle a Linux application with Linux itself (i.e., pretty much any Linux-based server appliance, etc.).

Now, my first assumption was that this was yet another case of misunderstanding the GPL and/or how Linux-based products such as TiVo work. However, Eben Moglen himself appears to sow the seeds of confusion this time:

Asked if TiVo could avoid using GPL 3.0 when that license is released next year, Moglen said, “Once a GPL’d work has been relicensed under GPLv3, although a party having a copy under GPLv2 could continue to distribute it under that license, any further maintenance from upstream would force the license upgrade.” TiVo could avoid using GPL 3.0 even if, say, the Linux kernel were to change licenses, but only by freezing itself at the last version of the kernel that was licensed under GPL 2. “That will prove to be impracticable in almost every real commercial setting,” Moglen said.

I assume Eben isn’t misunderstanding the GPL, so perhaps he’s misunderstanding how TiVo works. Or, perhaps he made some comments that were taken out of context (the above isn’t an exact quote, after all, and goodness knows, I’ve been misquoted enough times I take such attributed statements with a grain of salt). I do hope, though, it’s not the FSF overplaying its hand on what constitutes a derivative work.

Third coming?

Dave Winer: “[H]ow long before Iger gets Amelio’d?”

Comments Off on Third coming?

What about a standard docking interface?

More and more cars are including audio systems that interface with the iPod (home audio systems too). Meanwhile, people like me using open platforms are stuck with crappy FM transmitters with terrible sound quality and non-integrated control systems (e.g., I have to turn on the transmitter, turn on the music player, turn on the radio, and remember to turn off the transmitter and pause the music player when I turn off my car or run down the battery and lose my place if I’m listening to a podcast). The non-Apple digital music player contingent should come up with some sort of USB-based docking standard before it’s too late (if it isn’t already).

What’s holding up the computer revolution?

Bran Ferren: “I can’t help but wonder that, at some earlier conference, Gutenberg got up and was talking about, ‘Why the hell aren’t people buying my bibles?’ He died penniless. The fact that a Gutenberg bible, in that time, would cost the equivalent of $80,000 in today’s money and that no one could read probably did limit his market somewhat.”

Comments Off on What’s holding up the computer revolution?

The celestial jukebox

Fred Wilson: “I will not buy music that I cannot remove the DRM from.”

I agree wholeheartedly, though the strategy I use is the one Fred dismisses in the first paragraph, namely burning the music to CD and ripping it back, sans DRM, to MP3 format. Yes, it’s a pain, but it beats having to jump through all the digital hoops at some indeterminate point in the future when all I want to do is queue up a song I’ve legitimately purchased and have probably forgotten where I bought the thing, let alone what magic pixie dust I need to decode it. Sure, the MP3 format has issues too, but at least I know my music will play anywhere. (Since I’m on the subject, I’m looking for some sort of a virtual CD burner, which the operating system thinks is a CD burner but which is actually a piece of software that converts the tracks it “burns” to MP3 format. Anyone know if such a beast exists? That would certainly do wonders to curtail my contribution to the world’s coaster supply.)

In practice, DRM isn’t as much as a problem for me as it seems to be for other people. Personally speaking, I don’t want to be in the music storage business—I’d much rather stream music on demand from some digital jukebox in the sky, which is why I’ve been a Rhapsody customer since 2003. (Greg Papadopoulos sums up my thinking pretty well exactly here: “I’ll bet that we will look back of this era of quasi-networking and wince, ‘How did we ever live that way?’ And the idea of wanting to carry all of your content with you will seem both old-fashioned and rather ridiculous.”) In my case, DRM is normally a non-issue—I simply route around it.

Rhapsody has come a long way since I first started using it in 2003: They added a Rhapsody To Go service, which more or less solves the “disconnected operation” problem (though I still tangle with DRM issues from time to time if I go for too many days untethered), and they finally embraced the web, though the current web offering leaves much to be desired—the Linux plugin still doesn’t support Firefox 1.5 nearly two months after its release, the web interface has huge gaps compared to the jukebox software (you can’t access your music library on the web, among other things?!), and they don’t seem to be taking advantage of the new web platform at all (where, oh where, are the RSS feeds of my favorites, recommendations, etc, so I can mash them up with other stuff?).

At the end of the day, I suspect the “economic boycott” James Governor calls for is the right way to fix the DRM problem. For my part, I’m voting with my wallet by supporting the model I want to win out in the end (that your music library will live on the web, not on your PC or in your pocket) and by buying music, in those rare cases when I do want to manage my own music library rather than letting someone else do it for me, from legitimate music services but opting out of the silos the platform providers are trying to build around me as a byproduct. Above all, I resist the temptation to climb into the big, beautiful lockbox Apple is building for us. As Clayton Christensen recently told BusinessWeek, I’m firmly convinced open standards will win out in the end:

Look at any industry — not just computers and MP3 players. You also see it in aircrafts and software, and medical devices, and over and over. During the early stages of an industry, when the functionality and reliability of a product isn’t yet adequate to meet customer’s needs, a proprietary solution is almost always the right solution — because it allows you to knit all the pieces together in an optimized way.

But once the technology matures and becomes good enough, industry standards emerge. That leads to the standardization of interfaces, which lets companies specialize on pieces of the overall system, and the product becomes modular. At that point, the competitive advantage of the early leader dissipates, and the ability to make money migrates to whoever controls the performance-defining subsystem.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but that day can’t arrive soon enough for me.

Heart smart

James Governor: “DRM is digital lard, clogging the arteries of our digital lifestyle.”

Comments Off on Heart smart

Standards and innovation

Bob Sutor: “Standards can allow innovation by providing a strong underlying foundation on which to build the new ideas. Do standards themselves need to be innovative? No, but they can lead to innovation downstream. Can waiting too long to create open standards hinder innovation? Absolutely, if de facto standards force or convince people not to try to innovate in certain areas. So please don’t simply say ‘standards might hinder innovation.’ That’s overly simplistic and doesn’t take into account how things evolve over time.”

Comments Off on Standards and innovation