There are lots of different ways you can build software and the typical ways in which FOSS development and proprietary development are done are quite dramatically different.

In this article, I’m going to talk about what problems the typical FOSS method can face when open source products are integrated within enterprise environments. I will then go on to talk about two different companies, and how they address some of these issues.

Monolithic Releases

The trend in proprietary software development is to release relatively infrequently, but when you do, to provide a massive update. One of the most obvious examples here would be Microsoft and their development cycle with Windows.

It took them about 5 years to push out Vista following XP, and when they did, they had changed an awful lot between the releases. You could argue this example is a little extreme, but bear with me.

“Release early, release often”

Now contrast with the trend for free software/open source development. Ubuntu recently pushed out their Hardy Heron release. Ubuntu follows a 6-month release cycle, and apart from a minor blip pushing Dapper Drake back by two months a couple of years ago, they have kept to that well.

In contrast to the changes between XP and Vista, relatively little changes between Ubuntu releases.

This concept of ‘release often, release early’ that is so pervasive in the FOSS world has been written about in Eric S Raymond’s The Cathedral and the Bazaar (very interesting read, if you’re in to that sort of thing by the way).

Potential Problems for Enterprise Adoption

These frequent release cycles and constant wave of small changes to open source products can cause issues in the business environment.

Read the rest of Enterprise FOSS Adoption

An Amazing Mind, which subtitles itself as a psychology, self-improvement and Linux blog, has a very interesting post which talks about Linux, and people’s motivations to use it.

We tell people we use Linux because it’s secure. Or because it’s free, because it’s customizable, because it’s free (the other meaning), because it has excellent community support…

…

But deep underneath, the real reason remains.

We use Linux because it’s fun!

It’s fun to tinker with your system. It’s fun to change all the settings, break the system, then have to go to recovery mode to repair it. It’s fun to have over a hundred distros to choose from. It’s fun to use the command line.

For people like me and many other ‘enthusiasts’, this is probably a big part of the reason. The article doesn’t make the important distinction, however, between these people and people/businesses who use Linux purely for functional reasons.

Read the rest of Why do you really use Linux?

Ars Technica is reporting that the Motion Picture Association of America have been hit with a DMCA takedown notice after offering a download of an Ubuntu-based networking monitoring tool without source code, a direct violation of the GPL.

The MPAA software was supposedly designed to assist universities in detecting people using software to download and share copyrighted material and was apparently based on the Ubuntu Linux distribution.

The obvious irony here is that in trying to distribute a piece of software designed to prevent copyright infringement, the MPAA have - infringed copyright by breaking the GPL licence. Leaving that irony aside for a moment though, and it’s clear that Matthew Garret, who filed the DMCA takedown on behalf of the Ubuntu team, is sending out a clear message - that GPL violation is exactly the same as violating any other copyright.

Those who aren’t fans of the free software/open source movement often cite their doubt as to whether the GPL is enforceable, especially when you are dealing with individuals rights, who don’t necessarily have the legal resources to chase up all possible violators. In this case, the MPAA obviously realised that not complying was definitely not an option, as the commercial arms involved in Ubuntu (and possibly others) would have piped up and put pressure on them.

Would this have happened with a small GPL’d project with limited resources, however, if a similar violation happened? It’s not really an easy question to answer, although there are efforts such as GPL Violations to raise awareness of smaller violations of this nature.

Enforcing the licences is definitely important. It’s important to send the message out to potential exploiters that there are consequences for not following those terms.