1 / 24

IPMA Forum 2006 Open Source Discussion

IPMA Forum 2006 Open Source Discussion. Stuart McKee National Technology Officer Microsoft Corporation May 23, 2006. Discussion points. Software Licensing Software Business Model Software Development. Market Overview IT Industry Trends. Everyone agrees on one thing: the move to x86

phong
Download Presentation

IPMA Forum 2006 Open Source Discussion

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IPMA Forum 2006Open Source Discussion Stuart McKee National Technology Officer Microsoft Corporation May 23, 2006

  2. Discussion points • Software Licensing • Software Business Model • Software Development

  3. Market OverviewIT Industry Trends • Everyone agrees on one thing: the move to x86 • Price/performance and flexibility driving change • Intel and IA HW vendors realizing gains • Focus on security • Increasing pressures to do more with less • Broad web services movement • 24x7 availability essential in a global economy

  4. Software Licensing

  5. Software Licensing There is a lot of confusion about the actual meaning of Open Source software. • Several Models: • Commercial Software Development (CSD) Model • Open Source Licenses • Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) License • GNU General Public License (GPL) • GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL)

  6. Some Important QuestionsYou Should Have Answers To • Have you had a legal review of the GPL (and the LGPL)? • How does your use of GPL software affect your intellectual property rights? • Are you using any software governed by the Lesser General Public License (LGPL) and, if so, how does that license affect your rights and obligations? • What is the difference between “mere aggregation of modules” and “combining multiple modules into one program”? • How does this affect your Intellectual Property?

  7. Microsoft Shared Source Initiative • Microsoft is sharing source code globally • 17 offerings, >1,500,000 developers, >60 countries • 12 of 17 programs allow modifications and distribution rights • Shared Source Licenses • Microsoft Permissive License (Ms-PL) • Microsoft Community License (Ms-CL) • Microsoft Reference License (Ms-RL) microsoft.com/sharedsource source@microsoft.com

  8. >80 MS projects • >600 non-MS projects • >2,000,000 developers • Support Customers • Enable New Developers • Facilitate Teaching & Research • Create Opportunities for Partners

  9. Business Model

  10. Reduced Complexity Quality Assurance Centralization Commercial support Predictability Timed release Stability increase Customizable Arbitrary testing Decentralization Community or self support High degree of variance Rapid Release Cycle Stability decrease Operating System Continuum BSDs Academic Commercial Desktop-focused Distros Integrated Flexible Non-Commercial Distros Commercial Distros Tradeoffs

  11. Customers Commercial Software Industry Intellectual Commons Governments The Software Ecosystem

  12. The Software Ecosystem • The importance of the software ecosystem • Basic research • IP rights • Applied research • Product Development • Economic growth, tax revenue, and commercial contributions • Benefits of a flexible ecosystem • Choice • Market pricing • Dialogue

  13. Thousands of applications 750,000 Microsoft partners More than 450,000 MCSE professionals More than 1.5M MCP certification holders 6M+ developers 2200 user groups 400 community web sites Largest ISV Community worldwide Greater choice at competitive prices for services, applications, and support Microsoft Ecosystem Thriving Global Ecosystem

  14. Development Model

  15. Snapshot of Top Contributors (September 2004) Redhat (4) • David Miller, Alan Cox, Dave Jones, Alex Viro IBM (1) • Greg Kroah-Hartman Novell (1) • Jaroslav Kysela SGI (1) • Christoph Hellwig ARM Limited (1) • Russel King OSDL (2) • Andrew Morton, Linus Torvalds, University of Iowa (1) • Kai Germaschewski Samba (1) • Anton Blanchard Linux kernel contributions Of top 12, 10 are commercial developers Top 100 = 84% of work Top12 = 44% • Most significant OSS trend over past 4 years • Corporate investment on every major OSS project • Production quality development, testing and ecosystem growth • Result: Greater choice, better technology, more services

  16. OSS TestingThe Many Eyes Theory Linus’ Law Many open-source products are successful because countless members of the periphery study the code, find faults, & suggest fixes OSS developers tend to focus on high-profile work • Coding vs. testing is more “fun” and receives more recognition in meritocracy • Community is leaning on commercial organizations to contribute testing • Result - concentration of testing focus and increased influence from corporate sponsors • Security testing in particular is difficult for community – quality of tester is everything Can Linus’ Law Keep Up With Linux? • Kernel 2.6.3 to 2.6.4 line changes - 192,361 added, 244,830 changed, & 143,740 deleted. (Source: http://www.linuxhq.com/kernel/) Limited core team resources and large code bases means that binary testing is most common. Fixes depend on time, commitment and testing of core teams. http://www.vuse.vanderbilt.edu/~srs/three.unexpected.ppt http://www.spindazzle.org/green/index.php?p=33

  17. >350,000,000 >390,000 Resellers 850,000 UU/mo (3,000 posts) Customers >375,000 500,000 UU/mo Services Partners Channel 9 Channel 9 >65,000 MSCOM Community Sites ISV Partners 4,000,000 PV/mo >16,000 bloggers 7,000,000 RSS/mo ASP.NET 250,000 UU/mo MSDN Blogs 177,000 UU/mo 450,000 UU/mo Newsgroups GDN Japan GotDotNet Sample of Communities @ • Community reaches beyond source code • Transparency and collaboration • Compelling technology is primary driver of interest

  18. Loosely Coupled (OSS) Technical Model R&D distributed: Maintainers, committers, community pyramid Volunteers, corporates All with different motives, objectives, ideas, with commonality in project Need ‘benevolent dictatorship’ Results distributed to free riders and participants Project-specific transparency Premium placed on standards for everything – multiparty agreements Business Model Software is secondary/ commodity Services are the core ‘product’ Original software motives, accountability, people, difficult to maintain Customer insists on project accountability via dependency on services agreements Tightly Coupled SW Technical Model Central R&D: Program managers, Development teams, Testers, Communities One company management chain Alignment determined by strength of management Results accrue to company Managed transparency Standards promote interoperability at key interfaces Business Model Software is core product Services are ancillary Aligned or not by interests of customers, shareholders, management Customer insists on project accountability via self service or commodity services Loosely Coupled vs. Tightly CoupledCommercial Development

  19. What’s the point?

  20. It’s About ChoiceEach Choice Has Implications Development Choices Language Community Source model Platform Open source Shareware Freeware Commercial A combination of different models Distribution Choices Traditional commercial licenses GPL Public domain BSD, Shared Source Licenses Licensing Choices Services Packaged software Aggregate “distributions” Appliances Hardware Business Choices

  21. Total Value Equation Ask the Questions, Do the Analysis • Total Costs • Total Benefits • Product Development and Testing process • Community • Interoperability, compatibility • Ecosystem • Licensing, Indemnification • Servicing and Patching • Support, Accountability • Roadmap for improvement, relevant innovation Unique Community Balance The Benefits Merits not Mandates; Value not Ideology

  22. Procurement Policy • Technology leadership • Merits, not mandates • Government funded research • Platform-neutral standards • Intellectual property protections

More Related