News 

We caught up with OSDL Marketing Director Nelson Pratt on a recent visit to the UK to talk all things Open Source.

Building membership

Currently the OSDL enjoys a wealth of support from chip and system vendors, as well as platform builders and operating systems, but Pratt said there were still names missing from the member list. 'Now we want the application vendors.' He said it is no secret that 'we want Oracle and SAP... There are discussions about them joining. [But] both feel that they already have a solid Linux strategy. They feel that they already have access to all the key players. So they've done a fine job on their own'.

However, he still feels that Oracle and SAP could benefit greatly from joining the OSDL, not least for access to 'a premier virtual table at which they can sit to hash out joint problems' with other vendors.

Pratt said that the OSDL had an open attitude to companies joining - even Redmond has been in contact. 'There has been communication between the OSDL with some of the senior guys at Microsoft,' he said, although not yet on any formal basis.

As a proponent of Linux in the enterprise, there is clearly plenty that large commercial companies can take from the OSDL, but how well are small software houses served? Pratt said that the OSDL now operates a forum for ISVs. While not as high-profile as its Working Groups, the ISVs are better served by a forum as anyone can participate without having to be a fully paid up member.

But that doesn't mean that the OSDL isn't serious about ISVs. 'OSDL is focussed like a laser beam in 2005,' said Pratt of the commitment to small ISVs.

He said the OSDL has already hosted three such seminars and has had a 'good response'.

Staying power

When the OSDL was first founded four years ago, it had a clear role as the 'centre of gravity' for enterprise Linux, embarking on public campaigns to evangelise the technology and subsequently counting Linux luminaries Linus Torvalds and Andrew Morton among its staff. But with the ever expansive reach of Linux and the growing familiarity of enterprise companies with the technology, that role is changing. As Pratt noted, Oracle and SAP haven't even felt the urge to join up. Is the OSDL's job already done?

'Right now, I would characterize the OSDL as an advocacy forum,' said Pratt. However, he added that this was changing. 'It has to evolve or become irrelevant.'

He looked to the changing nature of the long-established Object Management Group for comparison. 'The OMG reached stasis point,' said Pratt. 'So it morphed into a services-focussed organisation, servicing its members. The OSDL probably needs to look at a similar model and may become more focussed on its members in future.'

And if it doesn't make itself relevant to a broader spectrum of potential Linux users - which it is trying to do - is there a danger that it will end up the puppet of a few massive IT companies that were there at the beginning?

'The safeguard is the open source process,' said Pratt. 'You have to respect the GPL or whatever Open Source licence you are using. If you can't do that you have to reject Linux. This is what prevents someone hijacking Linux.

'Additionally, on that note

ADVERTISEMENT

of becoming a puppet, members of the OSDL are not allowed to use our name. There is no endorsement or marketing through the OSDL.'

There are of still plenty of commercial areas in which Linux needs to get some traction, and plenty for the OSDL to do.

Pratt said the adoption base is 'not as large as it needs to be,' with particular areas not having taken as well to the technology as others. Consultant and business services were one sector he picked out: 'The likes of CapGemini and Accenture are not as Linux-savvy as they could be,' he said.

Pratt put this down more to 'a lack of understanding of the open-source licence,' than the service and support issues so often cited by Linux detractors. So the OSDL's role here remains 'education heavy'.

Moving Linux to 'mission critical'

In terms of how Linux is being used, the picture is also not yet complete. But if critics claim that Linux is not yet ready for mission-critical computing, they're missing the point. 'Linux is being deployed deeper into the data centre,' said Pratt. 'We're not saying Linux has to be everywhere. But it is appropriate for many many workloads. Right now, we believe deployment of Linux should be systematic rather than universal.'

Where Linux is evolving to suit 'mission-critical' demands is the way in which major IT giants are backing the technology. In backing essentially two distributions of the technology for commercial purposes - from Red Hat and Novell - there may be a danger of eroding the current ecosystem of multifarious distributions on offer. But this is essential to offer the kind of support and value demanded at an enterprise level.

'We believe that value is a great trade off between choice and innovation and worth,' said Pratt. 'If you need that one place to go [for support], there are ways to cope with that ... We're seeing very different models. I think we'll see some of the big companies like HP and IBM step in to mimic that proprietary structure with some alternative coping strategies ... But many enterprises don't face that hurdle.'

Tried and tested

The litigation efforts of SCO that have so far failed to cause Linux to wobble have also been a proving ground for the technology. 'I would say this has been phenomenally useful,' said Pratt. 'The amount of due diligence that users put themselves through in case they needed to defend themselves has been tremendous.

'It's now become clear that there's no meaningful difference between open source and proprietary software in terms of risk.'

The other aspect that has potentially negative implications for Open Source software is the issue of software patents. Different Open Source licences place different obligations on builders and subsequent users of code. The GPL, for example, explicitly demands that any patents included in such code be freely licensed. However, this makes it a tricky task writing GPL-compliant code in the US where patents are granted so liberally. Other Open Source licences are more forgiving, and Linux backers are moving mountains to take some of the legal worries off the backs of programmers.

The likes of IBM have donated hundreds of patents to Open Source, and Sun licenses its patent portfolio through its CDDL Open Source licence. But as more patents fall into the domain of free use for the community, it raises the question of who manages them. The OSDL has to be an obvious candidate.

'We've not been asked to be custodians of any patent pool,' said Pratt. 'We'd certainly consider it. But we support the idea irrespective of who it is. In fact I think it's inevitable that this evolves into some kind of patent commons.

'We think it's a good idea. But not for one commercial company. It would have to be the jurisdiction of an independent body ... so no, I wouldn't rule it out.'