By announcing that it has open-sourced its Launchpad project under the Affero GPL version 3, a year after rumors swirled that it would, has Canonical licensed away one of its best revenue opportunities?
Roughly two years ago, I walked up London's High Road from Seven Sisters Tube Station with Mark Shuttleworth, founder of Canonical and the popular Ubuntu Linux distribution. Mark and I talked about a range of things, but one of the things that particularly caught my attention was Launchpad, a collaboration and hosting platform for open-source projects that makes it easy to track code, ideas, and other things across projects.
Then, as now, Launchpad struck me as a fertile field for Canonical to discover a scalable, winning business model to support Ubuntu development. In fact, I remember a long conversation with open-source guru Larry Augustin about Launchpad. Augustin felt that there was a great business lurking in Launchpad.
I agreed.
While I can see how "opening up Launchpad gives the free-software world the beginnings of an open, programmatic interface to its own infrastructure," as Canonical speculates, I'm struggling to see how it helps Canonical make money. Any chance of directly monetizing Launchpad is effectively gone now.
That, of course, may not be the point. Canonical has been experimenting with other models, including hosted services that may well be augmented by this move.
As RedMonk analyst James Governor suggests, "(It may be) possible to make money as a tools company, without owning the runtime, if you offer hosting for the apps. IDE (integrated development environment) + cloud = dollars." Open source may help to make Launchpad more widely used, which, in turn, better positions it to be a Canonical-sponsored on-ramp to the Canonical-monetized cloud.
Not a bad idea. (Certainly better than the apperi-sponsored Ubuntu application store, as reported by The VAR Guy.)
It does suggest, however, that Canonical may be placing a lot of eggs in the cloud basket, a basket that has yet to prove that it can deliver solid, consistent returns to software companies. It comes with its own baggage, as Jonathan Zittrain writes).
Time will tell if the cloud can feed Canonical's employees. But Shuttleworth isn't the sort of person to do something just because all the "in" kids are open-sourcing these days. Licensing Launchpad under the AGPL version 3 is a calculated move. We just don't know what the calculus will yield quite yet.
Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.
First it was the Affero General Public License that Google banned from its Google Code site, an open-source code hosting site. Google contended that it didn't want to encourage license proliferation by accepting projects using licenses that don't have widespread use and acceptance.
This week, however, Google nixed a highly popular, important license license: Mozilla Public License.
Google's Chris DiBona played the proliferation card again against the MPL, but also admitted that how Google determines whether a license is suitably popular is "so arbitrary." Great. That makes me feel better. At least there's a clear criterion for deciding. Not.
While some projects have moved away from the MPL in recent years, it remains one open source's standard licenses. I've got to think this has more to do with MPL derivatives (It's no secret that DiBona disliked the "badgeware" licenses that derived from the MPL) and their potential impact on Google's ability to consume their code, just as with the Affero GPL, than with any respect for license proliferation.
If it were about proliferation, Google would settle on GPL/LGPL, BSD/Apache, and MPL. Between those, most licensing preferences would be covered. By leaving out the MPL, however, Google has mistakenly dumped the baby with the bath water.
Google apparently likes open source that lets it "borrow" open-source software while giving comparatively little back, and always on Google's terms. While I think Google has been doing better of late vis-a-vis open source, its policy of blocking projects from its Google Code forge that are licensed under the AGPL is wrong and a betrayal of the open-source principles it claims to respect and approve.
As Google's Chris DiBona says,
In fact we do not support the AGPL on code.google.com....It is also not okay to host an AGPL covered program on code.google.com by saying it is GPL, as you are telling the users of the site one thing, while meaning something else altogether. So sadly, the answer is to remove your project and host somewhere else like sf or savannah.
Well, no, Chris, AGPL is not "meaning something else altogether." It actually means precisely what the GPL was always intended to mean: Reciprocity. It is likely true that Google doesn't like that reciprocity requirement, but that's "something else altogether."
What is the AGPL? It's the Affero General Public License, and finishes the job that GPLv3 was supposed to do: Broaden the definition of "distribution" enough to keep Web freeriders like Google, Digg, etc. from using open-source code without contributing back.
... Read moreOne of open source's biggest failings has been to extend its relevance into the Software as a Service world. The OSI has finally corrected this with the approval of the Affero GPL.
Fabrizio Capobianco, CEO of mobile open-source company Funambol, has been the most ardent crusader for development and approval of a license like the AGPL. In a blog posting, he talks through the importance of the AGPL, and identifies perhaps its biggest opponent: Google.
In GPL v2, those who ran open source software in a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) environment, and modified the open source code, were not required to return the changes back to the community....For me, this has always been one of the worst risks for open source oblivion. If you can take and you do not give back, defeating the copyleft concept, you kill open source. The ASP loophole is the cancer of open source.... ... Read more
Mark Radcliffe is one of the industry's preeminent open source attorneys. He's the one I went to a few years back when I was considering starting my own open source startup. I have a huge amount of respect for him.
All of which makes his commentary on GPLv3 hearty, worthwhile reading. Mark calls out the need for an update to GPLv2 first:
The final version of the General Public License Version 3 ("GPLv3") published on June 29th is a significant improvement over General Public License Version 2 ("GPLv2") and deserves to have broad acceptance. In fairness to GPLv2, the GPLv2 was drafted in 1991: both the law relating to software and the manner in which software is developed and distributed has changed significantly since 1991.
But he doesn't end there. ... Read more
- prev
- 1
- next
