March 2008 Archives

I'm in the lucky position that I get to work on open-source software for a living. Not only that, but I work with a group of people who really believe in open-source software as more than just an alternate business strategy -- it's a philosophy that benefits everyone involved.

OpenNMS is completely open-source. There's no whacky $50-per-node "enterprise" version with extra features -- we put it all out there, and we stake our reputations on being the people you contact when you need something more than community support on the mailing list. The code is open, and anyone can become an OpenNMS consultant if they want. To survive as a services company, we have to be good at what we do, and not just keep the code hostage and force customers to go through us to get things done. We have to work our butts off to remain the go-to experts on OpenNMS.

That's what makes it frustrating when we see our code, and the code of lots of other contributors appear to be misused. The whole point of the GPL is that everyone benefits from improvements made to the codebase; taking that code and integrating it into a proprietary product goes against the letter as well as the intent of the project.

So on that note, it's official, we've retained Moglen Ravicher, LLC (an arm of the Software Freedom Law Center) to represent us regarding potential GPL violations in Cittio's Watchtower.

Obviously, since lawyers are now involved, there's a whole lot we can't say; it's their job to talk to Cittio and, if it comes to it, the courts, to prove our case. What I can say is, while I'm sad that it's come to this, I'm glad that we've decided to take the plunge and not just "Do No Evil" as Google says, but "Do the Right Thing" and defend our code and the community's code.

I am honored, giddy, and totally stoked to announce that OpenNMS was accepted into the Google Summer of Code 2008!

The student application process starts next Monday, March 24th, so there's still time to get prepped, and suggest some ideas for projects on our wiki, or even get a head start on getting involved in the community and working on code.

Thanks again for everyone who's offered to mentor, come up with ideas, and volunteered their time!

In other news, we're gearing up for a 1.6 beta1 release hopefully sometime this week. We have a list of bugs we'd like to knock out before the beta, but many of those will probably fall through to the next beta milestone. Look forward to a release, there's a lot of good stuff getting cleaned up and fixed since 1.3.11!

My former employer, Motricity, finally officially announced laying off a boatload of people this morning.

I've weighed in quite a bit on Motricity and their baffling business strategies on the MocoNews post that talked about rumors of layoffs; going by what most of us former employees have said, this has been expected for a looooooong time.

Best wishes go out to all of those affected by layoffs; I still know a few folks who have stuck around this long; they should be at least expecting a nice severance package and some time to look for something new. I worked with plenty of very talented people there who I expect will be able to get back on their feet pretty quick.

Good luck to all!

So Tarus posted about Cittio and their potential GPL violations last night, and it made Slashdot this morning. Once again I was reminded why I haven't read Slashdot comments for a number of years. ;)

It all boils down to a bunch of people saying:

1. "OMG Get a lawyer!!!!"
2. "It's the GPL, you're not a customer, they don't have to tell you anything! Shut up!" ...and...
3. "DUDE. They totally say they use OpenNMS RIGHT HERE!"

Yes, they do mention OpenNMS on that page. They also say they use OpenNMS 1.0.2 which is either unfortunate for them, or very likely modified in a way that doesn't appear to be communicated to customers.

By the time I posted a response clarifying things, it was too late and it's buried way deep in the comments, so I would like to reiterate it here:

"So what's all this then?"

Well, that link says they're running OpenNMS 1.0.2, which, given the questions Cittio employees have asked on the OpenNMS mailing lists in the past, seems very unlikely (although technically possible). If they *are* using 1.0.2, they very likely *have* made modifications, 'cause that code has plenty of bugs that have been fixed in later OpenNMS releases. ;)

One thing that Tarus didn't really mention is that we (The OpenNMS Group) have had a few folks come to us wanting quotes to compare us to Cittio, and they've been rather surprised that Cittio is in fact already using OpenNMS under the covers. The problem is not with them using OpenNMS, OpenNMS is all about sticking not only to the letter but also the spirit of the GPL, and they can do whatever they want with it as long as they're complying with the distribution requirements of the license. The problem is whether Cittio *is* upholding their side of the GPL, and it's unclear whether they are -- and there are some signs that they might not be.

As for them not having to offer the source until they distribute the software, yes, that's true, but from what we've heard from existing Cittio customers, that is not being made clear to them. Not only that, but while the wording of the GPL may not make it obvious, the FAQ does:

The difference between this and "incorporating" the GPL-covered software is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The substantive part is this: if the two programs are combined so that they become effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing.

If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two separate programs--but you have to do it properly. The issue is simply one of form: how you describe what you are doing. Why do we care about this? Because we want to make sure the users clearly understand the free status of the GPL-covered software in the collection.

It seems likely that they've incorporated OpenNMS into their software at a lower-level than just screen-scraping it's output and stuffing it into their own UI. At that point, they should be prepared to provide the modified OpenNMS source to their customers. Not only that, but considering how tough companies are on open-source developers accidentally "tainting" open-source code with IP from their closed-source employers, it's more than a tad annoying that many closed-source companies taking advantage of open-source software are happy to use it, but ignore the spirit of sharing that is part of being in the community. "We won't say anything, but if you do ask us for the source, we'll fax it to you." ;)

Again, all this is unproven, and they've not been terribly responsive to private inquiries on the matter, and that's part of the reason Tarus posted, the question is -- what's the next step?

Update: Tarus also weighed in on the slashdot stuff here.