Web Services and Open Source at OSCON 77
I spend a lot of time with my head buried in code, and every time I pick my head up it feels like the future is closer than I thought. So I like coming to OSCON. A week of looking ahead leaves me more confident I won't get future shock anytime soon. OSCON, like all conferences, is aimed at corporations, the intangible entities that send humans as their proxies. But open source has its roots in individuals working outside the corporation for their community of programmers. Are the two cultures coming together, or colliding? And how will the "open source ideal" evolve, as the chief social act of programming changes from trading disks of source code to processing each others' data and mashing up web APIs?
I'm an open-source programmer who's lucky enough to be paid by a corporation. Between sessions this week I'm working on turning Slash's metamoderation into a plugin, making Slash more useful for other site admins. I'm a human first and employee second. And I'm concerned about how the community based around this software ideal of not welding shut the car's hood is going to hold together.
Markets aren't designed for goods with zero cost of reproduction, but because property is such a powerful tool for efficiency and prosperity, societies have been artificially constructing markets for creative works since even before the founders wrote up their support for "science and the useful arts." Often, markets in ideas work pretty well.
There have been three societal "bow shocks" in the collision between programming and capitalism. The first hit in 1976 when Bill Gates insisted that charging for software made sense. The second was in the late 90s when open source proved better than corporate hierarchy at certain types of development. And then there's the one that's about to hit now, when web services and interoperability concerns obviate open source licenses.
There's a growing understanding here that web services are big: that the laptops and desktops of the future will rely not on software goods that have been bought for those machines, but software services that run on a server a thousand miles away. Google calls its Ajax web services "the world's largest platform."
Yesterday, Tim O'Reilly hosted a stimulating all-day series of panels and talks on web services and "Web 2.0" generally. The most interesting part of the discussion was about tying web services together. Web mashups are hot. It's hard to look at a list of websites offering an API -- Google Maps, Yahoo Geocoding, eBay, craigslist, Flickr, YouTube -- and not start thinking about great ways to combine them. Interoperability plus programming creativity equals... well, something pretty neat, we're hoping.
But a web services API doesn't necessarily offer the freedom that might seem analogous to open source, which is why Tim is also putting out the call for an "open services" definition. Flickr offers its corporate API to some sites, and refuses to permit it to others. Zooomr was judged to be too much of a potential competitor, so Zooomr users don't get to copy the photos they've uploaded to Flickr. [Update: Sorta. Read that comment thread to see important context for Flickr's decision. To be clear, given that context, Tim thinks Flickr found a good answer, and I tend to agree.]
As Flickr says, and they have a very good point, "why should we burn bandwidth and CPU cycles sending stuff directly to [a potential competitor's] server?" That makes sense from a corporate point of view, but a user who's uploaded a thousand of their photos might be puzzled why it's no longer exactly "their" data. Is that a right that user should have, or not? I ran into Julian Cash, who vehemently argues that it is; he's started MoveMyData.org to try to build a client-side way for users to route around APIs, to suck down "their" data and maybe reupload it to other sites. No code yet, but he's looking for volunteers.
AttentionTrust goes even further, starting off its manifesto with "you own your attention and can store it wherever you wish." That's something I hadn't considered before but it has an interesting ring to it. They have a Firefox extension I haven't tried yet (does it work? post comments).
Interoperability is a concern even without the web. Yesterday morning, Danese Cooper got a half-hour to grill Bill Hilf, Microsoft's General Manager of Platform Strategy, on Microsoft's relationship with open-source. Some think that's the same relationship as the butcher to the hog, and Bill's job is to persuade them Microsoft has no such intentions.
Asked directly, in the context of embrace-extend-extinguish and web APIs that can be crushed at any time, "why should we trust Microsoft?", Bill's answer was to look at the company's actions: "consistent action, over time, in the right direction."
I sat down with him afterwords to probe into this a little more (with someone from Waggener Edstrom standing nearby). He has some examples of Microsoft working with open-source projects like JBoss and SugarCRM, but I asked for specifics of how we know Microsoft isn't going to try to kill more-directly competing projects like Mono or OpenOffice by eliminating interoperability, possibly with patents, at any random time in the future. The only real sign I got was the Covenant Not to Sue (over patents) that came with the OpenXML format earlier this year. That's a step in the right direction. I don't think it's a terribly big one.
I asked if we'd see more steps from Microsoft disavowing patents as weapons against open-source projects. Obviously that's a big risk for a company to take, but one that's probably necessary to convince skeptics Microsoft is friendlier than the butcher. While Bill couldn't make any promises, he affirmed the CNS was "not a one-off... and not just to placate people." I'll keep an eye out for more action in the right direction.
Exciting as the opportunities are for different projects' software working together, one thing's for sure: the remote sites that run their algorithms and store your data leapfrog open source licensing. The server a thousand miles away can run software with its hood welded shut, with no obligations to the open-source community that come along with the benefits. Today, while some companies are trying to build goodwill with that community, there is nothing like a GPL for web services. No one's discovered a legal foundation that would establish open services, openly shared web services, with the same kinds of rights that we insist on in open-source code. No one's even sure what "open services" might mean, indeed, there's no consensus that we even need such a thing.
Even the FSF is unable to decide how v3 of the GPL should read. And I'm not smart enough to know if the GPL is even the right tool for this. Maybe tacking clever licensing terms on top of copyright's restriction is a temporary hack whose time has passed (you know, like the RIAA). Maybe the next hack to build a community of software sharing and tinkering will have to be totally different.
I don't think I know the answers but maybe one of you does. If you have thoughts about the open-source community in the age of capitalism, please post them to this story. If you're at OSCON and want to chat about it, email me (or AIM 'jamiekzoo' if you catch me online). At the end of the week, I'll have more updates on what's happening here -- it's not all philosophy and futurism.
New discovery? (Score:2, Funny)
The future can be no closer than the next Planck moment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time [wikipedia.org]), unless you have a new discovery you would like to share;-)
grrr (Score:1, Insightful)
It doesn't relate to who can put information on the internet, because even if you said web 1.0 was elite users puting up content and web 2.0 is light users then surely geocities heralded web 2.0... and now with blog's and ultra easy updating we'd be at least on 3.0...
If
Re:grrr (Score:2)
- Wikipedia
Open Source (Score:4, Insightful)
It's easy to confuse the success of open source with the degree of its acceptance and promotion within the business world. The ideal has always been to find some means of getting paid for developing software you can share for free.
But the strength of open source has always been in its community of people with common goals who develop and exchange software freely. Perhaps this will include the WWW; perhaps not. It's worth noting that most of the problems open source faces have come with its commercial acceptance -- legal threats, negative PR, unreasonable support demands -- and it's probable that if open source is not at the forefront of the next IT fad it'll simply grow in a different direction.
Re:Open Source (Score:2)
Conversely some of open source's greatest successes have come from its commercial acceptance. OpenOffice and the growth of commercial Linux distros have definitely aided the movement. I never would have considered using anything other than MSFT Office until OoO 2.0 was released. Now I use that program and love it.
Employment terms discourage open-source dev (Score:3, Interesting)
I dislike this very much in principle and also because it forces me to contribute anonymously, where possible.
I believe open-source is the best thing that could have happened to software to benefit users of software and help make computing a more popular interest.
I wish I could work for Canonical. Mr Shuttleworth, I've sent my CV. Please consider it!
Re:Employment terms discourage open-source dev (Score:1)
Re:Employment terms discourage open-source dev (Score:2, Informative)
Superseded (Score:1)
Superseded is the appropriate word regarding California law and employment contracts.
Re:Employment terms discourage open-source dev (Score:2)
-Rick
Re:Employment terms discourage open-source dev (Score:2)
Everybody wins
Re:Employment terms discourage open-source dev (Score:3, Insightful)
Your employer wouldn't want to get in a big GPL lawsuit just because you send in a patch to your favorite project.
IANAL, but I want to warn against this way of thinking.
Let's suppose his company actually holds the copyright of a patch he sent to the FreeFoo project. Now the FreeFoo project (and everyone distributing it) is infringing the copyright, unless they can argue that he was actually acting on behalf of the company when he donated the code. That is surely not made any easier by the fact that he
Re:Employment terms discourage open-source dev (Score:2)
If he is contributing something, technically based on his contract all of his contributions are owned by his employer. GPL based or not, that company could possibly stak
Re:Employment terms discourage open-source dev (Score:2)
Now if you write some software completely in house, and then
Re:Employment terms discourage open-source dev (Score:2)
However, if your program links against libreadline (say), then your employer is required by law to GPL the entire program
But wouldn't you want to ask your employer before including "virally" licensed code like that? If you didn't he'd probably be rather pissed. (I would be.)
In any case that's not really the situation he describes. As I understand the situation one could claim that since he's acting alone, and knowingly against his contract, the company has not actually distributed the hypothetical Fre
Re:Employment terms discourage open-source dev (Score:1)
Re:Employment terms discourage open-source dev (Score:2)
Is a contract such as that legal where you live? Enforcable/binding?
I've never worked where there was such a contract 'forced down your throat'. I can understand an employer not wanting an employee working on a competing product. But other then that, what they apparently have had you sign is ridiculous and should not be, in my world, bi
grad school (Score:1)
Re:grad school (Score:2)
I personally intend on releasing the "channels" architecture for Java that I developed during my masters degree, which encourages strict partitioning of threads (almost as entirely separate processes) on sourceforge, however I will have to get the permission of my former advisor (should not be a problem, it's nothing worth any money, just somet
Re:grad school (Score:3, Insightful)
It would be different if you had a contract as an assistent or something. But even with my current employer I can freely contribute code made under work if the project is
Re:grad school (Score:1)
The age of Web Services (Score:3, Interesting)
APIs can be a double edged sword if you're a company (Flickr for example)
Re:The age of Web Services-and free speech. (Score:1)
Re:The age of Web Services (Score:2)
I'm not so sure - APIs come with usage restrictions, and we really need usage licenses, similar to GPL/BSD/CC licenses to ensure that information produced by these APIs can be freely used/distributed.
We DO need a 'GPL' for Web Services (Score:3, Interesting)
Not necessarily. A company can make it so their web service is in fact free, but will only run using (say) Internet Explorer. Being a web service doesn't stop you from vendor-locking. So you give out a free web service, and make money from selling the only OS that it can be used with.
What we need are unified standards for content transfer and the movement of data cross-services.
I agree. But in addition to that we need to prevent vendor lock-in, as I said
Re:We DO need a 'GPL' for Web Services (Score:1)
Your definition of web service is diffrent from mine. Web Services are Web-based APIs, most often using SOAP.
Re:We DO need a 'GPL' for Web Services (Score:2)
Re:We DO need a 'GPL' for Web Services (Score:2)
There are dozens and dozens of XUL projects that only work with Mozilla/Firefox.
Re:We DO need a 'GPL' for Web Services (Score:2)
You're right, and perhaps I shouldn't have used 'GPL' in my post (even though I did put it in scare-quotes, in the title at least). My point was that we need some sort of 'honorable pact' that web services should uphold.
Re:Mod parent down! (Score:2)
There was really no need for you to write
"He's commenting on something he doesn't even understand."
, I don't think.
Re:The age of Web Services (Score:2)
Re:In this these times (Score:2)
Mashups (Score:4, Insightful)
I will never trust a mashup as much as I would trust the originating websites. How do I know you aren't altering the data from the Sexual Predators Database to include your ex-husband? How do I know that you aren't filtering eBay auctions to remove auctions that don't fit your political beliefs? Sure, I can go look for the data, but with API license restrictions, I may not be able to access the information myself.
Re:Mashups (Score:2)
That's a very, very interesting point. One way to solve this would be for the server code to be open sourced, allowing it to be replicated on other sites. Another would be cryptographic signing of records from the source APIs, which can be used to verify their authenticity on the client side.
Re:Mashups (Score:2)
Yes, but you still don't know what of the source has been patched, unless you've got admin access.
mashups (Score:4, Interesting)
Some links of interest:
API list is here. [programmableweb.com]
GPS Tracking demo here. [mindspring.com]
Map projects at Google Mapki. [mapki.com]
Recent Earthquakes here. [lessthanthree.us]
Free thought's not free (Score:3, Funny)
Since when I checked the page for directions, and saw the hefty price just to get past the exibit hall. Over a $1000 just to see anything interesting. Open source must now also mean open wallet.
Re:Free thought's not free (Score:2)
Re:Free thought's not free (Score:1)
Re:Free thought's not free (Score:1)
OSCON Exhibit Hall passes are free [oreillynet.com].
Re:Free thought's not free (Score:1)
Barrier to API Exposure? (Score:2)
Personally I see nothing wrong with this, but will this prevent some companies from releasing their API? Flickr seemed to have an interesting solution to the problem of API release, in that it would share its photos with other sites if and only if they shared theirs back...
blah blah (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a growing understanding here that web services are big: that the laptops and desktops of the future will rely not on software goods that have been bought for those machines, but software services that run on a server a thousand miles away.
Maybe it's because I've been in this business a couple decades now, but I'm having trouble getting excited about Yet Another Paradigm Shift. Computing power has been oscillating between the endpoints and the central servers for a long time. In a few years, we'll see if shift back.
But a web services API doesn't necessarily offer the freedom that might seem analogous to open source,
This of course is why we'll see things shift back. Another reason is security. Do you really want to put your personal finances on Spreadsheet 2.0?
Just like everything else in the computer world, you gotta study Web 2.0, digest it, see how it's just a reconfiguration of something you did 10 years ago, and move on.
Re:blah blah (Score:2)
Thin clients are better for such things. A centralised installation and a remote display. Thin clients can vary from VT100 to intelligent sunrays, so you don't need to worry about processing power either. Why waste money on those power hungry CPUs and hard disks all over the place, w
APIs we'd like to see? (Score:3, Interesting)
Doc Searls? Is that you? (Score:1)
It seems to me that the answer lies with people of the same type and caliber as those who made open-source what it is. We don't know them, yet. They may not know who they are or what they will become. However, over the next few years they will distinguish themselves. They are the guys and gals who see the challenge represented in jamie's post and immediately start thinking of it with some unique perspective. Then they will think some more, and think and
Re:Doc Searls? Is that you? (Score:2)
Re:Doc Searls? Is that you? (Score:2)
Or download a video (or podcast) of it?
After shelling out the $ to attend the sessions, I would hope they'd do this.
A clarification on Mono (Score:3, Informative)
Mono doesn't 'compete' with a MS product. Mono allows
-Rick
Re:A clarification on Mono (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A clarification on Mono (Score:2)
-Rick
Re:A clarification on Mono (Score:2)
Re:A clarification on Mono (Score:2)
Mono helps
-Rick
Re:A clarification on Mono (Score:1)
Yeah, because a webserver is soooo useful without a web browser.
Correction: Flickr did open to Zooomr. (Score:5, Informative)
Flickr ended up, after some rough comments and self-reflection, changing their minds [techcrunch.com] (see the "Update:" at the bottom of the post).
Re:Correction: Flickr did open to Zooomr. (Score:3, Informative)
Fr1st iM p0st (Score:2)
I can already see your IM Client choking on the "Fr1st iM p0st" storm that is sure to follow.
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/ [digitalelite.com]
Re:Fr1st iM p0st (Score:2)
Re:Fr1st iM p0st (Score:1)
"Conventions"? Easy money! (Score:2)
These conventions are not about sharing information. They are about selling "key speakers" to HRM departments of devevelopers in big businesses who like to get away from things. It's a selling trick. I don't know why any non corporate open source developer would pay that amount of money, so O'Reilly can become even richer, the same key speakers from the ol' boys network get richer, and the talk is all yada yada, mostly repeated what has been said on the net alrea
Re:"Conventions"? Easy money! (Score:1)
Re:"Conventions"? Easy money! (Score:2)
Re:"Conventions"? Easy money! (Score:1)
Problem started with Bill Gates? (Score:1)
Re:Problem started with Bill Gates? (Score:1)
I think I have the answer (Score:1)
my point of view is posted (Score:1)