Summary: The once-elusive war on software patents is finally leading to some breakthrough and even the Federal Circuit reinforces the trend of software patents’ demise
Software patents are gradually losing their grip on the industry, not just in the world at large but also in the US (genesis of software patents). A few days ago an interview was published in which Simon Phipps (OSI) spoke about the goal of eradicating software patents and explained the latest turn of events as follows: “The Supreme Court in their judgment created a very clear test to work out whether a software patent was going to be valid or not. What they said was that, they said that there could still be software patents, but that simply taking something that is not patent‑eligible like an algorithm and then claiming that it’s patentable because it runs on a computer is not sufficient to actually establish patentability.
“They said that to get a software patent, the software that you have has got to improve the computer significantly. Because of that, the standard for getting software patents has been dramatically increased by the Alice decision.
“The federal circuit court then referred to the Alice decision, and decided not even to proceed to find out if there had been infringement on the Digitech case because they declared that the image processing software was not a significant improvement to the computer. Rather, it was a computer implementing a non‑patent‑eligible technique.”
Based on the article “Appeals court knocks out computer bingo patents” and some that are citing it, yet another software patent has just dropped dead. “Silly software patents are finally on notice at the Federal Circuit,” says the summary and lawyers do some legal analysis (not challenging the ruling but interpreting it). Progressive sites like TechDirtuse a clever headline and say: “Another day, another story of stupid software patents getting stomped out of existence thanks to the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank ruling. As we’ve been noting, this ruling is looking like it’s going to invalidate a ton of software patents (and that’s a good thing). The latest one dumped was an attempt to patent bingo online. Yes, bingo. The lower court had already rejected the patent using previous Supreme Court rulings against patenting “abstract ideas.” Now, with the Alice ruling in hand, the Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) completed the stomping out of the bingo patent.”
Based on this same site, citing the post “Patent Troll Landmark Technology Sues eBay For Challenging Its Patents; EBay Responds With Anti-SLAPP Motion”, there is bullying over the suggestion that some patents need re-examining. To quote: “Over at Popehat, there’s a fascinating story about the depths to which patent trolls will go to “protect” their business models. The story involves Landmark Technologies, a troll we wrote about earlier this year for its rather aggressive take on patent trolling. Landmark holds patent 6,289,319: ‘Automatic Business and Financial Transaction Processing System.’ Or, as the EFF puts it more succinctly: paying with a credit card online. eBay recognized that Landmark’s trolling was bad news, and filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for a re-exam of three patents. The USPTO initially recognized eBay’s request, noting that there were “substantial” questions about the patentability in those patents. While it eventually left two of the patents alone, it dumped many of the claims in a third patent.”
There is a real opportunity here for change. Patents on software can now be eliminated. Rather than actively fight software patents Google is just promising not to sue. What a wasted opportunity and misguided strategy.
Back in 2013, Google announced its plans to not sue anybody who had implemented open-source versions of its MapReduce algorithm. Since then, the company has expanded what it calls its “Open Patent Non-Assertion Pledge” to a number of other patents. Today it is announcing its largest expansion of this program to date, with the addition of 152 additional patents. This brings the total number of patents included in this program to 245.
Google ought to do more to end software patents, not just acquire some and then promise not to sue.
On 13 September the new Patents Act will come into force – whether you’re ready for it or not. So, too, will the Patents Regulations 2014 which were ratified by an Order in Council on 11 August.
Everything, then, is set. This article thus serves as something of a recap on the extent of the changes under the new regime.
Many of the provisions of the new Act are the same as the current Patents Act 1953. There will then be some continuity for patentees and businesses. However, two very significant changes are being implemented which concern how IPONZ examiners consider patent applications and the limits placed on the patentability of software.
IPONZ examiners will shortly have to examine patent applications to determine whether the claims made in respect of, for example, a product involve “an inventive step”. The inclusion of the law of “inventive step” in the new Act represents a higher threshold for hopeful patentees to meet.
There was lobbying by proprietary software giants to bring software patents to this island, but they have not been exceptionally successful. This is of course good news that reminds us that the end of software patents as elusive as we once assumed it to be. █
COUPLE of days ago a company working on behalf of Red Hat contacted us, whereupon we asked for some answers from Red Hat. We are pleased to have received them from the company’s CEO, Jim Whitehurst. Here is the quick Q&A.
How has the economic climate affected Red Hat’s performance? Has it been beneficial?
Year to date through November 30, 2011 (three quarters) we have experienced rapid growth; revenue 26%, income from operations 42% and net income 50%. Historically, we have performed well in both up and down economic cycles.
There have been numerous reports recently about Red Hat’s expansion and relocations. How does Red Hat view the prospect of expanding in Europe, where software patents are less of a problem?
Red Hat is expanding globally, including in Europe, with more than 70 offices now in over 30 countries. Software patents are not a criteria in our expansion plans.
How can a community of Free/open source software enthusiasts ensure that Red Hat — a key developer of pertinent components of the GNU/Linux operating system — maintains growth?
Red Hat is responsible for Red Hat’s growth based on our own strategies and business plans. The open source community is important to us and we actively work to encourage, cultivate and grow the community, but only Red Hat can drive its growth.
Have CentOS, Scientific Linux, and Oracle had any noticeable impact on Red Hat’s ability to sell support contracts?
Posted in Interview at 3:49 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Interview about Free software, media, and patents (most of the information is still relevant but a tad outdated)
A couple of months ago I was approached by the editor of Muktware — a news site that I had followed since its early days because it didn’t mince words and it didn’t comply with the mindset of the “Wintel press”. Informal correspondence with Swapnil Bhartiya led to this interview and for those who read Techrights and never saw the interview, here is the communication in its raw form (pre-editing)
Can you tell us more about yourself, where you come from and your background?
Depending on the circumstance, the answer may vary. I am currently involved in a handful of activities, ranging from programming to fitness. But I see myself primarily as a science and technology person, whose main passion is commenting on what’s observable and explaining matters of interest to other people.
When was the first time you came to know about Free Software, what attracted you towards it?
I had used GNU/Linux my entire adult life, but GNU philosophy only came to my attention when I worked on a development project largely based on GTK and GNU tools. I was attracted to it for purely pragmatic reasons; it gave me a lot of freedom or control and later helped me a lot with my Ph.D.
You are more on the philosophy part of Free Software, are you a pragmatist or idealist?
A bit of both. These are not mutually-exclusive and those who claim otherwise are presenting us with a false dichotomy. My detractors paint me as an idealist, whereas in my technical writings I mostly emphasise the pragmatic benefits of sharing software (and keeping it in circulation rather than boxed).
There is a rift between RMS and Linus, when I met RMS I asked the reason he told me. What do you think is the bone of contention?
Linus Torvalds chose the GPL for pragmatic reasons, just as many (and perhaps most) Free/open source developers choose the GPL. It is a good licence that incentivises participation, protects the interests of developers, and arguably speeds up development by its nature of transparency maximisation. In my conversations with Torvalds the recurring argument had something to do with software patents and the GPLv3 — a subject that Dr. Richard Stallman is trying to tackle. Despite overlap among financial backers, Torvalds and Stallman have points where they disagree. They are finding ways to find the commonalities though and these days they hardly ever argue, and that is good news. Infighting between Linux and GNU is unfruitful.
How have you gotten involved with FOSS advocacy?
Advocacy started when I first re-entered USENET, partly as means of passing time while running some experiments or compiling code. It did not take long for me to join Linux newsgroups and help with technical issues. Soon thereafter the newsgroups’ participatents were harassed by anti-Linux trolls, who in turn led me to the Linux advocacy newsgroup where I got increasingly involved.
What was the inspiration and goal behind Boycott Novell? Did you run any project before that?
The site was intended to pressure Novell to revoke or gradually cancel its patent deal with Microsoft. That was back in earlier days, right after the deal had been signed and Bruce Perens set up a petition. In later days, as Novell was clearly not going to escape the commitment to hundreds of millions of dollars from Microsoft (in exchange for favours), we identified several other sources constituting a threat to GNU/Linux. Novell and software patents were primary among those (Microsoft recently got nearly 1,000 of Novell’s patents). Regarding projects, yes, I did run some projects before that.
When and why Boycott Novell transformed into TechRights, what is the new goal of the site?
In 2009 or thereabouts, following a DDOS attack that had us offline for several days, we were already focused on Microsoft more than we were focused on Novell. To properly operate and have an aptly-named ‘umbrella’ we needed to rethink the strategy. Some readers, however, insisted that we keep pressuring Novell as it was still a considerably serious threat. It wasn’t until a year later that a Novell sale seemed imminent, so we made the necessary changes and put Boycott Novell under the Techrights umbrella.
We write a lot about controversial issues (criticising Apple, MS, Oracle and Mono) and some friends call us biased, how do you see living with that tag?
“Biased” is a word people use to describe one whose convictions are strong and vocal. In order to appeal to the opposition and get one’s point across, one might choose to use subtleties and even humour, even for the mere appearance of being “objective” (“fair and balance” as Fox News laughably calls it). The art of communicating or engaging with those on the other side of the fence is a tricky one. But it can also be an exercise in futility when the ‘opposition’ of a dyed-in-the-wool proprietary software proponent, e.g. Microsoft MVP. People who call you “bias” to discredit a claim are probably not fence sitters, i.e. these are people whom you may never have been able to convince in the first place. The use of the word is a shrewd attempt to discourage fence sitters from assessing the opposing point of view. To be labeled “bias” may sometimes mean that you are effective at what you do. Being called “libelous” is another matter altogether.
What is your opinion about tech media houses. Do you think they present an unbiased picture?
That is a very broad subject which can take hours to tackle. I myself used to write for an online magazine (no longer published in paper form) and I saw how editors remove paragraphs that — while truthful — are not beneficial as means of attracting advertisers. It’s not that these were abrasive, it is just that they deal with criminal activity, which to many is the elephant in the room or even a taboo subject (associated high risk to one’s job).
A notable problem we have in the corporate media these days if that if it’s not profitable, it will perish, no matter the importance and accuracy of the expressed idea or the subject matter. When the media puts business before information, we become susceptible to biased priorities, which is also why we continue to have all sorts of disinformation outside the field of computing. If it sells (i.e. high ratings), it will get covered more, irrespective of accuracy or importance. Those who stick to the truth often fail to attract advertisers, writers, etc. and therefore they cannot survive and we never hear about them again.
One has to distinguish between something like an academic journal and a news journal like the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. Their paradigm is different and putting aside corruption at Elsevier (pharmaceutical companies planting papers in there, as though they are peer reviewed), the accuracy there is high and the revenue comes from reward for accuracy, which determines whether a library will stock it or pass it by, weather the impact factor (based on citations indices) will improve or drop to the levels corresponding to obscurity. There are many different approaches to selling bias (e.g. PR, lobbying) and also to providing alleged information (e.g. analyst reports, endorsements). One approach which we emulated when we sat on a pile of thousands of court documents showing Microsoft misconduct is the Groklaw-type approach. Then there is Wikileaks with its notion of “scientific journalism”, wherein it provides raw material (redacted nonetheless) to support the allegations, thus respecting the readers’ right to audit and validate what they are reading. A lot of news sites that emulate old-style newspapers (usually a succession) contain no bibliography, links, and not ever cross-citations that help verify the claims independently. They make poor use of hypertext and a vast web of knowledge. Sites must not be autonomous anymore; sharing is required for higher quality (sometimes referred to as open source intelligence of crowdsourcing).
Mainstream media is primarily Apple user and you can see influence, do you think that is wrong when they think the world starts and ends with “OMG I love my iPad”
Apple spends billions of dollars on advertising, in order to sell commodity at a highly inflated price. One way to perceptualise advertising is that a company pools some budget and then channels it down PR agencies, trickling this allocated sum all the way downwards to journalists and bloggers (e.g. free gadgets for ‘assessment’). The mainstream media (I call it corporate media) does a fantastic job given its goal, which is to increase its revenue. Some of the bribery of the media comes through advertising contracts, which are in some sense analogous to what came to be called the ‘”analyst tax” (a price to be paid to analysts to ensure they are on the payer’s side). The Techrights community has identified and amassed a large volume of hard evidence to solidify these claims. I recently had to confront IBM PR people on the phone for over an hour, as they too — just like Microsoft — try to seed positive coverage while not being visible to the outside world. The PR industry can truly corrupt investigative journalism sometimes, but then again, in academia it is grants of a commercial nature that often lead to similar corruption (strings attached explicitly or implicitly, through future prospects).
People must embrace critical thinking skills and always question what they are told, what vested interests are at play, and whether claims can actually be verified. These are often left hidden — an absence which endless repetition cannot compensate for. Over the years I have had to confront many PR agencies and sometimes reported them to the FTC, which needless to say only responds to a volume of complaints (based on their letter back to me). The FCC is equally clawless and toothless and it won’t do anything to challenge those who collude, bribe, and generally step out of line. By outsourcing these dubious activities — either to countries with weak regulations or to a peripheral agency — liability remains weak. It is essentially an exploitation of loopholes in the law and it’s everyone who suffers from it. I quite admire some nations’ regulations that ensure citizens remain well informed, but these nations are few and as media converges across nations (especially because of the Internet), signal gets lost in the noise, which is by far better funded (PR transcends advertising where there is disclosure).
I see sometimes authors who pretend to be FOSS users try to show how bad FOSS is, do you think that’s genuine experience or they are proxies to weaken FOSS?
I call this the “but troll” strategy or the “curious troll” strategy. The former is a tactic for pretending to like something before bashing it. Creationists use this strategy sometimes and so do politicians. Think along the lines of, “I like Linux and I tried Linux on my PC, but…”
These types of provocations cannot be reliably countered without knowing the background of the writers and their real agenda. To give one actual example, a few years back Microsoft sent some Microsoft reporter on an expedition to Brazil, whereupon she met a Gartner analyst (Bill Gates is one of the funders of Gartner and Microsoft one of its biggest client) who started giving her talking points against GNU/Linux, in order for her to publish those in CNET. This sort of strategy helped counter the huge growth of GNU/Linux in this massive country, boasting of the world’s largest populations. That is just one example among many. Based on my research I have been trying to teach people who is who and what agenda they really have (based on my reading of their many previous articles). It should be no surprise that Microsoft sends freebies like laptops to some people who leave comments favourable to Microsoft in widely-read sites like CNET and ZDNet. These too need to be named, even though they keep changing names (even genders) to evade bad reputation and gain credibility, at least temporarily.
There are couple of fan sites like OMGUbuntu which seem to miss the point why they exist. They endorse everything that is bad for the health of Free Software, what is your opinion about such sites?
OMGUbuntu is generally a decent site. Its target audience is people who are new to GNU/Linux and are usually young (which tends to repel some older people who frequent the site). I had some disagreement with the site when it gave a podium to people who promote Mono and also have an undisclosed vested interest in Mono’s success. Thankfully, Mono seems to be going the way of the dodo now.
Do you think there is an organized propaganda against Android tablets/Linux, where mainstream media acts as if Android tablets don’t even exist. [The other day I was watching an interview of Sean Parker with Jimmy Fallon and Jimmy did not even mention Android tablets. All he was talking about the iPad. He was smearing Android, arguing that even Droids have apps! ]
I am not familiar with those people, but I do know that several sources, such as the BBC, are far from objective and therefore they tend to mention Android only when it has bad news (in which case the BBC misreports it too). Needless to add, a few years ago many former Microsoft UK executives joined the BBC, which whether they intend to or not, will likely result in bias (tinted glasses vision). It is gratifying to see many pro-Android sites mushrooming, probably outnumbering or outweighing by now the impact of so-called Linux sites. Android can be viewed as complementary to Linux and it is freer than other Linux-based operating systems such as WebOS. The way to counter the Linux-hostile media is probably to outgrow it. It should be perfectly acceptable to criticise it as well. Through scrutiny the editors and author will get the message that they must straighten up their act and be more honest.
We do publish about non-free apps for Android, to keep users informed that Android as a platform has everything, or even more, than what iOS has. It conflicts with our philosophy of not promoting non-free applications. Desktop users do care as they chose Linux for freedom aspect Mobile users just want a good phone that works. But if we don’t write about such apps, we can’t convince people that Android is better than Apple. They are already bombarded by Apple’s propaganda machine. What is your opinion?
I have had a similar dilemma. About 3 years ago I was occasionally told by readers that I promoted proprietary software in my daily links postings (for example, an announcement of some proprietary package coming to Red Hat servers). Some people are more upset by this than others because it helps proprietary endeavours gain at the expense of free/libre counterparts (where the workable surrogate exists). So I created a subsection designated to “Proprietary”, where it is clearly indicated that the said package is non-free (as in not freedom-respecting).
What is your opinion about recent Firefox criticism, do you think it was exaggerated by Microsoft’s proxy bloggers? (I noticed de Icaza reposted a lot of threads against FF)
While the talking point about version numbers is based on valid concerns, it is being vastly exaggerated, often by those whose agenda is to promote Microsoft (i.e. IE). Chrome has been sticking with version bumps of 1.0 for several years and hardly anyone has complained. Numbers are there for marketing reasons nowadays, perhaps more often than not. Firefox 5 is mostly backward-compatible, so not even for plug-in developers — let alone enterprises — should the version number be much of a consideration or cause for doubt. I anticipate FUD about Linux going “3.0″ — FUD that has already begun and needed to be countered before it spread further. By ridiculing the lies early on we can suppress their continued spreading. Journalists prefer not to perpetuate claims that have already been debunked to death as it would make the journalists look foolish, gullible, or dishonest. In my humble assessment, the community has done fantastic work over the years addressing Linux myths, which forced the enemies of Linux to shift to a new FUD strategy, principally centred around software patents and their effect on Linux/Android.
How do you see the situation of Software Patents changing? Are the lobbyists winning?
They win some battles, but they have not won the war because software patents are only legal in a handful of countries. We need to ensure that our legislators understand who is lobbying for whose pocket and what the public opinion really is. It is similar when it comes to copyright law. There is a major disconnect between what the public wants and what the government actually implements, usually in order to align with foreign laws that mostly serve few super-wealthy corporations and their clients.
There are attempts to tame lobbyists by enforcing disclosures (lobbyists like to avoid questions about their clients to the extent that they can legally get away with it), but these are mostly futile because they are typically not obligatory, so the underworld of influence for sale will continue to thrive, unless we are willing to investigate and publicly expose the culprits. An exposed lobbyist is significantly weakened as no companies will wish to be associated with him/her.
When coming across a pro-software patents view, be sure to check if the source is in the business of patent law (patent trolls, patent lawyers etc.) or a large corporation with a vast arsenal of patents whose aim is to provide protectionism, i.e. impede competition. The lobbyists of these companies are harder to spot and they typically pretend to represent the opposition of who they really serve. Microsoft has those types of lobbyists in Europe, e.g. ones that pretend to represent small businesses while in fact pushing Microsoft’s agenda everywhere (while on Microsoft’s payroll). It’s the same tactic some big polluters and the tobacco industry use extensively.
What are the chances are that Google form an alliance along the lines of Open Handset Alliance — Android Patent Group (I hate the idea of patents at all so a bit conflict here) so that they can defend smaller player from getting exploited by Microsoft/Apple and also amass enough power to discourage any attack on Android community?
The strategy was attempted by OIN already. I am not a believer in OIN, whose main backers — just like those of the Linux Foundation — are also proponents of software patents (IBM and Intel for instance). Their work helps legitimise some software patents rather than eradicate the problem at its root. Peer to Patent suffers some similar problems. One must also bear in mind that patent pools cannot deter a patent troll, which while lacking any real products simply cannot be counter-sued. There is no deterrence there. The only long-term solution is elimination of software patents (preventing their spreading to other countries would help too), but this is a monumental task as companies worth trillions of dollars (aggregated value) are working against us all the time, sometimes behind the scenes. We must unionise, e.g. gathering the power of small businesses, and also consider exposing those who betray the public by representing multinationals/monopolists at taxpayers’ expense. Politicians, for instance, can be shamed out of outrageous stances by showing their voters the extent of betrayal. Many people already shy away from software patents and Mono (they are aware of the controversy), so this strategy is effective. One might say that public perception leads to self-censorship, but in this case the ‘censored’ opinion is one which mostly arrives from 1% (or less) of the population with the self-serving brainwash that they pay for dearly (they sure can afford to).
How do you see the Android eco-system? Some companies had to sign deals with MS for so-called Linux patents. What do you say about such deals? Where do you place Samsung one of the leaders of Android ecosystem, they had a deal with Microsoft in early days?
Yes, I called for a boycott of Samsung way back in 2007 when it was the first company of its kind to pay Microsoft for unsaid patents relating to Linux. Back then, people could choose between a lot of Linux-based phones, so putting Samsung in a mental blacklist (out of the list of consideration) would not be a major loss. Currently, Microsoft targets mostly tiny companies whose use of Android I did not know about. Microsoft is desperately trying to pave the way towards universal ‘Android tax’, which gigantic companies like Sony would not be so willing to pay. Microsoft got a bit of a shock when it tried suing Motorola for refusing to pay for Linux; Motorola, in response, sued the hell out of Microsoft and also threatened to have some of Microsoft’s products banned from the United States. Microsoft now faces the possibility of losing some of the patents it allegedly uses to shake down Android-using companies. Microsoft met a similarly-shocking opposition/antagonistic experience when it failed to extort Barnes & Noble. Instead, the documents (under NDA, albeit conditionally) got out of hand and they can now be used as evidence to prosecute Microsoft for racketeering, under the US RICO Act. Microsoft is treading in dangerous territories and its recent extortions are very symbolic, perhaps high in number but very low in terms of magnitude. I predict that many of the remaining Microsoft mangers will leave the company when they realise that they work for an aggressor, not a creator. Watch what happened to Unisys.
Since 2007 or thereabouts I have been tracking Microsoft quite closely. I kept track of products it axed (about 60 in just 2.5 years) and top managers who left (almost everyone but Mundie and Ballmer is gone). When Apple surpassed Microsoft in terms of market cap (IBM recently did too) I left Microsoft aside, but I do recognise the fact that it will remain a patent parasite for a good while to come. The writings were on the wall in 2006 when we sent out early warnings and encouraged people to abolish software patents.
It is worth reminding ourselves that the attacks on Linux/Android are evidence of a win. Google recently confirmed this by claiming to have gone past half a million Android device activations per day. Microsoft used to ignore and then just laugh at Linux. It really started to threaten Linux in June of 2007 and in 2009 it started attacking (suing), choosing TomTom as the first lawsuit target — yes, TomTom, which was already in financial trouble (and thus less inclined to sustain a fight in court). I am fairly convinced that Android will overcome the patent attacks from Microsoft, Apple, and some of the patent trolls (which are sometimes tied to those). But in order to defend the customer and keep Android free we must carry on fighting against software patents, which are morally and practically unjust. They also put in jeopardy the good work of GNU and the FSF.
Mono. We were concerned about Mono from the very beginning and opposed Canonical’s decision to make Banshee the default music player. Now Mono is in a limbo. Do you think communities like Banshee feel betrayed? Has mono betrayed all those Free Software developers who wasted their time in building on top of Mono? What future do you see of Mono?
Mono is a complicated subject. There are many facets to it. Referring to the aspects that you have just named, Novell is no more, the lead developer of Banshee left Novell (Banshee is still a Novell or Attachmate product), and Canonical remains with this Mono dependency which is spurious for practical as well as legal reasons. Canonical’s CTO, who is formally leaving the company right about now, once expressed his concerns about being dependent on Mono (Microsoft APIs). I have confidence in the Ubuntu community, which managed to keep Banshee away since 2009 when the Mono lobby promoted it for inclusion in Ubuntu by default. Only in 2011 did the lobby get its way, which is rather ironic because Novell and Mono got dissolved around the very same time and Banshee gave Canonical nothing but bad publicity at the same period of time, due to a dispute over revenue from music sales. Then we must remember that Banshee depends on libraries which Microsoft explicitly excluded from the Microsoft Community Promise, thus it is ripe for Microsoft litigation. A few years back, Robert Scoble, a former Microsoft evangelist, said: “I saw that internally inside Microsoft many times when I was told to stay away from supporting Mono in public. They reserve the right to sue” (source: Twitter)
What is your opinion about Oracle as an open source company? Do you think the contributions of the company are greater than the damage it has done to the FOSS world? Do you think Oracle is a friend or foe of FOSS community?
Oracle is a friend of Oracle. The company sure makes use of Free software to the extent that is helps the company sell proprietary software, its crown jewels. Oracle never cared so much about public perception among the Free software community, but it did foster some Free software efforts and also contributed in some ways prior to the Sun takeover. Personally, I am a little apathetic towards Oracle as I believe that chastising it too much without specificity may prove to be counter-productive to Free software interests. To simplify a bit, the damage it has done is two-fold: one is the attack on Java developers (by extension) and Android; another is the attack on Red Hat’s lifeline (RHEL support contracts). The latter has hardly worked to Oracle’s benefit and as for the former, we have yet to find out. █
As someone who deals with Puppet quite a lot at work, I had the great pleasure of speaking to longtime open source pundit James Turnbull, who recently co-authored his latest book “Pro Puppet” through Apress Media with colleague Jeffrey McCune of Puppet Labs. This is his fifth technical book about open source software. “Pro Puppet” is an in-depth book about how to install, use, and develop Puppet, the popular open source systems management platform used by organizations including Twitter, Rackspace, Digg, Genentech and more.
Q&A with James Turnbull
1. What in your estimation is the number of servers (including virtual instances) that run Puppet at any level of capacity?
A: This is a question that I ponder every few months. Our largest installation is around 50,000 nodes and we have several more at the 25,000 to 50,000 node range. Given the size of the community, I think we’ve quite easily reached the million plus node mark.
“Given the size of the community, I think we’ve quite easily reached the million plus node mark.” –James Turnbull2. Throughout your work on the book, have you had a chance to
measure/survey the operating systems on which Puppet is deployed? Have you any insight regarding the distribution of usage?
A: Puppet Labs did a survey earlier in the year and gathered some data about usage. Based on that and interactions with the community I think we can pretty comfortably say that our core operating systems are Linux-based with Red Hat (and derivatives) and Ubuntu/Debian being the biggest platforms. The next largest block is Solaris with a smaller number of OSX, *BSD, HP UX and pSeries/AIX systems also being represented.
3. There is a common perception that Free/Open Source software suffers from deficient documentation and lack of support (despite this being the business model of many companies). How do you challenge these types of allegations?
A: This is a common perception that regularly makes me laugh. I usually respond that all software has deficient documentation and lacks support! It’s true some open source tools lack documentation but others, for example MySQL, have exemplary documentation. Some open source software communities are hard to get help from and others fall over themselves to help people out. I’m always immensely proud of how the Puppet community, which is largely made up of some of the busiest people in IT – sysadmins, goes out of its way to help newcomers and share knowledge.
Of course this same problem is present across enterprise and commercial software. Otherwise authors wouldn’t be able to sell books offering insights into using commercial software. It’s even perhaps somewhat worse for enterprise software where submitting a bug request can lack transparency and where examples of how others have solved issues can be hard to find or perceived as proprietary information.
4. How can your book address or assist a crowd of people with no prior knowledge of UNIX/Linux and how can it assist those who are familiar with everything but Puppet?
A: Pro Puppet is aimed at users with some Linux/Unix knowledge, albeit at a fairly basic level — a few friends and I created an earlier book called Pro Linux System Administration designed to teach someone with zero Linux knowledge how to be a Linux sysadmin. Pro Puppet is aimed at junior and mid-level sysadmins looking to get started with Puppet and take them through to advanced topics like scaling and extending Puppet.
5. What impact do you foresee the licensing changes from the GPL to the Apache licence as having?
A: Both the GPL and Apache licenses are free and open source licenses and we’re very much staying true to our open source roots. However where we are with Puppet now we need a license that people, for whatever reasons, consider easier to integrate with. In the open source world that license is Apache and we’re already starting to see Puppet being used heavily as an integrated tools in Cloud and Infrastructure/Platform as a service (IAAS, PAAS) offerings as a result.
6. Manual operators of Puppet seem to rely mostly on the initial setup. What proportion of the work would you say a Puppet expert needs to invest in setting up the software compared to the overall lifetime of a box and its operation?
A: With Puppet, the large proportion of the work you need to do to get started is up front. Once you’ve done that work setting up new boxes becomes a routine and easy task. Maintaining and managing them is also fast and simple. Indeed, one of the benefits of Puppet is that not only do you get fast and automated setup, but you can make sure they stay the way you configured them for as long as you need. That ability to stem the tide of configuration drift and limit the potential for human error and entropy causing issues is an enormous timesaver.
7. What is the most eccentric/fascinating/uncommon use of Puppet that you have come across?
A: One that fascinated me recently is the Deutsche Flugsicherung, the German air traffic control network, who use Puppet to ensure all the operator workstations and tower servers are up to date. They have a very strict and structured work flow and an interesting deployment model where any configuration drift is anathema. I also find Air Traffic Control really interesting (I’m a geek it’s true) so it was pretty exciting to see Puppet being used in such an interesting arena.
8. Puppet functionality lags behind in platforms such as Windows. What would you advise organisations that choose to run it on this platform?
A: We’re actively working on Microsoft Windows support but we’re not there yet. What we’d love to see is people telling us what they need. I’m not primarily a Windows guy so I actually don’t know what the pain points are for Windows sysadmins. If a few of them could tell us “If you automated these 4, 5, 10 things that would make my job easier!” then that would help us structure that future support.
9. How does Puppet compare to its proprietary counterparts?
A: I think the key difference is time to value or as I prefer “how long before I’m doing something useful”. Often when you install one of the larger proprietary tools it can take significant time and people to deliver value or to get things done. We find people can download Puppet, install it and be doing something useful in a matter of minutes or an hour rather than months.
“One of the new features in Puppet 2.6.0 though was a Ruby DSL for Puppet. This allows any developer (and sysadmins too) to write their Puppet manifests in Ruby.” –James Turnbull10. If one receives proper training or learns from your book, how would the difficulty of using Puppet compare to the difficulty of using other products that are out in the market?
A: I think Puppet is pretty easy to use (but I’m also biased!). It does have rough edges and things that are hard to get your head around though. One thing I think we do really well in the book is build on knowledge. You can start simple and grow into the more complex topics. I think having that sort of resource makes it really easy for people to learn how to use Puppet. The other resource I’m really excited about is a new section in the documentation called Learning Puppet (http://docs.puppetlabs.com/learning/) that offers a similar “grow into using it” experience.
I think as a result of having the book plus documentation and training available that makes Puppet a lot less difficult to understand than some of the alternatives out there.
11. How would you say the Puppet learning curve compares if a programmer and non-programmer were both faced with the task of learning it?
A: I recently came to the conclusion that I now spend more time cutting code than I do being a sysadmin which is a big change in my life. As a result I’ve been thinking about how both groups approach learning and problems. I think for a lot of sysadmins Puppet is very easy to engage with. Puppet’s language is a logical extension for people use to dealing with configuration files and scripts.
For developers that’s perhaps not as natural a progression and some have struggled in the past with learning Puppet. One of the new features in Puppet 2.6.0 though was a Ruby DSL for Puppet. This allows any developer (and sysadmins too) to write their Puppet manifests in Ruby. This approach is something that may make more sense and make it easier for developers to learn Puppet.
As a result of this Ruby interface (which we cover in the book too) I think the learning curve for both non-developers and developers is rapidly approaching parity.
We would like to thank James for being available for this interchange of insights and we hope his literature will spread Puppet to more and more companies, aiding the spread of Free/open source in systems management. Puppet sure helps the company that I work for. █
Summario del Articulo: entrevista a Techrights en diciembre 2010 de la revista Linux Format
PARA AQUELLOS que no lograrón comprar la edición de diciembre de Linux Format, hay una entrevista a mí no, como se señaló hace unos meses[http://techrights.org/2010/10/18/linux-format-coverage/]. He aquí el texto en bruto como es de esperar, explica un poco más sobre Techrights y su servidor.
* ¿Cómo te involucraste en Open Source?
Me hice consciente por primera vez de UNIX y Linux en algún tiempo en los años 90, cuando algunos amigos de la escuela lo utilizaban experimentalmente. En las clases de ciencias de la computación (mis mayores) había muchos de nosotros los geeks. No fue sino hasta hace diez años que me introducieron a Red Hat y se convirtí en un usuario de inmediato. Me encantarón muchas cosas al respecto. En 2001 estaba escribiendo y compartiendo todos mis programas como software libre y en 2002 conseguí un trabajo en el que escribía el código con la Licencia Pública General, GPL (en su mayoría programas basados en GTK). Esto entonces me introdujó a GNU y pronto aprendí más sobre su filosofía asociada. En ese momento yo no estaba usando el término “código abierto”, aunque era consciente de la palabra. No fue hasta mucho más tarde (alrededor de 2005)cuando me di cuenta de que el término debe ser utilizado con el fin de armonizar mejor con la gran prensa, que tienden a caracterizar como “Open Source” el código que todo el mundo comparte de esta manera. Para mí, el intercambio de código fue siempre natural y nunca escribí ningún software propietario en toda mi vida. No tengo la intención de hacerlo, tampoco. Es posible ser pagado por escribir código para que tu conserves todos los derechos sensibles. Es más gratificante y motivador, no sólo beneficioso para los compañeros. No hay sensación mejor que ayudar a aquellos que te ayudan. Este período de mi vida también me hizo participar como colaborador en varios proyectos libres y proyectos de código abierto, en particular, WordPress que he usado mucho.
En los casos en que el código de mis colegas no eran realmente licenciados (sólo con derechos de autor, naturalmente), trató de fomentar el intercambio de código porque como científico sé que nuestro trabajo conjunto tendría un mayor impacto si se ha adoptado y utilizado por otros. Por lo tanto, mi participación en “Open Source” era más que sobre el código, una forma de vida y yo todavía trato de promover los principios de software libre/código abierto en el contexto de los datos, del hardware, de la literatura, y las ciencias en general . La transparencia no es la ventaja clave en mis ojos, es más que ver con la promoción de la abundancia en vez de la escasez en que las limitaciones en el acceso sólo son artificiales. Restricciones que potencian mas a los que ya están en el poder y no tiene por qué ser de esa manera, sobre todo, no en el mundo digital.
* ¿Qué es TechRights?
TechRights es una plataforma en la que se expresan una cadena de ideas, prestandonos de los establecimientos influyentes e importantes como la Fundacón del Software Libre FSF sin embargo, actuando con absoluta independencia (no hay fuentes de financiación y por lo tanto no hay autocensura o prejuicio). TechRights puede considerarse como un complemento a algunos grupos, pero cualquier similitud tal es sólo la percepción como nunca hubo ninguna afiliación. TechRights tiene 3 nombres de dominio y una serie de actividades/componentes, tales como un blog, un wiki, y tres canales de comunicación en tiempo real (IRC), divididos por temas. Hace varios meses también hemos añadido las distinciones basadas en ángulo, clasificados bajo las banderas llamado “TechRights”, “TechWrongs”, y “TechChoices”. El enfoque del sitio es Novell, Microsoft, e incluso a veces Apple no porque son la única amenaza a las libertades de las personas y los derechos digitales, en el campo del software éstas son las áreas en las que tienen mayor interés, antes de material de apoyo, y la experiencia.
* ¿Cuál es la historia de TechRights?
TechRights es el nombre del sitio propuesto por Tracy, el que nos aloja el sitio Web. Necesitábamos un nombre nuevo al alcance del sitio se había expandido. Fue hace mucho tiempo. Esperamos que para invertir la connotación de la palabra “derechos”, que es cada vez más secuestrada por aquellos que se apropian de los derechos de las personas.
* TechRights se llamaba Boicot Novell, ¿por qué el cambio de nombre?
Sí, “Boycott Novell” fue creada por Shane pocos días después de Novell y Microsoft habían firmado su problemático acuerdo de patentes . El sitio se esperaba tenga un estrecho enfoque y tratamos precisamente este aspecto uno de los problemas que el software libre estaba teniendo. Según recuerdo, “Boicot Novell” era en realidad un nombre de categoría en el blog personal y técnica de Shane, pero se convirtió en su propio nombre de dominio y muchas personas muy pronto se subscribieron al sitio. Como sus lectores creció, la gama de temas fue ampliada. En el momento de unirse al sitio – muy poco después de su creación – Yo estaba trabajando en mi doctorado tesis y tenía un montón de tiempo libre que yo solía escribir un gran número de puestos para el sitio. Por el momento tenemos alrededor de 11.000 entradas del blog, un poco más de un centenar de megabytes de los registros de IRC, y varias otras páginas que ha editado activamente por la comunidad. Esperamos que la cantidad no ha comprometido la calidad.
* ¿Todavía siento que todos debemos Boicotear a Novell?
No estoy en condiciones de decirle a la gente lo qué va hacer, pero les aconsejo que la gente piense cuidadosamente acerca de las tácticas de venta de Novell *SLE (SUSE Linux Enterprise) con las patentes de software. Novell ha intentado cambiar las reglas al IMPONER a GNU/Linux, UNA RESTRICCION que no existía previamente. Novell se acerco a Microsoft y negocio por cerca de medio año lo que más tarde se convirtió en un acuerdo de patentes. Esto puso a Novell en una posición de percibida ventaja sobre Red Hat y otros. Desde entonces, Novell ha instado a las empresas a comprar SuSE basado en las patentes de software de Novell (Novell eufemísticamente llama “la tranquilidad de PAZ DE PROPIEDAD INTELECTUAL”), el cual Novell convirtió en un punto de venta en este campo de batalla donde las patentes de software son antitéticos.
El nombre de “Boicot Novell” nunca fue mi idea y siempre he sentido cierta inquietud acerca del nombre (que sonaba demasiado negativo y el 80% de mi impresiones fueron positivas), pero sí animo a la gente a votar con sus carteras y recompensar a las compañías que no están utilizando las patentes de software para vender sus productos. Para GNU/Linux que el mercado prosperen y que para las nuevas empresas que se derivan o sagan de ella, las patentes de software tendrá que ser detenidas. Novell no es única en ese sentido y TechRights intenta hacer frente a los problemas, no sólo a los jugadores individuales.
* TechRights ha sido un lugar controvertido, ¿cuál es su opinión sobre la controversia?
Cada persona o plataforma que se atreve a tocar temas delicados está destinado a ser etiquetados como “controvertido” o ser caracterizado como “irracionales” por sus adversarios. Esto es especialmente cierto cuando uno se aparta de los debates puramente técnico. Con los años hemos tenido personas que distorsionan o tergiversan nuestras opiniones, que son más difíciles de controlar o manejar cuando se trabaja dentro de un marco de participación de muchas personas o cuando la gente propaga falsos rumores (desinformación) desde el exterior. Por ejemplo, algunas personas empezaron a asociar el puntos vista formal del sitio con la gente que acaba de dejar comentarios en él, o entrar en el canal de IRC. Algunas personas erróneamente suponían que una protesta en la India – va bajo el lema “Boicot Novell” – fue de alguna manera organizada por el sitio Web.
Lo que encontramos alentador, es aunque que cuando la gente viene a hablar con nosotros directamente pronto se dan cuenta que somos gente decente y los estereotipos/caricaturas que a veces flotan por ahí son sólo demonizaciones diseñado para marginar a nuestros puntos de vista. Es evidente que hay algunas empresas por ahí que no está contento con nuestro trabajo. Pero la verdad duele a veces. Dado que estamos abiertos a comentarios, las empresas tienen la oportunidad de impugnar todas las demandas, no a traves de ataques ad hominem, sino de un debate racional. Ya hemos tenido anónimos empleados de Novell tirando barro a los mensajeros en el sitio y desde fuera del sitio. Por lo general, se exponen al final y luego se desvanecen.
* ¿Qué cambios le gustaría ver que suceda en el Open Source para aliviar algunas de sus preocupaciones?
Hay muchas cuestiones que deben corregir y por permanecer pasivos nunca nada va a mejorar, sino sólo va a empeorar. Una de las áreas en las que participamos activamente es la terminación de las patentes de software, que deben ser eliminados, incluso en el mundo Open Source (IBM, por ejemplo, deberían replantearse su política de patentes porque estan a favor de las patentes de software). El Open Source y la comunidad de software libre debe estar abiertos a la crítica desde dentro, incluso si esta crítica es un poco incómodo a veces. El objetivo final es permitir que más usuarios y desarrolladores, que con el tiempo parecen ser cada vez más draconianamente capturados por las entidades centralizadas, como tiendas de aplicaciones que censuran, los llamadas “nubes” que se gestionan desde lejos, y licencias restrictivas que ratificar y consolidar DRM -Digital Restrictions Management , matan a los aparatos, y invasiones y violaciónes a la vida privada de las personas.
* ¿Cuáles cree que es el futuro de TechRights?
TechRights es una plataforma que está en manos de muchas personas y si ayuda a los asuntos de fuera vista diferente, entonces sabemos que hicimos nuestra parte. La mayor parte de la actividad se lleva a cabo en el IRC, así que mientras nuestra comunidad conduce el programa en determinadas direcciones, que será el futuro de la plataforma.
En el futuro esperamos mantener los recursos de información por escrito en un idioma que es más defensiva que ofensiva. Cuando se trata de temas difíciles, donde los detractores de la libertad se maliciosamente activos, existe la tentación de perder la compostura. El objetivo final es educar más, menos de hacer campaña. Nosotros no organizamos campañas de difusión, pero a veces los memes cómicas que ayudan a advertir sobre los peligros de la etiqueta con el fin de crear conciencia. Por ejemplo, podemos escribir constantemente “Vista 7″, “Niebla de Informática”, y “hypePad”, todos los cuales son términos diseñados para transmitir las desventajas reales de las últimas amenazas a la libertad de software.
Si la gente tiene ideas que se quieren promover o problemas que quieren que se traten, son bienvenidos y alentó incluso, para que puedan entrar y conocer a nuestra comunidad, preferentemente en el IRC. Muchos de nuestros artículos de divulgación fueron posibles gracias a filtraciones de información (los denunciantes anónimos), que arrojan luz sobre actos ilícitos que habían presenciado. Si no hubiera sido por todas estas aportaciones, TechRights no estaría aquí. La plataforma es cada vez más crowdsourced en su mayor parte, lo que hace más eficaz y precisa. █