Re: [Xen-users] Does it legal to analysize XEN source code and write a book about it ?

[Tao Shen <taoshen1983@xxxxxxxxx>]

Magnus:

You repeatedly say that "how does open source company make money without 
doing it".  Let me ask you this question, how does Ubuntu make money 
giving Ubuntu Linux away?  How does PostgreSQL make money giving 
postgreSQL away.  Yes, they sell support contracts just like XenSource 
does, which I highly support the model.  What I don't think is right is 
when Xen Source releases "Express editions" with capabilities 
castrated.  Last I checked, 4GB of memory limit, and 4 VM limit. (as a 
developer, sometimes I need close to 8-10VMs running all at once, so I 
use VMware now) Do you see PostgreSQL do that?  do you see Ubuntu do that?
Well, you can say that well MySQL does it(you can't even touch their 
latest 5.1 releases or cluster capabilities without paying for the 
Enterprise edition), SuSE does it(no SLES is not free, it's a 60 day 
eval), Redhat did it(CentOS is binarily the same with updates for free 
too), Microsoft SQL Server Express did it (not open source, so not a 
good example).  The issue is the virtue or lack thereof of dual 
licensing , forcefully segregating markets into "home users" vs 
"enterprise users" on open source GPL license.  You said ,
XENSource is not selling the code. It's GPL'd, meaning you are not
allowed to sell it. I'm guessing that XENSource also packaging admin
utilities which is not open source, and support, hence they charge money
for it.

Of course, everyone doing dual license says they are not selling code, 
they are selling service and support, but what if the user did not wish 
to get service and support, only the code underneath?   Then everyone 
doing dual license says, "well we are selling the admin utilities, 
updates which aren't open sourced".  First of all updates aren't that 
much work, if there is a critical patch that affects all users, the 
patch should be pushed to all users regardless.  As to admin utilities, 
how many LOC does that require compared to the Xen based code? A 
pittance.  Most admin utilities are scripts for goodness sakes.  And 
don't forget, all Xen Branded distributions are nothing but a Linux 
distribution.
The question remains that tons of developers coded for Xen(I can name a 
few from INTEL and AMD especially) and their work is being cashed by a 
corporation XenSource(500Million), and the features they worked on(which 
didn't have the arbitrary VM limits, memory limits) are not made 
available to the public under the official Xen Branded distribution.   
So your response, " Buying XENSource did not (and can not) un-GPL the 
code. " does not answer the question.  If the issue of dual licensing 
applies when you "sell" the code, shouldn't open source developers get 
paid also when they code the code that gets used by both the "home 
users" and "enterprise users"?
If Microsoft thinks open source is the virus to the software industry,  
I think dual licensing for GPL is the virus to open source industry.  
Just something to think about.  Meanwhile, I will stick to VMware.  The 
reason being: if I am paying someone for something, that someone must 
wrote the code themselves,not piggy backed from the open source community.
No response is required of this post.





Magnus Boman wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 21:09 -0600, Tao Shen wrote:
>   
> > Well, my point is this: if you have "analysize"d Xen, perhaps you 
> > shouldn't have written a book about it, at least not in English.
> >     
> Why not?
>
>   
> > On the issue of Xen being purchased by Citrix, I was wondering about the 
> > issues of legality.  Is it even legal for a corporation(Citrix) to 
> > purchase an open source package, of which was contributed by thousands 
> > of open source developers, and is it legal for a corporation(XenSource) 
> > who basically combines a lot of open source package(qemu device drivers 
> > and their paravirtualization based on the linux kernel) into one to sell 
> > the technology as if they owned it?   When Xen was doing their Xen 
> >     
> Off course it is.
>
>   
> > Enterprise, Xen Windows, and Xen Express separation, I knew this 
> > XenSource was going to be bought.   While it's perfectly legal for 
> > XenSource to provide open source service...selling support packages(to 
> > amazon EC2 for example), but forcing the bundling of support with an 
> > "enterprise" edition is pushing the boundaries of GPL.  At least that's 
> > my understanding of the GPL.  Doesn't anyone here smell something?  
> >     
> No, I think your understanding is wrong. How would an open source
> company make money without doing something like that?
>
>   
> > Windows paravirtualization drivers are released in closed source.  That 
> > alone is fishy at best.  Also, I had this question:  even though 
> >     
> Nothing fishy with it at all.
>
>   
> > Microsoft had a deal with XenSource to bundle windows paravirtualization 
> > drivers with Xen, shouldn't we pay Microsoft for the drivers instead of 
> > paying XenSource for their Xen "Windows" Edition?
> >     
> I'm sure MS wouldn't mind if you pay them as well. But my guess is that
> MS only provided technical documents (under NDA) and XENSource wrote the
> drivers. That's why they can't be open sourced. And again, this is
> another way for an open source company to make money.
>
>   
> > Comparing this behavior to VMware or Parallels, at least VMware and 
> > Parallels wrote their code they are selling.  Every line of it.  VMware 
> > workstation 6 will also be using paravirtualization techniques.  VMware 
> > ESX was criticized for using Linux as the backend...but the point is: 
> > Vmware wrote very single line of their own kernel that runs on top of 
> > linux kernel including device emulation, and windows drivers even.  Xen 
> > cannot say the same.  For one thing:  all their devices are emulated by 
> > qemu.  That's why they can't do 3D yet like VMware and parallels.
> >     
> XENSource is not selling the code. It's GPL'd, meaning you are not
> allowed to sell it. I'm guessing that XENSource also packaging admin
> utilities which is not open source, and support, hence they charge money
> for it.
>
>   
> > Enough rambling.  It's too bad the open source community has turned into 
> > this way:  giving a limited basic version and upselling an Enterprise 
> > version and continue to ask for open source developer to code their 
> > stuff for free(MySQL comes to mind)  There is a reason why CentOS was 
> > forked from RHEL and why OpenSuSE was a fork of SLES.  I predict that 
> >     
> Haha... You crack me up. openSUSE is a fork of SLE? Since when? Both
> openSUSE and SLE is freely available. It's only if you want an automatic
> way to install updates, and get support that you have to pay.
>
>   
> > there will be a fork of openXen from the last checkpoint where Xen was 
> > bought.  To me personally, it just doesn't make any sense that XenSource 
> > is capitalizing on the work of thousands of engineers from INTEL, 
> > AMD...shouldn't the developers who contributed to be paid individually 
> > as well?
> >     
> Buying XENSource did not (and can not) un-GPL the code.
>
>   
> > So, in conclusion, Jian, I think you should be free of legal issues to 
> > write a book about the source code or at least the code before it was 
> > bought.(I think the freedom of speech alone justifies it), btw, the 
> > first line was a joke, don't be offended.
> >     
> Ah! I didn't actually read your email all the way down before I hit
> reply. So you can forget about my first question.
>
>   
> > jian zhang wrote:
> >     
> > > Hi all:
> > >  Previously we have analysize Xen source code, and we have wrote a 
> > > book about the code. BUT now, I noticed that xen has been purchased by 
> > > Citrix <http://www.cnetnews.com.cn/list-0-0-16406-0-1.htm>, so does it 
> > > legal to publish that book???
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Xen-users mailing list
> > > Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> > >       
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xen-users mailing list
> > Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> >     
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>
>   

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users