Open Malaysia

A Memo to Patrick Durusau

I really must commend Patrick Durusau's innate capability of writing the most inflammatory and outrageous publications, publications that are so divorced from reality that one cannot help but think that the dude must be hoarding some seriously good weed to be able to live so completely within his own defined existence. His latest publication, "Not With a Bang, but With a Whimper", has been receiving flak from the collective open standards community for exactly that reason and rightly so.

Patrick writes that:

Signs the document standards war was entirely fictitious have been around for quite some time. Where was the Microsoft opposition to OpenDocument in standards bodies such as OASIS and ISO? Perhaps they forgot? Didn't get the memo?

Given that we at OpenMalaysiaBlog, as open standards supporters, have been at the forefront of receiving the brunt of their vicious (and often personal) attacks on ODF, I find Patrick's assertions as ridiculous and cockeyed at best, and deliberately offensive at worst.

Microsoft has been running an anti-ODF campaign in favour of OOXML for a long long time now. In Malaysia, their campaign started with opposition to Malaysia's proposed adoption of ODF ISO26300:2006 as a voluntary standard by invoking Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt on the ODF standard. The campaign continued on by personally attacking members of the technical committee who were in favour of ODF, by casting undue aspersions on their characters, in particular, insinuating that we were subversive agents of IBM intent on the destruction of Microsoft (apparently, anybody who supports truly open standards is a biased IBM agent).

In fact, during a technical standards meeting on ODF, senior management of Microsoft Malaysia printed out an unrelated and personal blog post from Yoon Kit (in which he was slightly critical of a Malaysian government agency whose representative was also present during the meeting), passed it around to all members present in the meeting and demanded for proper ethical conduct from members. That's right, folks - he printed out a non-technical blog post and attempted to cast a false and misleading charge on the character of a member of the technical meeting.

To the credit of the representative of the government agency in question and the chairman of the meeting, the meeting was quickly brought to order. The representative of the government agency did not have a problem with Yoon Kit's blog post but Microsoft Malaysia did. Note that this is not hearsay, I witnessed this first hand and was thoroughly shocked at the extent Microsoft would go to destroy any perceived threat to their Microsoft Office cash cow. The Microsoft Malaysia representative in question also distributed printed blog posts from OpenMalaysia and circled the name of a member of this blog who also happens to be an IBM employee, insinuating to all that members of OpenMalaysia are influenced by IBM in pushing for a pro-ODF stand. This happened during a meeting to discuss the technical aspects on ODF!

That particular meeting was followed by an anonymous smear campaign against one of the TC members. A letter was faxed to the organization of the TC member in question, accusing the TC member in question of helping politicize the issue (which is, of course, untrue). I too had the dubious pleasure of hearing first hand how Microsoft attempted to remove me from the TC (they did not succeed, thanks to integrity and cojones of the organization I am affiliated with).

If this unethical behaviour by Microsoft was not sufficiently despicable, they did the unthinkable by involving politics in what should have been a technical evaluation of the standard by writing to the head of the Malaysian standards organization and getting its business partners to engage in a negative letter writing campaign to indicate lack of support of ODF in the Malaysian market. Every single negative letter on ODF received by the Malaysian standards organization was written either by Microsoft, or a Microsoft business partner or a Microsoft affiliated organization (Initiative for Software Choice and IASA).

That's right, Patrick, every single negative letter on ODF can be traced back to Microsoft. And you ask where was Microsoft's opposition to ODF? Here is a letter by Yasmin Mahmood, Microsoft Malaysia Managing Director to the head of the Malaysian standards organization, opposing ODF as a voluntary standard (note that I have digital copies of all the letters in questions, if you wish to read them):

Patrick, you write that:

Need more? Watch the reaction to this announcement by Microsoft. Remember the cry has been that Microsoft should adopt OpenDocument. Microsoft has now adopted OpenDocument and it will be devoting resources to its development. For those unfamiliar with the concept, that means Microsoft will be making a positive contribution to the ODF development effort.

My recommendation is that everyone put up their noise makers and welcome Microsoft to the OpenDocument community and prepare to work with them to advance its development

Patrick, you make the assumption that those who are opposing OOXML are doing it solely because we oppose Microsoft. You couldn't be more wrong and I think it's high time you recognize the most excellent effort by many parties in helping improve the OOXML specification.

Yoon Kit and myself have spent countless weekends and many, many, many man hours finding ways of improving the proposed standard. My report to the TC, based on the reading made of the proposed standard, have always been on a solely technical basis, and Patrick, you of all people, should accede to the fact that there are/were severe technical deficiencies in the proposed standard and that input from members of National Bodies helped improve the specification.

The campaign against Open XML was at its start, in the middle and at the end an anti-Microsoft campaign. The merits or demerits of Open XML were simply a convenient launching point for criticisms of Microsoft.

Making the dangerous argument that "the merits or demerits of OOXML were simply a convenient launching point for criticisms of Microsoft" works to undermine the important constructive value of  criticism, which is to improve the proposed standard in question. The logic you have employed, that any attempt to criticize the technical deficiencies in OOXML is equated to criticism of Microsoft, is superfluous. By any measure, our criticism and feedback has helped improve the proposed standard immeasurably and you simply must recognize that, if intellectual honesty carries still carries weight with you.

Patrick, to further claim that we are solely "noise makers" does irreparable damage to value of the work we have put into improving the proposed standard. In fact, some of the decent folk at Microsoft (yes, they actually exist) helped arrange a conference call to Brian Jones, whose input helped clarify some the issues I was attempting to understand. I subsequently revised my technical contribution to the TC based on the clarification by Brian Jones. Your assertion that we are doing this so as to criticize Microsoft is an unfair charge and only serves to undermine your already dwindling reputation among the open standards community.

Now, when I was first told about Microsoft Office support for ODF by a Microsoft employee, my reaction was: "Awesome!". Then I puzzled for a minute over why they didn't do this two years ago and avoid opposing the passage of ODF as a Malaysian standard. In any case, the following day, I relayed this message to Yasmin Mahmood, the Microsoft Malaysia Managing Director, with an invitation for OpenMalaysia Blog to interview her on this positive and constructive development. I've not heard back from Yasmin on my invitation, but let me publicly assure the lady that the invitation is still open and we are committed to publishing the interview verbatim (word for word). Yoon Kit and I also offered to publicize the good work Microsoft is doing on ODF by running an interview with them. Brian and Doug, that invitation is still open if you choose to accept it by answering the questions we sent to you 11 days ago.

So all in all, Patrick, you owe us an apology for your thoughtless remarks, your unfair insinuations and biased connotations on our character.

Lawrence Lessig - On Free, and the Differences between Culture and Code

Thanks to the 23rd Chaos Communication Congress they were able to bring Lawrence Lessig to talk about "Free, and the Differences between Culture and Code".  Though its a really long video (at 1 hour 15 minute), but its an alright video for people to understand more comprehensively what the Creative Commons is about.  I say alright as sadly it plays like a lecture, it also gets a bit technical, and it may actually bore some people to death.  If not, just pay attention to the other Creative Commons videos.

Untapping the Creative Juice

A recent article by The Star on "Tapping the Creative Juice" by giving a more protection to Intellectual Property owners has me in an unease.

Malaysia hopes to tap the creative juices of its people by giving them more protection against pirates of intellectual property.

Towards this end the Domestic Trade and Industry Ministry will propose to the Cabinet a national policy that would provide more stringent protection to, and optimise the commercial value of, intellectual property.

Though Malaysians in general have to learn to respect Intellectual Property, is making the laws more stringent be the suitable solution?

Doing a little bit of research on the side, I decided to visit the site for the Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia.   Overall the site isn't too bad, and alot of important details are easy to reach.   The statutes are easily accessible to save and read.  On a side note, it appears that they are using the Free and Open Source Software Mambo CMS to power the website.

My biggest surprise is that Malaysia is now (well since May 2006, another loop I have been out of) a participating member to the WIPO Patent Cooperation Treaty (WPCT/PCT).  Why do I bring this up?  Well this is a danger for software developers.  Malaysia has to recognize Patents from various countries.  Similarly as a participating member of the World Trade Organization Trade Agreement on Trade Related Aspets of Intellectual Property Rights (WTO TRIPS), depending on the interpretation, Software Patents may be deemed legal (To my outdated knowledge, presently they are not in Malaysia).  Is Malaysia's participation in the PCT a contributing cause for changes to present IP laws?

Earlier this year MIMOS announced that it would reward researchers for filing patents.  Reward is good, but I fear that software patents may slip through, and another more recent article rewarding seven researchers indicates areas that it could potential fall under software patents.

Though presently software is protected under Malaysian Copyright Law (link to PDF), being deemed a literary work (See Part I: 3, and Part II: 7), it may possible that software patents have just come a possibility in Malaysia.  Should software be protected both under copyright and patents?

Does anyone have any further details on the proposed policy?  Are there other solutions to this besides making laws more stringent?

The Complicated Issues of DRM

There is a growing number of software and devices utilizing Digital Rights/Restrictions Management, most importantly is the recent release of Microsoft Windows Vista, plagued with what I call DRM hell.  I understand that they are trying to keep the interests of certain parties at state, most commonly the Entertainment Industry.

But the issue about DRM is a complicated issue and even the Bill Gates, head of one of the biggest proponents behind DRM even says so.  At the moment, the issue about managing the vested interests of the Entertainment Industry and consumers hasn't been found.  But many consumers are quickly accepting DRM into their life without realizing its existence.

A prime example is the various region coding that DVDs employ.  Basically an original DVD purchased in Asia would not work in a French DVD player.  A more recent example is the Apple iTunes Music Store and Microsoft Zune, which both employ a restrictive feature to the songs such that they could not be distributed.  Though it does seem logical at first to protect the vested interests and assets of the Entertainment Industry.

But what happens if you want to use some of these, for simple things.  Like a popular song for a multimedia homework assignment?  You're simply not allowed to, and thus unable to finish your work, and explore your potential.  Traditionally this was allowed under "fair use", but the Industry does not trust you anymore.

One company, that has become so ingrained into our daily life doesn't even trust you anymore.  Even though you have become dependent on it so much, (legally or illegally) it simply does not trust you.  It is letting a bunch of bad apples spoil the bunch.

An organization I respect, the Electronic Frontier Foundation is fighting these important issues, which are generally shoved to the side and ignored.

For starters you may want to get acquainted with the idea of Trusted Computing.

Though you may raise arguments, and throw fits, and even go down long winded conversations/debates in opposition of DRM and Trusted Computing.  That isn't the only option.

The other option is the adoption of the Creative Commons Licenses, to allow others to build off your work.

Hopefully in the upcoming year there can be a greater collaboration between OpenMalaysia, MOSSA, FOSS individuals in Malaysia and Creative Commons Malaysia, for a more open Malaysia.

Sadly, I don't think this post helped to ease the complicated issue of DRM...

Dependencies between Free/Open Content, Standards and Software

Free/Open Content, Standards, and Software are a catalyst to one another, and one can only get stronger with another.  There exists a large dependency between Free Content, Open Standards, and Free Software that rarely gets touched.

This postings requires understanding what Free Software is about, and somewhat its distinction from Open Source Software.

Let's have a look at Content, because the issue about Free Content doesn't have the same high profile as Open Standards and Free Software.  Free Content may also be referred to as Open Content, in the same sense that Open Source Software downplays "freedom".

Free Content is very similar to Free Software, in fact they have very similar definitions.

The Free Software Definition:

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose
• The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs.
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
• The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits.

The Free Content Defintion (as of v0.66):

• The freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it
• The freedom to redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression
• The freedom to make improvements or other changes, and to release modified copies

What exactly is "Free Content"?  With the advent of the Internet, and the "copy-paste" generation, the definition of "free content" continually gets blurred.  Does it refer to the availability and accessibility? Yes it does, but that does not define it to be "Free Content".  Though the content may be available freely (as in no monetary cost), and being easily accessible, it may be deemed that they intended for you to use it how you ever please.  Generally it does not work that way.  Though these two properties have been satisfied, they do not specify what permissions you have over it.  Can you copy it, burn it to a cd, remix it, sell it?  Again generally it is accepted that you can, because of its accessibility and availability, but sadly, the truth is you can't.  You have no permission what so ever to do as you please with your newly found content.  If you don't get permission, and you did something/anything with it, chances are you would be breaking the law, and would be liable for charges.

In reality, a lot of people want you to build off their work, and want to give you permission to do whatever you want with it.  As to them, they have justified that it is more beneficial to the public, than keeping it to themselves.

This is where Free Content comes in.  The last property, the ability to build from previous works.  They want you, and give you the permission to build off their work.  This is Free Content.

With the success of Free Software, the rigid perception of Intellectual Property began softening.  Modeled after Free Software, efforts towards promoting Free Content include the Creative Commons, which help to provide licenses for you to share your work.  These licenses indicate what properties you want your content to have.  Most importantly, these licenses transcend borders.  The borders of Intellectual Property, and international borders, as they have been acknowledged in many countries, including Malaysia.  The licenses are prepared, in an easily understood "human" form, and one in legalese "lawyers". 

Though these efforts are valiant, they would be wasted if not for Open Standards and Free Software.  There is a "somewhat" strict dependency between them.

Lets have a short review of what Standards are, at least in the context of Content.

Standards help ensure that a message be communicated between the speaker and receiver.

Standards can specify:

• How the message should be interpreted.
• How the communication process works. What happens if the message didn't get communicated? Who should start the communication?
• and many others...

Free Content depends on Open Standards because of the criteria of what defines an Open Standard.

Criteria for Standards to be considered Open Standards (at least in my opinion):

• Publicly Available
• No royalty
• No discrimination
• Collaborative Process
• No control or tie-in by any specific group or vendor

If content was released under a Closed Standard, which fail any of these criterias, most importantly publicly available, would it still be considered an Open Standard?  Yes you can create Free Content released under a Creative Commons License, and say in a possible scenario it was produced on Microsoft Word, using the OpenXML Standard.  But is it truly free?

If the Standard is not publicly available, people would not know how to interpret the content without paying certain premiums (be it monetary costs or limitations).  If people could not interpret the content freely, then isn't this affecting the definitions of what constitutes as Free Content?  The properties of the Content does simply does not equate to the definition Free Content, simply because of the Standard.

Sure, I'm being a bit restrictive here, but I would like to ensure the Free Content is actually free (as in freedom) so that people can benefit from it.

Free Software and Free Content are like lovers, bounded by marriage through the vows of Open Standards.  The issues with Free Content and Open Standards discussed earlier play the same role between Free Software and Open Standards.  If a standard was restrictive, how could a Free Software implement that standard.  Previously Free Software could not implement the GIF image format/standard as it was patented, and the owners demanded compensation for its usage.  Due to this severe constraint, and the need for an image format/standard (preferably open to ensure that such an act does not happen twice), the PNG image format was developed.  As an Open Standard, many Free Software quickly adopted it for usage.  Luckily for us the GIF patent has expired, and Free Software can finally implement the GIF image format/standard without any legal implications.  Examples like these help illustrate well why Free Software should depend on Open Standards, as Closed Standards impedes innovation.

A relation can be made between Free Content and Free software through using Open Standards as a proxy.  But a direct relationship exists between these two.   While proprietary software may adopt Open Standards as well, if all software that adopted Open Standards were proprietary, then the user would be giving up his Software Freedoms.  To prevent this, Free Content has to depend on the development Free Software to protect the user's Software Freedoms while managing the Free Content.

With the relations made, it may appear to put Open Standards on top, dependent on nothing.  This is where it should be, as Open Standards helps to provide a neutral platform from which both Proprietary Software/Content and Free Software/Content can be built on.   As a neutral platform Proprietary Software and Content they don't have to, or forced to adopt it.  Whilst Free Software and Content have to rely on Open Standards to ensure their users freedoms are continually preserved.

Therefore by ensuring that the dependency of an Open Standard is settled, innovation can be fostered in the areas of Free Software and Content.  A chain reaction has been lit, and Free/Open Content, Standards, and Software building off one another.

As a platform by itself, the importance of Open Standards is generally unrecognized. But when viewing the entities depending on it, and the benefits that they bring, then only does it truly shine.

Novell-Microsoft partnership on interoperabilty...

The deal between Microsoft and Novell includes work on ODF:

"The two companies will now work together on ways for OpenOffice and Microsoft Office users to best share documents and both will take steps to make translators available to improve interoperability between Open XML and OpenDocument Formats."

(From Novell's FAQs)

Some links:

NetworkWord.com -- Microsoft, Novell partner on historic Windows, Linux interoperability deal
Linux.com -- Microsoft and Novell partner up

Commentary from Groklaw -- Novell Sells Out

No doubt there will be a lot more coverage on this development. Interesting to see what the two companies will really do with this deal.

Making a case for open source

If you haven't yet read the feature in yesterday's The Star newspaper, a letter written by Dinesh, here is the online version.

Here is the full text:

=======================================

Tuesday October 31, 2006

Making a case for open source

REFERRING to your Oct 17 article on Making Microsoft More Malaysian:

Like all things coming from Redmond these days regarding open-source software, Yasmin Mahmood was quick to latch on to the Mampu Open Source Masterplan and complain about "Malaysia favouring open-source software."

The truth of the matter is this is just a fallacy.

The Mampu Open Source Masterplan clearly states that all government procurement will still be done based on technical and financial merit, without preference for either open-source or proprietary software. 

However, should two competing proposals be exactly equal in both financial and technical merit, then as a tie-breaker, open-source software would be preferred due to its inherent nature of providing the source code to the customer, in this case the government of Malaysia.

The benefits of being able to modify the software would swing the decision, when both financial and technical considerations are equal. However, this is a far cry from the assertion that Malaysia favours open-source, since it is only relevant in tie-breaker situations.

It must also be noted that Malaysia has joined a growing list of national, state and municipal governments worldwide who have such a policy in place and that we have also been held up by the United Nations as a case study in this policy.

Yasmin then goes on to imply that this has an adverse effect on intellectual property rights for software and that it will affect innovation.

 

Open-source software licensing is firmly based on an established intellectual property framework through copyrights. It is only through copyrighted intellectual property that open-source software licences hold their value and are possible. 

As such, open-source software firmly believes in intellectual property copyright laws on software and thus contributes to the national intellectual property bank. 

To imply that open-source software denies the IP rights of software developers and denies them economic value is misleading.

Furthermore, open-source software developers JBoss recent acquisition by Redhat for US$420mil (RM1.6bil) in addition to Oracle’s acquisition of Sleepycat Software certainly show that there is clear economic value in open-source companies.

For a developing nation like Malaysia, it is critical that we augment our national software capacity by getting involved in high end (and high value) software development. 

Open-source software development gives us that opportunity by allowing us to participate and benefit from international and world leading software technologies like the Apache webserver, the Linux and FreeBSD operating systems as well as middleware and enterprise technologies like
PHP, JBoss, MySQL and PostgreSQL.

Dinesh Nair
www.openmalaysiablog.com

=======================================

Formation Of The Dynamic Coalition On Open Standards (DCOS)

The Dynamic Coalition On Open Standards (DCOS) is being formed. Several excerpts from this article at Computer Review On Line:-

"Sun Microsystems Inc and like-minded organizations will promote the use of open standards, including the OpenDocument Format much feared by Microsoft Corp, at the Internet Governance Forum summit this week in Athens, Greece."

"This DCOS, which is not believed to yet have any kind of formal IGF or intergovernmental endorsement, will present two papers for discussion at a workshop in Athens on Thursday.

The papers, available for viewing now at cptech.org, argue that adopting open standards is useful to spur adoption of the internet in developing countries, and that open standards are currently "in jeopardy" due to vendors plugging proprietary interfaces.

The social value of interfaces has increased; so has their business value," the paper says. Software patents and proprietary APIs "are now being used to manipulate the direction of the network effect and to thwart widespread interoperability of computer programs" and this, the paper says, "will be particularly harmful to developing countries."

Another paper to be discussed deals specifically with government procurement practices. It addresses government as tech buyer, tech policymaker and tech producer, and in each context urges governments to support open standards.

Governments should "ban procurement policies from requiring compatibility with proprietary technologies or proprietary ICT standards" and "ban procurement policies from specifying particular brands, manufacturers, or products", the paper says.

"'Openness' is best judged by the number of competing, fully substitutable implementations of the standard," the paper suggests."

"The DCOS coalition may have one influential ally in the form of Vint Cerf, the co-inventor of TCP/IP, Google vice president and chairman of ICANN. While he does not appear to be directly involved in Thursday's workshop, he advocated similar beliefs during prepared remarks at the IGF opening ceremony in Athens yesterday.

"Digital documents often need to be interpreted by special software packages to be rendered in understandable form," he said, according to an IGF transcript. "Steps are needed to assure that the information we accumulate today will be usable not merely decades but centuries and even millennia into the future."

Mansur

Wasting millions

It's not often that you read about something truly inspiring in the Malaysian civil service. Though they are a bunch of hardworking folk who run the engine of government, they sometimes are befuddled by technology and usually fall into the trap of believing what they vendor tells them. This is not always the case, though.

In these times, it is heartening to note the following snippet,

In a recent audit, he said it was found that the government was exposed to losses running into hundreds of millions of ringgit simply because civil servants did not peruse purchase agreements signed with vendors.

One example was the case where officers failed to understand the need for "source code" ownership, a computer program written by the programmer in a formal programming language such as Pascal, Basic, C++ and Java.

Without correctly interpreting this code, the computer system cannot be used to the maximum.

This also means that if the buyer is not thorough when reading the provisions of the purchase agreement, the system would still "belong" to the vendor under the copyright laws.

The buyer would also be unable to expand the program without paying millions of ringgit more for it in the form of proprietary licence fees.

He said it was therefore pertinent that all source codes and the relevant documents drafted in the various stages in the development of the government’s application system are owned by the government.

I did a short double take when I read that news article, published in the New Sunday Times on October 29, 2006. I fully expected the he in the article to be one of the more vocal members of the open source community, and was pleasantly surprised when I found out his identity.

He is none other than Tan Sri Ambrin Buang, Malaysia's Auditor-General.

Tan Sri Ambrin correctly identified why the MAMPU Open Source Masterplan exists. The ability to freely modify software from government procurement efforts leads to a lower cost of doing business and breaking the chains of vendor dependence.  He further goes on to say,

If the source code belongs to the government, the development cost would only be one off when the pilot project is launched.

When there is a need to extend it to other government departments or agencies, the extra cost would only be for additional equipment, installation and testing.

As the man who's in charge of making sure our taxpayer funds are well spent, Tan Sri Ambrin's opinions are well taken. And if that's not enough, he goes on to prove that he really does get it right when he elaborates on the benefits of open source and having access to the source code,

• an integrated system between all ministries and departments

• the creation of an inter-operable system which could be upgraded as and when required

• doing away with monopoly —  ministries and departments need not rely on the same vendor

• civil servants would be more adept at handling such systems.

I don't normally have a habit of cutting-n-pasting content without adding any of my own, but Tan Sri Ambrin Buang just said it all. Syabas, Tan Sri !

Read the full article in the NST.

 

Watch out for more FUD

Via Bob Sutor's Open Blog, How the anti-open game is being played in Europe, see the Techworld article Leaked letter warns of open source 'threat to eco-system'.
Excerpt:
"A leaked letter to the European Commission has revealed the extent of lobbying by proprietary software groups to prevent the widespread adoption of open-source software."

Watch out - this kind of FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) messages may find its way to Malaysia.

[Update 18 October 2006, 03:45 PM:
Related blog posts:
27 Sep -- Open Malaysia blog: Appeal of Neutral Software Approach. A rebuttal.
15 Oct -- Rob Weir - An Antic Disposition: When language goes on holiday]

[Update 20 October 2006, 2:07 AM:
More comments:
19 Oct -- ZDNet: Microsoft-sponsored lobbyist to the EU: It’s a mistake to floss us]

Going Local

Much has been said by all and sundry about the need to Beli Barang Buatan Malaysia. And yet, the common lament among local innovators is that they just don't get opportunities when it comes to procurement, both by government and by the private sector. The latest to make this call is none other than the Prime Minister,

Give local inventors and their products a chance. This is Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s message to Malaysians with a penchant for imports.

Abdullah said Malaysians were generally sceptical when it came to locally made products, but embraced imports without question.(October 8th, 2006)

The PM's message is very apt, as the mindshare and perception problems faced by Malaysian innovators is both very real and entrenched in the psyche of the nation. Too often we find that an imported solution is used, inspite of the availability of much better locally developed solutions. As a result, the local innovators will eventually find their funds  (and support) drying up and much worse, lose the enthusiasm to further innovate in their respective fields. The net result would be the slow but steady colonization of our industries and our economy by foreign companies.

I've been told many times by well-meaning folk that we should actually be basing our company in Europe or the United States, and from there make our approach into the Malaysian market. Apparently, we would be more accepted through this method as we'd be seen as an imported solution. Coupled with our technological advances, this would (they say) make us a shoo-in for projects we submit proposals for.

Many a time, I find it hard to disagree with this line of thought. To do this however would raise our costs of production, and this in return will result in a higher price paid by the Malaysian customer. To top it all off, this just seems to silly given that the solution originates in Malaysia, and is worked on by Malaysians and would be supported from Malaysia by Malaysians. MSC notwithstanding, I think a better way needs to be found in order to address the issue. The cause of the problem should be eradicated.

For the mindset to change, an impetus with far reaching impact should be made. The cause of the problem lies deep within the Malaysian psyche, which is still shackled by the mantles of colonialism when it sees imported solutions as being better. This malaise rests in all sectors of our industries. To make a change here and to bootstrap the local software development capacity of Malaysia would be the single most influential thing any administration could do.

While preferential policies may raise the ire of "fair and balanced" arguments by the US and the WTO, the fact that the present situation is unbalanced viz a viz, the unwritten preference for imports over supposedly inferior locally developed solutions. Procurement of government solutions should be made on a truly fair and balanced basis, with local solutions being evaluated on par with foreign solutions. This would require greater enforcement by the relevant agencies to ensure that such practices are maintained and that personal preferences for imports do not creep into procurement decisions.

Building our local software capacity and our technological prowess will provide a strong impetus to our future economy, as the reliance on imports and foreign exchange are reduced. Short sightedness in proliferating the perception that imports are better irrespective will only serve to harm our innovation and domicile us as industrial colonists in the long run.

The change has to happen now, and words must be translated into concrete action one way or another.

Piracy of a different kind

Courtesy of Slashdot, I discovered that the popular guitar tab site, OLGA has shut down again. The reason given was that the publication of the tabs constitute a copyright infringement, and a DMCA violation. In other words, the people who create guitar tabs of songs are guilty of reverse engineering[1]! Never mind the fact that most of the tabs are awful to begin with.

I used to play the guitar rather badly[2], though the fact that I can play at all is no mean feat considering that I'm tone deaf. However, because I am tone deaf, tab sites are extremely useful to me. Now, it seems that using those tabs can be considered condoning copyright violation (in the US, at least) and is therefore a form of piracy.

Way weird! Heh heh henh heh, hmm heh hnnh heh ... [3]

What has it got to do with Malaysia? Nothing really. Or rather, not yet anyway. But it won't be a stretch to say that someday it will affect Malaysia, due to the "harmonization of intellectual property laws"[5].

So, where will it end? Can't do tabs, can't do lyrics. Maybe, eventually singing along (no matter how badly) will also constitute a violation?

Before long, all we can do is listen to songs, but we can't remember  the lyrics, can't try to work it out on our own instruments, can't change the format to ogg or mp3s. They should really start looking into making different kinds of musical instruments and patent those (e.g. 7-string guitars, say), so that songs can really become proprietary and would therefore "ensure that composers and songwriters will continue to have incentive to create new music for generations to come."

As an aside, I wonder what Lars Ulrich's opinion on tabs is.

[1] I may be wrong on the actual violation. It may not be reverse engineering but something else. Haven't read the DMCA since it's not directly relevant to me and Malaysians in general (yet). The DMCA thing was mentioned in a lawyer's cease and desist letter to another tab site, as shown here.

[2] I stopped playing lately because the missus said that the neighbours are considering a class action suit on me for undue duress and extreme aural and mental torture.

[3] I would like to categorically say the transcribed laugh/giggle above is not a copy of Beavis & Butthead's laugh. If it was, I may have violated the DMCA[4], for all I know. So it ain't anything like that.

[4] If I was an American citizen, which I ain't.

[5] There's lots of links for this. Googling gives this .

Digital Rights Management (DRM) and Technology Protection Measures (TPM): An Introduction

There is some confusion between the differences of Digital Rights Management (DRM), and Technology Protection Measures (TPM).

The truth is both terms work with one another, and fuse together to give the Entertainment Industry control over your digital media.  Yes, that latest album you purchased, it does belong to you, but they want to control what you do with it.

In respect to a song it would be: how you play it, where you play it on, how many times you can play it, your ability to copy it and distribute it, the ability to sample it (perhaps for a home video, or education purpose), and etc...

Digital Rights Management (DRM)

DRM effectively controls your ability to use digital media, be it CDs, DVDs, MP3s, etc.  By controlling where the digital media can be read, or played, they have effective control over the usage of your their intellectual property.

For example, when you legally purchase a Digital Versatile Disc (DVD), it has restrictions that mandate it only to be played on certain DVD players. This is because the entertainment industry has partitioned the world into different regions, where certain DVDs would work in the respective region they were produced for. Also DVDs employ a Content Scrambling System (CSS) which puts 'lock' on a DVD, preventing it to be read from an unknown source. DVD player manufacturers would have to purchase a 'CSS key' from the DVD Copy Control Association (DVDCCA) in order to be able 'unlock' and read these DVDs. Thus by partitioning and selecting permitted users of DVDs, they effectively ensured that legal DVDs were being produced and circulated.

Technology Protection Measures
The problem with DRM is that it was not backed by any laws, so users are able to freely 'crack' the lock and access the media files.  The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a division under the United Nations created to promote Intellectual Property, in 1996 produced what is sometimes known as the Internet treaties: the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT).

WIPO Copyright Treaty:

Article 11: Obligations concerning Technology Measures

Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law.

Article 12: Obligations concerning Rights Management Information

(1) Contracting Parties shall provide adequate and effective legal remedies against any person knowingly performing any of the following acts knowing, or with respect to civil remedies having reasonable grounds to know, that it will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal an infringement of any right covered by this Treaty or the Berne Convention:

(i) to remove or alter any electronic rights management information without authority;

WPPT Articles 18 & 19 are the same as the WCT Articles 11 & 12 respectively.

Participating members of these treaties are required to adopt these laws, and well interestingly enough though Malaysia is not a member these laws are actually in place!

Malaysia Copyright Act 1987 (warning PDF download)

Article 36: Infringements
3. Copyright is infringed by any person who circumvents or causes any other person to circumvent any effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Act and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law.

The United States is a signatory of both the WCT and WPPT, and thus under pressure from the Entertainment Industries implemented such laws into place into what is now known as the infamous Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

Conclusion

I hope people now better understand the difference between the two, DRM and TPM.  DRM protects the media, while TPM protects the DRM.  DRM would be useless without the legal backing of TPMs.

I have actually been writing a paper about the issue of DRM and TPM and the positions nations around the world have taken, so stay tuned till I post the link.  Though the paper is turning out quite long and it will take a while, perhaps I'll start publishing drafts that people can read.

Before I end this, I would like to say that my position on DRM and TPM is that they are BAD.  Though it may be deemed reasonable to protect Intellectual Property, the US DMCA gives excessive powers to holders allowing for abuse.  The Electronic Frontier Foundation had documented the problems with the DMCA in their paper: "Unintended Consequences: Five Years under the DMCA"

In the meantime can read a paper published in the UK by the All Party  Parliamentary Internet Group (APIG) has released its inquiry into Digital Rights Management detailing recommendations to the UK Parliament on the issue regarding DRMs, or perhaps turn to my favorite encyclopedia, Wikipedia.

Software Patents: An Introduction

With the recent interests of Software Patents in Malaysia, I would like to post some useful links to where you can get updated on the issue.

The first is a nice introductory video on the differences between patents and copyright, and the dangers that software patents have.

• How Patents Actually Work

The second is a paper by fellow OpenMalaysia contributor Ditesh Kumar:

• Software Patents Background, Discussion and Illustration of Harm (ODF)
• Software Patents Background, Discussion and Illustration of Harm (PDF)

So go educate yourself on the issue and fight against software patents!

Software Patents in Malaysia: Part 2

As mentioned in Part 1, I had the opportunity to listen to Mr Deepak Pillai from haryantideepak Advocates & Solicitors. His talk was insightful, and encouraging in that there are other people besides Free and Open Source folk who understand the threats Software Patents may inflict on the local Software Development community.

His talk was simply entitled "Intellectual Property - Know your rights." He demonstrated his experience in this field, because the first thing he did was to explain what the ambiguous IP term meant.

"A category of intangible rights protecting commercially valuable products of the human intellect"

He then explained the differences between Trademarks, Copyright, Patents, Industrial Design and Trade Secrets. He then went on to an overview of a companies need to have Intellectual Asset Management for protection, additional revenue and cost savings. He was talking about managing standard IP, not to become a patent troll.

Regarding Software Patents, although patents are now granted very easily in the US, the European Union has recently reject software patenting. Also in Malaysia, he comments, Software Patents per se are not available.

He notes that Software patents are seen as an inhibitor of the production of  both FOSS and proprietary Software Development in Malaysia. Reason being is that it puts developers and users at risk of patent infringement suits. It also requries developers to conduct searches to be aware of existing patents before proceeding with development work. This is wasteful in both monetary, manpower and time resources. The USPTO system of granting software is open to abuse as registration is easily acquired and a challenge requires substantial financial capacity which not many start-ups have the deep pockets.

His views on Software Patents became apparent when he described a thought experiment; if Malaysia were to attempt to try to win the IP war using Software Patents to balance the tech deficit, he predicted it would be a losing battle. Actually, a total wipeout: it would be like playing a game of rugby against 7ft giants when you are just 1ft, against an incline of 45  degrees! The reason being, IBM alone patents over 3000 applications a year, as such has a warchest of over 30,000 (spanning 10 years of accumulation) plus the HPs, Microsoft and Suns of the West, a developing country would only be able to apply for 300 max if they are lucky, would just get crushed.

In the 2004 Asian Government Leaders' Forum,  Steve Ballmer threatened to mitigate against competitors where Microsoft holds patents, and Linux could be a candidate as the kernel already violates 228 patents. More importantly he reportedly said:

"Someday, for all countries that are entering the WTO (World Trade Organisation), somebody will come and look for money owing to the rights for that intellectual property"

So whether or not Malaysian Patent Law allows Software Patents would be moot if Malaysia proceeds with the US-FTA in its entirety regarding Intellectual Property. Large foreign software companies will be able to descend on local software houses via the backdoor and lock us out of our own markets.

With this, he highlighted:

• Are Software Patents in the interest of Software development in Malaysia?
• Are Software Patents in the interest of Malaysia?
• Possible introduction of requiremnts to recognise software patents via Free Trade Agreements.

These warnings are clear and we need to be vigilant in the upcoming development of the US-FTA.

In the Q&A, Hong Yee asked regarding the progress of the talks with the US FTA, and if  Software Patents are included.  Ng Wan Peng from MDeC attempted to answer but really could not as she is not included in the talks. Deepak also is not involved but encouraged people to learn about these issues and raise these to the relevant people who are involved with the talks.

However he added that Software Patents are not the cause of the problems facing the software industry now... its the ease in which the USTPO is awarding patents to the applicants. A regular mechanical patent requires detailed schematics and actual operational machines before it can be awarded to the applicant. However Software Patents just requires a 'concept' to be documented. No actual implementation in code is necessary! This provides huge leeway in terms of approval criteria and subsequently interpretation in enforcement. To me, it highlights the huge difference between Hardware (Traditional) Patents and Software Patents. One being undeniably useful, and the other redundant. 

I asked "Why do we need Software Patents to protect software? Does Copyright Law provide sufficient protection?" Deepak immediately answered "Yes, current Copyright Law is sufficient in protecting Software Intellectual Property." This is obvious too, as we do not see rampant piracy nor disregarding in IP in countries like Europe or UK which do not need Software Patents to further protect software.

A chap from Bernama then asked "If Software Patents are not in law then how will the BSA enforce their rights?" Obviously he was not paying attention... Another asked about indemnification, but I thought it was irrelevant to the talk.

Anyway, it was a really informative session, Mr Deepak really knows his stuff and it would be a great service to the community if he could speak again especially to influential people and laymen alike. He is articulate, knowledgeable and effable; our very own Eben Moglen!

yk.

PS3: PIKOM's Conference. Software Patents in Malaysia: Part 1.

I had the opportunity to attend the PIKOM Conference: Reinvent Business Strategies Through Technology held in the Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre (13-14th July 2006). Unfortunately I could only attend the second half of the second day, which was a shame as there were quite a few talks I wanted to hear.

However I did manage to catch a couple of very good talks. The first is by Ng Wan Peng from MDeC and the other by Deepak Pillai from haryatideepak law firm.

Ng Wan Peng talked about "Policy considerations in the patentability of computer implemented business methods." She stressed very clearly that what she was about to present was the findings of a study MDeC commissioned in 2005 and may not necessary be the position MDeC holds officially. In the presentation, she outlined the reasons for the MSC, and one of them is that it promises to be a leader in Intellectual Property (IP) and cyber laws.

Current Malaysian laws are silent on the status of Software Patents, in that it is probably allowed if the patent demonstrates novel, innovative and useful qualities. With that, a well drafted application for software patents would probably be granted. However it is very clear that Business Methods are NOT patentable.

She notes that the nature of the Software Industry is sequential, in that developments progresses cummulatively, there is high obsolescence in that it moves much faster than other industries and it depends on innovation and high knowledge 'spill-over'.

A survey done in the UK in 2001 showed that for Nations which have strengthened their Patent Laws indicate that there is no correlation with increased innovation. It also mentions that Patents does not reward nor encourage innovation. Neither has there been a spike in 'innovations' in the US when they altered their Patent Laws in 1994 to allow for Software Patents. Innovation continued at their respective rates as before the change.

The MDeC report also noted that in the Malaysian Software Development environment, we are still a net importer of technology. It asked these questions,

Will Software Patents help:

• increase Foreign Direct Interests?
• reduce the deficit in Technology balance of payments?
• reduce transactional and social costs?

For all three queries, the answer was a resounding 'No'.  A strong legal framework is an important but relatively small criteria in selecting a country for investments. The other criteria comes from able workforce, stable government, language and cultural preferences and other major economic reasons. IP protection is important, but not as important as the rest.
The Balance of Payments will definitely swing not to the favour of Malaysia as her citizens will now have to respect Software Patents of other nations. Similarly we will have to pay for these 'services' which guarantee a monopoly position over our home-grown technology which means shutting down of our local service providers; wasted opportunity costs for us now, as we are deprived of alternatives of more efficent solutions. It also means a wider digital divide where poorer citizens and government bodies cannot afford the licenses fees and will have to do without computerization.

To conclude, MDeC's position on Software Patents are:

• Retain status quo: Software Patents are possible on stringent criteria: if it shows innovation and novel ideas
• Business Methods are clearly not Patentable
• and a review of position in 3 years time ...

So the talk was both good and dissapointing at the same time. Good because it gives the impression that the people at MDeC do understand the problems of software patents and its detrimental impact on the local software industry. Dissapointing because they have not taken a clearer and harder stance against Software Patents like other goverments namely the United Kingdom, India and the European Union. A weak stance by the main technology body of Malaysia (MDeC) severely weakens the Malaysian position as the Ministry of Trade walks into the negotiation room on the US-FTA when it comes to the "Intellectual Property" concerns.

yk.

Rights? What rights?

So, this one day, I had a nostalgic fit and wandered off to Tower Records to get a few Iron Maiden CDs. One of the albums I bought [1], Death On The Road, had a notice at the back cover, saying:

This disc may incorporate Copy Control technology.  Copy Controlled discs are designed to be compatible with CD audio players, DVD players and PCs with OS Windows 95, Pentium 2, 233Mhz, 64MB RAM or higher.  This technology prevents the consumer from making digital copies.

For further information please visit http://www.emimusic.info

At which point, my reaction was, "Huh?"

I bought the 2 CD collection anyway. Went back and slotted the CDs into the laptop and ripped it into MP3s (because there aren't any Ogg enabled Nakamichi head units on the market). Apparently, the Copy Control thing is rather useless (ineffective, rather) on non-Windows machines. Fancy that.

Now, the thing is, in Malaysia there aren't that many people who'd make any noise with regards to DRM attempts. Why is that, though, I wonder?

Similarly, in Malaysia there aren't that many people who'd be pissed off with Microsoft's WGA (see earlier post). Why is that?

Personally, I think it's because we are swimming in pirated software, music and videos. And because of that, we are accepting controlling technologies and initiatives (think DRM, Trustworthy Computing, software patents) because we have *no idea* what our rights are.

In that sense, we are like lambs to the slaughter, really. Organisations and companies can provide crippled hardware, software, music, videos, regulations and legislations and we'd take it all in because we don't see any difference in how we obtain hardware, software, etc.

Then, one day when all the necessary technology and regulations are in place, the plug gets pulled. There'd be a real crackdown on illegal CD/VCD/DVD producers, the Low Yat Collective (software division) will be raided, the dude with the old Russian submarine containing his production line (parked offshore) will be caught.

Then what?

No use crying about fair use and the right to listen to music you've paid for on any device you like.

No use complaining about not being able to install the same copy of Windows on your new PC, even if you've sold the old one off.

No use appealing to the authorities to let you sell the software you've developed because the patent it allegedly infringes is stupid and shouldn't have been granted anyway.

Rights? What rights? We've giving it all away.

[1] I also bought another one, Edward The Great, a compilation which didn't have Copy Control. I also wanted to get three of their albums which the guy at the counter said isn't available because they're satanic or something like that -- but that's another story for another place.

Genuinely Advantageous (to be Malaysian)

On the 25th. of April 2006, I found myself surprisingly proud (more than usual, anyway) to be a Malaysian.  Because, on that day, The Star newspaper had a front page article saying that Microsoft are launching the  Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) program. In The Star's in-Tech supplement, a longer  article followed which explained more about the WGA program.

Why did I feel proud? Well, the WGA was launched in five countries first, which are: America, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand and ... Malaysia. We have arrived in the world stage, my countrymen. I say this because, right after reading it, I asked someone this question:

Which is the odd one out, and why?

The two most useful answers given were:

1. USA -- because it's not part of the Commonwealth.

2. Malaysia -- because it's not a predominantly English speaking country.

(A slightly snottier answer I got is: Malaysia, because it's not one of the  OECD countries)

The point I'm making is that, for reasons known only to Microsoft, we are lumped into the same category as the other four nations, which arguably have a much lower piracy rate than us.

Having said that, in the past two-odd months that WGA was launched, no one's made much noise about it here, so I reckon we really do have a lower piracy rate that I originally thought. Either that, or the Low Yat collective have managed to get the cracks in on the new PCs they're selling and the existing pirated XP users have also done the same.

However, there's a new rumour now that Microsoft will be turning off copies of XP without WGA installed. Man, I hope that the rumour is true. Because it'll be interesting to watch what happens.

Btw, according to Microsoft, the WGA initiative is, "aimed at protecting its customers and partners from counterfeit software." *snigger*

So that's why it phones home and why Microsoft (allegedly) misrepresents what the WGA is in order to get people to install it.  And that's why WGA wasn't initially launched in China, Vietnam, Brazil or India, too.

Asia Commons, Day 3

This is long overdue report of Asia Commons, Day 3. Day 3 was a continuation of the Open Space presentations.  I participated in the an open space regarding alternatives to the current intellectual rights regime. The participants suggested exploring an alternative epistemological to intellectual rights. In part, the participants justified this by outlining the current abuse of intellectual rights. I don't see this as a sufficiently strong reason as the changes that led to current intellectual rights regime are fairly recent and it did seem that the older regime worked much better. While the session was intellectually interesting, I personally don't see an alternative view of intellectual rights being adopted widely anytime soon due to the current vested interests (and, of course, one should never discount Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs in describing human psychological  drives, in this case, as it applies to knowledge creation in the Commons).

I had a presentation on free trade agreements. We started off with a discussion of copyright criminalization issues in India and Malaysia. However, Vijayalakshmi requested for a background on the FTA's and its dynamics for which Peter obliged by giving a good background on the FTA's: the US is signing FTA's with countries as they could not exercise sufficient leverage at WTO. IFAC is the main lobbying body in the US. IFAC, while representing a large body of other organizations, is a tightly focused group which promotes the interests of 21 main private sector entities. Peter also mentioned that besides the intellectual rights chapter in the FTA, the dispute resolution chapter is particularly important.

Primarily, the FTA's exist to set a higher standard which is primarily aimed to protect the US market, and that with each agreement signed, the intention is to continually increase the standard of "protection" afforded to US based companies. In particular, there are specific objectives set for certain countries. Peter brought up the example of the US trade negotiators aiming to abolish the Australian pharmateutical regulations which were more liberal and fair compared to US based regulations. Finally, he noted that the FTA is aimed to bring more income into the US via royalties.

As a counter to IFAC in the US, some public interest groups and individuals are taking action. Lobbying has been successful in certain circumstances but there is no group with the lobbying power of the IFAC. It was suggested that companies in the US whose interests do not necessarily coincide with the interests of the FTA start lobbying actions of their own. Litigation in the US was suggested as a method to remove some aspects of the FTA provisions, but the efficacy of doing this remains unclear.

As the intention is to sign a FTA with Korea, patcha brought us up to date with regards to developments back home. He mentioned that there was concern on the intellectual rights chapter as well as resistance from civil society bodies, that ISP's and ICT companies are concerned by organizing forums and analysis. He also mentioned that the digital libraries in Korea are under pressure by the US to be shut down, and the government position with regards to the FTA are kept under wraps.

The discussion shifted to the fast track authority until mid 2007 that the current US administration has received from the US Congress. Peter mentioned that by slowing down the negotitations such that it exceeds the fast track authority of the current administration, it would be possible to gain greater leverage of the situation as there is much concern in the US Congress as to the direction of the FTA's.

All in all, it was a pretty good discussion and I enjoyed the interaction of the participants.

Asia Commons came to an end soon after that. I came away with a strong appreciation of analysis conducted by various people (Vijayalakshmi, Lawrence, Peter come to mind) in this sphere and clearly, I have much reading to catch up on!

Is the Sun Dimming?

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.

                            - Bob Dylan, The Times They Are A-Changing

I have many a times privately remarked to friends that Sun Microsystem's approach to the Free Software movement has been schizophrenic at best. Given Sun's considerable contributions to the Free Software community, this view may seem excessively harsh yet the facts do bear out the truth. Sun has certainly opened up the OpenOffice.org codebase under the popular LGPL, but this is followed by its CEO (COO in the past) Schwartz going on record to criticize the GPL as "a rather predatory obligation to disgorge all their IP back to the wealthiest nation in the world" [source]. Sun's tango-ing on the issue of free-ing the Java platform and it's obsessively tight control over the OpenSolaris platform have caused a negative flow of contributions (ideas moving out of the OpenSolaris codebase, but not inwards). Given Sun's strong engineering culture, its deep Unix roots and its support of free software in the past years, some of the positions taken by the top executives have been a cause of despair for those who see Sun being able to collaborate with the Free Software community in a constructive manner for both parties.

Despite all the hoopla Schwartz, Simon and other top Sun executives make about needing to protect Sun's "intellectual property"[1], it is clear to industry observers that such rhetoric is mainly aimed to appease Sun's shareholders, and that very few believe that Sun can credibly and legitimately be part of the Free Software movement and still have a strong "intellectual property" agenda. Putting the ideology and philosphy aside, the Free Software movement's greatest strength lies is in the network effect of sharing information and knowledge. The rapid advancement of free software packages in the last decade have had many contributing factors, but the ability of individuals to communicate, contribute and confluence trajectories of growth remain one of the defining characteristics of its success. And that fundamental characteristic is at complete and intractable odds with the absolute control that is defining hallmark of traditional intellectual rights regime.

Governer Tarkin: Princess Leia, before your execution, you will join me at a ceremony that will make this battle station operational. No star system will dare oppose the Emperor now.

Princess Leia: The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.

So, is the Sun's past dazzling past truely dimming? Are the star systems that were its dominion slipping through and establishing new empires of their own? I can almost imagine Linus hurtling in his embattled X-Wing, RMS appearing in a ghostly form and saying "Use the source, Linus", and Linus firing that memorable shot that completely annihilates the Death Star. As analogies go, the Death Star was Sun's proprietary business model, the memorable shot was the release of the 2.2 Linux kernel and cheap x86 hardware, and the resulting ka-boom you hear is Sun's annihilated value in the enterprise Unix space.

Yet, despite all the eye-rolling that commences when Schwarz and Scott McNealy rhetorize on why Sun is still  relevent in the 21st century, a  happy ending for Sun may actually still be possible. I personally like where Sun has been heading in last year, both from a business perspective as well as from a community perspective. Consider its strong involvement in ensuring that the OpenDocument Format is truly open and unencumbered. Consider that Schwartz finally seems to have grokked the importance of open standards in leveraging market adoption.  Consider that Sun is putting its weight behind the free software distribution Ubuntu for its hardware platform (it's earlier Linux JDS platform was based on the then closed Suse Linux platform). Schwartz, in a fundamental shift of strategies, has actually gone on to say that  "on the hardware we ship, I don't want to be Solaris only, because then I will just define my market to be smaller than the opportunity". Consider that Sun has finally decided to free its Java platform (although negotiations on the fine print is still ongoing between Sun and the free software community leaders). Consider that Sun is expanding its OpenSolaris program  in response to feedback received from community contributors. Consider that Sun is free-ing not just its software platform, but also its hardware platform ("Expanding SPARC beyond Solaris to Linux opens new markets for everyone." - source).

All of these are strong indicators that Sun has finally come to recognize that community engagement and opening the gates of innovation will lead to new market opportunities that Sun badly needs to monetize at this juncture. It's a risky move but at this point, Sun has little to lose. The line has been drawn, the curse has been cast, the times are surely are a-changin' and it is going to be an electrifying ride for Sun.

[1] If we had Millenium Prizes for Misnomers of the 20th Century, the phrase "intellectual property" would be leading the race to the finish line by a large margin.