Article: An interview with Lineo’s COO, Matt Harris
Jul 24, 2001 — by Rick Lehrbaum — from the LinuxDevices Archive — 1 viewsIn this interview with Lineo's chief operating officer, Matt Harris, LinuxDevices.com founder Rick Lehrbaum asks Harris to explain Lineo's Open Source philosophy, clarify Lineo's Embedded Linux licensing policies, and comment on Lineo's contributions to Open Source.
RL: What is Lineo's philosophy regarding Open Source Software? How important is Open Source Software to Lineo's business strategy?
Harris: The short answer: we support Open Source Software and consider it crucial to our business strategy. These are pretty general statements, so let me explain further.
First, though, I want to make clear that we are not a pure GNU GPL software company. Some of the software we license is licensed under other Open Source licenses, and some of the software we license is our proprietary software, licensed under a proprietary license.
Subject to minor exceptions, however, we make the source code available for all of the software we supply to our customers. The exceptions are for some tools — where customers have little need or desire for the source code — and certain third-party applications, for which we do not have the right to relicense the source code.
That said, our overall philosophy is that our customers can and should receive source for Lineo products. The best summary of our philosophy is that we leverage Open Source Software for our customers, by providing tools, proprietary extensions, quality control, and all the other pieces necessary to make Open Source Software useful in embedded devices. Our goal is to make Linux the dominant OS in the embedded market — at the expense of Wind River and Microsoft.
None of this will happen though, unless companies like ours support the Open Source movement. We do that in a number of ways. We dedicate a significant portion of our engineers to developing pure GNU GPL code and making it freely available. We have, for example, engineers responsible for developing and/or maintaining all or part of uCLinux, PoPToP, RTAI, TinyLogin, ThinLinux, and Busybox. We make these and our other contributions freely available at opensource.lineo.com.
We also support the Free Software Foundation (FSF). We have been working with the FSF for some time now to create a compliance program for companies interested in ensuring that they are complying with the terms of the GNU GPL. With all of the FUD generated by Microsoft (the GPL is a “cancer”) and Wind River, this issue has become more important. Our plan is to assemble a trade association of companies interested in supporting Linux, with the FSF an active organizer and participant. Through this association, our hope is to establish a compliance program to give companies the assurance they need that they have complied with the GNU GPL.
We intend to support the FSF in a second manner, as well. We have a team with significant technology litigation experience — inside and outside the company — which we plan to use if and when the GNU GPL is ever challenged. It is our belief that a successful commercial Linux company such as ours will be in a unique position to defend the license if it comes under serious attack.
The final way we support the community: we provide an opportunity for scores of engineers to make a living writing Linux code. This is good for us, good for them, and good for the Open Source community.
RL: I believe there are some misconceptions in the market about whether Lineo's Embedix embedded Linux operating system is truly an Open Source product, and whether the Embedix SDK can be used to create a royalty-free target OS image. It is my understanding that Embedix is not entirely Open Source, due to inclusion of a number of proprietary components; but it is likewise my understanding that it is possible to choose not to use those proprietary components, since they are more-or-less standalone components (such as a browser or wireless protocol stack) that a developer could easily choose not to use. It therefore seems to me that the Embedix SDK could be used to build a fully Open Source Linux OS target image that an OEM would be able to deploy in manufactured devices without being obligated to have licensed by Lineo or to pay license fees to Lineo. Last Summer, however, a Lineo executive told me that even when no non-(L)GPL components are included in the target image, the resulting image is still subject to a Lineo license and royalty payments, due to the use of Lineo's SDK and, in particular, the LIPO utility; but I really don't believe this could be true. Could you please comment on this?
Harris: You are right. I apologize for the bad information you received. We haven't changed our policy on pricing, but I'd be the first to admit that during that time period, when we were adding new people on a daily basis, there were as many opinions on this subject as there were people at the company. Anyhow, here is the straight story . . .
Embedix SDK is an OS configuration toolkit. It allows you to pick and choose components to include in your target image, through a GUI, while tracking dependencies and footprint size. Although many of the target image components are GNU GPL components, some are proprietary. If you create a pure GNU GPL target image, you are free to make as many copies of it, on as many devices as you like, at no additional charge. In other words, those target images are royalty free.
Our pricing policy follows. It ought to clear up any remaining misperceptions . . .
- Tools: We offer a comprehensive set of tools for configuring target images and for building and testing embedded applications on Linux. These tools consist of unique Lineo IP and Open Source components. We maintain a large team of developers focused solely on continuous improvement of our tools. We charge an initial license fee for our tools, based on the number of seats used, with volume discounts. We also offer enterprise license programs for larger customers. Under these license programs, you receive the tools plus developer support and all enhancements and updates at no additional charge. We also offer ongoing support and enhancements after the first year for an annual fee.
- Target images: Target images created with our tools fall into two categories: images that consist of pure GNU/GPL components (and components we've chosen to give away); and images that contain proprietary intellectual property. For target images in the first category, i.e., targets created by you that do not contain proprietary intellectual property, the images are royalty free. You are free to create and distribute those images on unlimited different devices, in unlimited quantities, royalty free. For target images that contain proprietary intellectual property (say, for example, a proprietary voice recognition module), there is a royalty charge for that value added component. We believe this pricing scheme is fair and consistent with the GNU GPL.
- Custom solutions: We provide ready-made and customized solutions targeted at specific vertical markets (including Digital TV, Smart Handheld Devices, and Communications). We also will build you a customized version of Linux, optimized and enhanced specifically to improve the functionality and performance of your device. This platform may include middleware and other application specific layers, all integrated in a way that ensures compatibility with your device. For all of these products and services, we charge a fee. We structure our pricing to fit your needs. The fee can be structured as: a per-unit or per-copy charge (which allows us to share the risk of success of the device in the market); a one-time charge or buy-out; an annual charge or subscription; or any combination of these. One important note: if we build you a customized Linux distribution licensed under the GNU GPL, then the resulting product is subject only to the limitations of the GNU GPL license. We do not impose additional limitations. In the end, our objective is to ensure that you've paid a fair price for the value we've provided — because we are interested in building long-term relationships with customers that value our products and services.
- Professional services: We charge a fair price for our services. We may charge a flat fee for a specific job, or we may simply charge time and materials. If we are building a platform solution for you or a customized Linux distribution, we often offer to structure the pricing to share risks with our customers (by lowering the services charge and including a per-copy charge for the resulting products). We also offer subscriptions for support services.
RL: Since the Embedix SDK can be used to create target OS images that may or may not contain non-(L)GPL components, it seems to me this results in is a source of confusion as to what license governs the resulting OS image, and whether or not royalties are required for its reproduction. It is my understanding that there currently is no easy way to tell whether non-(L)GPL software has been included in a target image produced by Lineo's Target Wizard tool. How can a developer know whether a target software image generated using Lineo's Embedix SDK contains non-(L)GPL software, on which royalties must be paid and licenses negotiated? Wouldn't it make sense to add a parameter field to the Wizard's display that shows the type of license for each selected component, so developers can take that into consideration when building a target image (and so they'll know whether they need to worry about licensing and royalty issues)?
Harris: There is no easy way to tell now. We have a planned enhancement to the tool to identify which components are “free” and which are not. I expect it to be ready in release 2.1 (this Fall). In fact, I just saw a demonstration of it today. In the meantime, send us your image and we'll tell you if it has royalty bearing components in it – without charging you for looking. Not a very elegant solution, I know, but we expect to have the enhancement soon.
RL: Other comments relating to Lineo and Open Source Software?
Harris: Another area where Lineo is interested in helping, is in responding to Microsoft and Wind River's attack on the GNU GPL. Exploiting language in the license that — at least in the view of Microsoft and Wind River — creates ambiguities, opponents of the Open Source movement are trying to sink it under a fusillade of legal uncertainty and doubt. A relatively easy remedy to this problem would be a simply redraft of the license, keeping the substance of the license completely intact, but otherwise shortening and simplifying it. We have worked up a draft of the license to send to the FSF for review and hope to present it at Bruce Peren's conference later this year. It would undermine the FUD campaign now underway.
We've bet our company and our personal futures on the success of the Open Source Software movement. There are a number of implications that flow from that statement. First, we intend to defend the GNU GPL if it is ever challenged. We have to. We don't intend to do it alone — there are plenty of others who have the incentive to help and we intend to be an organizing force in the area. Second, we think to be a viable company, you have to strike a balance between pure Open Source Software and proprietary software. Doing so allows us to create ongoing revenue streams, which in turn allows us to continue to create Open Source Software, and to undertake efforts like the license clarification project and the defense of the GNU GPL. Third, and finally, it sounds a little dramatic, but we believe that this movement has the potential to turn the software world on its head. We plan to make sure that happens.
RL: Thank you very much!
This article was originally published on LinuxDevices.com and has been donated to the open source community by QuinStreet Inc. Please visit LinuxToday.com for up-to-date news and articles about Linux and open source.