Asterisk SCF

It’s called Asterisk Scalable Communications Framework, or Asterisk SCF.

It’s a new project from Digium, the Asterisk people, aimed at giving Voice Over IP true integration with other Internet services, on an Internet scale.

They’re quick to note this is not a replacement for the main Asterisk project, now on version 1.8, but is being built on top of it.

The aim is to make SCF a set of distributed components that can be deployed as clusters in a single server and be transparent to the user.

According to the press release, it offers “the full range of real-time IP communications, including video, multi-channel wideband and ultra-wideband audio, chat, desktop sharing and other media types that may arise in the future.”

My late friend Russell Shaw, who covered this beat for ZDNet until his death in 2008, would be proud. Were he still with us I might not be able to finish, we would be so busy Tweeting one another and arguing about things.

Today’s news comes alongside Astricon, Digium’s annual conference and user tribute, going on right now at a resort hotel near Washington, D.C. There users are hearing about stuff like this, Xorcom’s complete hotel solution, an Asterisk PBX that can run the hotel where the conference is being held.

Solutions like this represent where Asterisk has been, and what it has become. VOIP has mainly been developed as a way to get around the phone system, its costs, gatekeepers, and taxes. It is seen by many as a way to cut telephone costs.

But it has always been much more, and with SCF it can become much more. Voice is a low-bandwidth service that can and should be integrated into other Internet services, that can be one ingredient in a larger solution. That process is now well underway.

At which point there will be no more phone network, only ISPs, hopefully in a more competitive market.

Open Node 1.0 (stable) Released

Open Node unveils version 1.0 of their open source server virtualization solution

Open Node, an Estonia-based company utilizing RHEL-based CentOS 5 to build locally manageable OpenVZ and KVM solutions, is on track to release the web-based FuncMAN management console later in October.

Open Node 1.0 Installer screenshot

According to the announcement, Open Node 1.0 uses the following:

* Kernel - ovzkernel-2.6.18-194.17.1.el5.028stab070.7

* KVM - kvm-83-164.asys.17.x86_64.rpm

Users can download Open Node 1.0 or see the roadmap for OpenVZ /KVM and FuncMAN on the company website.

Astaro 8.100 Beta Testing Begins

Astaro 8.100 focuses on Wireless functionality of Access Points and Wifi Controllers

Yesterday security solution provider Astaro announced that ASG appliance-users can begin Astaro 8.100 beta testing. Developers ask users to test ASG 8.100 in their own environment and give feedback using dedicated forums.

According to the company, ASG 8.100 usability improvements include: Improved Object Table, Dashboard Links, SMTP Profiles Redesign, Streamlined Interface Setup, Uplink Balancing Mixed Mode, HTTP Parent Proxy Routing.

SkySQL will try to drive MySQL fork, Oracle's ouster

The creation of SkySQL — a virtual spinoff of MySQL (pre-Sun, pre-Oracle)– was as inevitable as LibreOffice.

The community simply doesn’t trust that Oracle will be a good steward of open source software and is acting quickly to preserve top open source projects.

SkySQL, which will provide alternative services and support for the MySQL database, is playing it safe for now. It is not helping found a new open source foundation to sponsor an official MySQL fork, and is not declaring open war on Oracle.

But it appears the gang behind SkySQL  – a bunch of ex MySQL execs, developers and investors — will try to wrest control of the open source database business back from the proprietary grasp of Oracle.

The SkySQL Enterprise subscription, launched last week, for example, will support the development of “alternative software” for MySQL as well as offer support mySQL branches such as MariaDB.

The company highlights its more cost effective service and support offerings as the core business model — yet subtly implies that it would welcome and drive a a bona fide MariaDB fork if demand materializes.

And that demand is already materializing, SkySQL noted in its press release last week.

“SkySQL Ab …  is committed to furthering the future development of MySQL database technologies, while delivering cost-effective database solutions and exceptional customer service.”

SkySQL’s CEO makes it clear that he and many other top original MySQL developers believe that MySQL will die under Oracle’s control.

“When Sun was acquired by Oracle, there was a collective gasp in the MySQL community,” said Ulf Sandberg, CEO at SkySQL Ab. “MySQL supporters were rightfully anxious that growing the bottom line of big business would take precedence over further investment in the development of the MySQL franchise. In our view, progress of MySQL’s technology has been stymied, leading to a mass exodus for those involved in the technology. SkySQL has become a new haven for MySQL expertise due to our unwavering commitment to providing high quality, expert support of MySQL technology and services on a global scale.”

In other words, the company will survive offering customers more affordable service and support contracts than those proferred by Oracle. Yes, it is committed to becoming the default alternative for Oracle’s MySQL software, service and support, and is investing in the cloud opportunity — hence the Sky in SkySQL, one executive told this ZDNet Blogger.

But make no mistake — SkySQL will try to regain control over the open source database development. And it looks like they have the clout to do it.

“SkySQL is becoming the new center of the MySQL ecosystem because our foundation of key experts is based on over a hundred years of experience in serving MySQL users commercially,” said Kaj Arnö, Executive Vice President of Products, SkySQL Ab. “These experts have joined our company to build a business dedicated to serving the users of MySQL and related technologies with commercial value add, while respecting open source values. Founding the company with these gifted minds puts SkySQL in a unique position to inherit and preserve the principles that made the MySQL database so appealing in the first place.”

I asked SkySQL if it will eventually sponsor an official fork of MySQL, and here is the company’s official response:

SkySQL is committed to the long term future development of the MySQL database, to ensure that the product will continue to meet the increasing requirements of performance, scalability, reliability and ease of use.  Our current subscription offering already includes support for MariaDB - a branch of the MySQL database.  As adoption of the latter increases, the development and support of MariaDB may get more attention, since it presents a solid technical future roadmap for customers.”

Paula Rooney is a Boston-based writer who has followed the tech industry for almost two decades.

Might Google Maps be hoisted on its open source petard?

There is growing evidence that OpenStreetMap, an open source Wiki-based mapping system based in England, is becoming a serious threat to Google Maps.

Could the “Wikipedia of maps” do to Google what Google’s Android has done to Symbian? (The illustration shows the current OpenStreetMaps view of my home town.)

AOL’s MapQuest unit is especially high on OpenStreetMap, having opened new map sites in India and Europe around the product.

Since it’s dependent on user input there’s not a lot of there there, but apps based on it are still coming out for the iPhone and Android.

Microsoft is also using OpenStreetMap in Bing. A U.S. unit of the OpenStreetMap Foundation was incorporated earlier this year.

What’s possible is illustrated by The Bike Hub, an iPhone app with crowd-sourced data that lets cyclists in England steer around traffic. Reviews are positive, with free satellite navigation (even if a bit kludgy) approved of heartily. (I’d love it if they tracked hills as well as traffic.)

OpenStreetMap says it has 300,000 registered map makers on its site, but that it’s the idea behind it — free data users can adapt to their needs — that is its most powerful feature.

It’s the excitement of user-generated content that Google Maps was trying to access when it opened up its APIs. The question becomes, then, one of how open is open. Google Maps is open like Windows, while OpenStreetMaps appears to be open like Linux.

Ouch.

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for 30 years, a tech freelancer since 1983.

Is FRAND compatible with FOSS?

Open source advocates are treating Florian Mueller (right) the way liberals are treating Juan Williams these days, and it’s not hard to see why.

Mueller’s acceptance of the fact that Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory Terms (FRAND) is coming to open European standards has made him apostate.

Some are even willing to write me out of the movement for daring to befriend the man.

But Mueller isn’t writing this stuff because he wants to, and I don’t think he’s doing it because he’s paid to, either.

He’s writing it because it happens to be true.

Take, for example, this post by Unisys developer Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz, writing at the Open Source Observatory and Repository,  which calls itself “a platform for exchanging information, experiences and FLOSS-based code for use in public administrations.”

In the European Union Public License (EUPL) (and in copyright law in general), the term royalty-free means that once the software is licensed, the licensee is free to use and distribute the work without paying additional royalty charges. This makes no obstacle to charging an initial fee for distributing or selling the software (as it may be done by a commercial FOSS organisation), or to a financial agreement between developing organisations (i.e. to mutualise and share the cost of software development).

In other words, there’s nothing wrong with paying for code. Royalty-free should mean that continuing charges past that initial payment — monopoly rents — should not be allowed.

It seems to me this stance falls somewhere between that of groups like Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE), and the Business Software Association. Schmitz is saying that paying for software is OK, but once you pay for it you control it. The BSA only supports licenses for software — ownership does not change hands.

Mueller finds FRAND a reasonable position. He quotes former EU competition commissioner Neelie Kroes, who said in June “I have nothing against intellectual property being brought to the standard-setting table, but it must be disclosed.”

Then he adds:

Mrs. Kroes said in the same speech that “reasonable people often disagree” when trying to set FRAND license fees. That’s a challenge, not a knock-out criterion. FRAND isn’t a mathematical formula that arrives at a simple result. FRAND is a framework, and the way it’s interpreted is subject to the specific circumstances of a license agreement.

While European governments have a distinct preference for open source, they also prefer not to dictate the choices their members make. A standards process shouldn’t be used to knock out specific vendors, and as Mueller writes there is a difference between openness and royalties.

You may disagree with that. Open source advocates may disagree with that strenuously. That’s a good thing. But insisting that all those who accept the legitimacy of a contrary position are bad people is going a little too far. Sometimes they’re just reporting the facts.

Don’t shoot the piano player.

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for 30 years, a tech freelancer since 1983.

Microsoft strategy against Android comes together

The Microsoft strategy against Android owes less to Ray Ozzie than it does to John Roberts.

As I noted at the time, the non-decision in Bilski vs. Kappos gave companies a green light to try and sue innovation out of existence.

This nightmare has now come to pass.

The problem with software patents, as opposed to those for drugs or medical devices, is that they don’t cover the way you do something, but the idea of doing something.

Thus, Microsoft claims to control the syncing of e-mail between the Web and a mobile device. You can’t innovate around the patent, as you might around the patent for a new pacemaker.

This is what makes software patents so dangerous. They place an ever-larger tax on innovation, because innovations are always based on what came before. And if you can’t innovate around an idea, then you must pay for it. And pay and pay and pay.

So we come to Android, which is drawing patent suits the way a fumble does 300-pound linemen. Microsoft is telling Android phone makers they must still pay it for use of its patents, that it might cost them less in Intellectual Property rights fees to go with Windows than with Linux.

In that scenario Windows doesn’t have to be better. It doesn’t even have to be as good. It just needs to be in the ballpark.

Patent rights in this scenario do for Microsoft what bundling did for it in the early 1990s. They get rid of competition.

Yes, this is a dangerous game. Other companies have big patent portfolios, not just Microsoft. Customers won’t like being denied choice, and being forced to buy inferior products at monopoly prices. You could have either a patent “nuclear war” — everyone suing everyone — or potent political blowback.

These are questions for another day. For now Microsoft’s patents are putting it back in the game, putting enough Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt into the minds of manufacturers that its offerings will get a hearing, and will likely find a place in the market.

How will Google respond, given the relatively small size of its patent portfolio compared with those of its proprietary rivals? How should it respond?

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for 30 years, a tech freelancer since 1983.