Can Linux Beat Microsoft in Education?

Booker asks: "Microsoft has been the driving force behind the Schools Interoperability Framework (SIF), a system by which education-related applications can communicate with each other via XML messages. Although Microsoft is the coordinator, the spec seems extremely open, and something that Linux applications could easily work with. Many vendors have signed on to the SIF, and it looks like it will become a standard, at least in North America. What do you think? Could Linux stake a claim as a server for this new standard? What would it take to port this code?" This would be cool. Anyone interested in tackling this one?

"One of the things Microsoft has done to support this standard is to release a Zone Integration Server which manages the queuing and authentication between the various client applications attached to it. The interesting thing, though, is that the source code is available, and the license is quite liberal - liberal enough, I think, that a Linux port would be possible.

Comments

Re:The Apps are already there

[MTDilbert]

This is exactly correct. The apps are already there and extend to way more than just student information. It is also for financials, procurement (warehouse and otherwise).

I work at a smallish software shop, where we develop some of these type apps. The problem is: there's one pretty major player in this field who is dropping support for all platforms that are not NT. There are many third-party applications that piggyback with those applications, such as ours, that do not run on NT.

On the surface, it looks like MS is going to play nice with everyone, mainly since they've got the top vendor(s) in their corner.

Now, then, if you are a school-type entity, you are notoriously cheap. Are you going to spend $50,000 for an AS/400 and all the related software, even if it is SIF compliant, when you could get a VAR turnkey solution for 1/2 that price.

Or look at the other side of the coin. A nice open-source Linux solution that is a marvel of technology. The questions the school administrators will ask is, "Who's going to support it?" Or, more specifically, "Who can we sue when things go wrong?"

Reliability, scalability, stability and TCO issues aside. Schools will go with the turnkey NT solution. Public entities are not among the wisest decision makers on the planet.

So, even if the specs are open, I'm very skeptical to say the least.

Sections taken verbatim from the GPL

[BigPink]

Below are some of the correspondences between the GPL and this EULA. Sorry for the funny formating.

Gnu GPL:

You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

MS ZIS EULA:

Other Limitations. You may not copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

Gnu GPL:

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

MS ZIS EULA:

Intellectual Property Claims. If, as a result of an intellectual property claim, conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from compliance with the terms and conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute the Program so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then you may not distribute the Program at all.

Gnu GPL:

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

MS ZIS EULA:

Modification. You may modify the Program or create derivative works and copy and distribute such modifications or derivative works, provided that you also: (i) cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change so that the recipients know they are not receiving the original Program; (ii) cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole to all third parties under the terms of this License; and (iii) provide notice to users under the same terms of distribution as set forth in Sections 1(a)(i), 1(a)(ii) and 1(a)(iii) above.

Re:Interesting...seems BSDish

[drivers]

I gave the license a once-over look and I don't think it is any kind of Free software, either from a BSD, GPL, or OSD perspective.

Yes it has the advertising clause a la old-school BSD license. It does provide the right to redistribute modifications, however it does not give you the right to restrict the rights of those you sell your version of the program to, so it is not really like BSD at all. It would be more like GPL except there are other things that make it not like GPL.

Firstly, you do not have the right to run the software for any purpose you wish. It says "Educational use only." I assume this means, running in an educational environment as opposed to education from the program itself but it is still a discriminator license that would NOT meet the open source definition.

Unlike any Free software license I've ever seen, you cannot charge fees to license the software. However they leave gaping loopholes for what you can charge for so it is not that big a deal.

I see no mention of source code (does that apply to this product? I'm only looking at the license posted and not what the product itself is) so I'm not sure if it qualifies as free software in the GPL sense. It isn't free in the BSD I-can-do-whatever-I-want-including-making-closed-v ersions sense either.

This is a good chance to get linux into schools

[pasti]

I don't think I'll need to give grounds as I claim that linux (or whatever free OS, mind you, so better get to it :) is The Choice of Schools. Inexpensive, yet powerful, robust agains misuse (damned script-kiddies) etc, I could carry on for hours. The thing that is keeping linux from schools is the lack of experience with them.

Now, if every (most) schools would get a chance to get a linux server running locally, even if it was maintained by an outsider, it just might be enough to wake up the teachers' interest in it. When there's already one, it's not quite as hard to get another one.

As kids study how to use computers (what's the correct term for this?) and eventually learn it (linux), it'll be a lot easier to get a linux computer home as well.

There's always a downside. The one in this might be that if the teachers aren't skilled enough, the dream could turn into a nightmare: kids knowing the OS better (they already do, but FAR better) than the system administrators. That could turn up a new generation of script kiddies. This time they had the chance to practice their skills full time and on real systems with real (= dumb) users. Prevent that.

I've done a little government purchasing...

[nels_tomlinson]

Let's see now... the software is free? That means that my big budget might just shrink! I'd be less important; we can't have that! More seriously, these decisions have a lot of factors.

Any product you choose must be safe (for you, not for the end-user). If there is any chance you might be criticised for your choice, it's not worth the risk, even if it's free. The upside, if any, won't help you, the down-side certainly will hurt you.

First cost is important:savings which don't show up in this budget cycle are generally meaningless. Ongoing costs are important too, in a perverse way: a purchase which requires a large, continuing expense is job security for the administrator who has gotten it approved into his budget. If you then tell this administrator that you have a solid alternative which is free to buy and far lower cost to operate, do you think he'll be happy? You've made him look like a fool, and shrunk his budget. That's how civil service underlings get fired.

Other than the all-important issue of keeping the budget as big as possible, money really doesn't matter. It's not your money, it's yours to spend! That's very different. And the greatest sin of all is letting the fiscal year end without having used up your entire budget. That makes it plain that you didn't need such a big budget in the first place. That makes everyone unhappy (except the taxpayers, but screw them, they have no influence that matters to government employees)

The questions we ask in the private world include:

Does the product work? Is it the best there is? Does it fill your needs adequately? Is it good value?

None of these things really matter in government service. There the important points are:

Am I covered? Will the boss be mad? Is there something in here which can be an excuse to ask for a bigger budget next fiscal year?

Microsoft is safe today, and expensive, just as IBM was safe and expensive twenty years ago. If you put together a superior product, expect to see it used by school clubs, and so on, who weren't getting any funding, anyway. Don't expect it to make great inroads anywhere things go out for bid, even though the price is $0.00. There are legal ways to turn down the low bidder, if you've written your spec's right.
Nels

Important to learn

[celestial13]

i think its very important for younger students to learn UNIX, wether is be Linux or Solaris or any other platform. Many if not most colleges and universities run primarily UNIX and Macintosh's. Having a prior knowledge of these environments would accelerate the average students' learning capabilities and help them become less windowz reliant.

most systems (if not all ) in the science and health professions are already running UNIX based shells. excluding MIT and Harvard, take smaller more prominent universities like Carneigie Mellon and Duquesne University (both in pittsburgh) for example. other than the use of NT in computer labs for the students to work on projects with... all of the quantitative and qualitative analysi are done with UNIX, SGI, or SPARC. its just the path for the future. as our society becomes more scientificly centered, the use of these machines increases. prior knowledge of these machines would make or break a job employment oppertunity (less training, more money saved).

its a great idea... just as long microsoft doesnt go and change the standard to fit their lazy needs

From the FAQ

[0xdeadbeef]

Q.Is the specification based on Microsoft technologies?

A.No. The SIF specification is based on the W3C endorsed standard Extensible Markup Language (XML). It defines common data formats and high-level rules of interaction and architecture, and <i>is not linked to a particular operating system or platform</i>. [emphasis their's]

Interesting. If only one good thing has come out of the anti-trust trial, it is that distrust in Microsoft has now reached the point where they are actually saying, in so many words, "we're not locking you into this" whenever they endorse a new spec or technology.

IF you can't register in Netscape here is the text

[MosesJones]

ZIS EULA

------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------
MICROSOFT LICENSE AGREEMENT
FOR ZONE INTEGRATION SERVER
By modifying or distributing the Zone Integration Server (the "Program") or any modifications or derivatives based on the Program, you indicate your acceptance of this License and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program. There is no warranty for the Program.

Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") is the title and copyright owner of the Program and offers this License which gives the licensee ("you") the legal permission to copy, distribute, modify and/or create derivatives based on the Program. The act of running the Program is not restricted.

License Grant. Subject to the restrictions in Section 2 below, your use of the Program is as follows:
Use and Copy of Source Code. You may copy and distribute the Program source code exactly as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you (i) conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice, if applicable, and disclaimer of warranty; (ii) keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and (iii) give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program. All recipients must receive the same rights you have. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
Modification. You may modify the Program or create derivative works and copy and distribute such modifications or derivative works, provided that you also: (i) cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change so that the recipients know they are not receiving the original Program; (ii) cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole to all third parties under the terms of this License; and (iii) provide notice to users under the same terms of distribution as set forth in Sections 1(a)(i), 1(a)(ii) and 1(a)(iii) above.
DESCRIPTION OF OTHER RIGHTS AND LIMITATIONS.
Patents. Any patent obtained by a redistributor of the Program must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
Other Limitations. You may not copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
Education Purposes Only. The Program is licensed exclusively for educational purposes. You have no rights under this License unless you are using the Program for educational purposes only and solely within the educational system (e.g., grades K-12 or higher education use).
Fees. You cannot charge a fee for licensing the Program. You may charge a fee (i) for the physical act of transferring a copy of the Program; (ii) in the event you wish to provide support services for the Program; or (iii) for any modifications or derivatives of the Program.
Intellectual Property Claims. If, as a result of an intellectual property claim, conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from compliance with the terms and conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute the Program so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then you may not distribute the Program at all.
MISCELLANEOUS.
This License represents the complete agreement concerning the subject matter hereof. If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable.
This License is governed by the laws of the State of Washington.
If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES.
NO WARRANTY. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS-IS" WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NONINFRINGEMENT. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PEROFRMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFENCTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
NO LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT, ITS SUPPLIERS NOR THIRD-PARTY CONTENT PROVIDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS PROFITS, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, LOSS OF BUSINESS INFORMATION, OR ANY OTHER PECUNIARY LOSS) ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM, EVEN IF MICROSOFT HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. BECAUSE SOME STATES AND JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, THE ABOVE LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. YOUR EXCLUSIVE REMEDY UNDER THIS LICENSE SHALL NOT EXCEED FIVE DOLLARS (U.S.$5.00).

Re:Short answer, No.

[pasti]

The goal shouldn't be to "beat Microsoft" in this market.

I must say I agree. While M$ is doing it's best to beat others, I think we should try to be better. Offer a hand instead of spitting on them. If we could offer nice interoperability between Windows and UNIX machines, it wouldn't perhaps be as big a step to go from Win32 to UNIX...

Just yesterday, the school I was at had a stack of service request forms and nearly half of them were because one idiot teacher saw that some kids had deleted an alias from the desktop and thought that the computers were broken.

Just this kind of misuse linux (or whatever UNIX. I'm not going to repeat this again, so s/linux/whatever UNIX/) would stand up to. Have every user an account of their own (or instead, one for every teacher and kids'd share one read-only account). And a nice, pre-configured configs should any of the teachers mess their GUI up.

They've struggled long and hard to be able to turn on and turn off Windows and MacOS machines

How well do X terminals stand just cutting the power?

What we need as an atmosphere of healthy and honest competition.

You stole my line...

Some thoughts on school contracts

[Wellspring]

As government institutions, they follow a number of arcane rules on procurement. So an Open Source alternative will have an uphill fight to gain acceptance. Some thoughts:

Most government agencies work off of bids for products. This usually doesn't match the business model of the OS corps, so it makes us look worse on paper. Also, the government is notoriously inept at signing seemingly good contracts with vendors of proprietary equipment. Of course, when the vendor's equipment saddles them with a transition cost of going to a competitor or Opens Source alternative, they again look at the options and decide that it is most cost effective to pay more for the proprietary product. This is akin to 'no money down', huge monthly payments.

Another problem is the idea of working with a traditional vendor vs. newer better ones. Government procurement 'experts' are not typically very up on modern technology, and typically have arcane rules designed around reality circa five-10 years ago. Mention a modern business model and they look at you like you just landed from mars.

Procurement, even at the local level, is usually a bureaucratic and time-consuming process. In the past, the reward was a huge captive market. But the economics of software makes not worth it except for large companies with large legal departments (like MS).

Finally, especially in school systems, it is nearly impossible for a company to deal with someone who has authority. Most times, the multiple steps in the process mean that you have to deal with conflicting agendas and have a product that is all things to all people.

Not to throw a wet blanket like this, but take a deep breath and ask around before trying to be a government contractor. Unless you are very lucky and clever, you'll get annihilated by it.

First Post!

Short answer, No.

[Lord Kano]

The goal shouldn't be to "beat Microsoft" in this market. I do service work for a few schools and the teachers are probably the worst of all users whom I've encountered.

Just yesterday, the school I was at had a stack of service request forms and nearly half of them were because one idiot teacher saw that some kids had deleted an alias from the desktop and thought that the computers were broken.

These people aren't going to embrace linux. They've struggled long and hard to be able to turn on and turn off Windows and MacOS machines. Most of them don't have the desire or the ability to learn to use linux.

It's already known that linux can compete with M$ in the server arena. We won't be able to, nor should we want to bankrupt M$. The goal is to have as many choices as possible. MacOS, Linux, *BSD, Windows (whatever), BeOS, and straight old fashioned *NIX are all acceptable OSes for a given task.

M$ will be around in some form or another for the forseeable future, because so many business and governments have invested their futures in it's products. What we need as an atmosphere of healthy and honest competition.

LK

Not open source

[YoJ]

The license only allows you to distribute and use the software for educational purposes. This violates clause 6 of the guidelines, so it is not open source. (Clause 6 is the non-discrimination of field of endeavor).

Nathan Whitehead

Interesting...seems BSDish

[vsync64]

Hm. Although I am neither a lawyer nor a license guru, this seems quite similar to the BSD license. Note the obnoxious advertising clause.

Also, it seems to share a number of RMS's requirements, such as the patent issue. From MS's license:

a. Patents. Any patent obtained by a redistributor of the Program must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

This is quite interesting. I suspect this license would fall under the open source guidelines, and quite possibly qualify as Free Software as well.

Is this a first from Microsoft? Does this mark a quiet change in strategy, or are they just making sure that they can avoid any legal issues? I suspect government contracts might have provisions against the use of proprietary stuff. Or they should, not that that's stopped the people in my school district... They seem to enjoy locking students into only using Word or some such.