Slashdot Mirror
Caldera Per Seat Licensing
Motor writes "Caldera is to "introduce per-seat licenses for their upcoming OpenLinux Workstation 3.1." I'm not sure how I feel about this. I guess theoretically they can do it, although it sure feels wrong somehow.
But I've always been somewhat wary of Caldera.
Actually, Caldera spends quite a bit of time complaining about Linux compatibility. They realize that RedHat is the de-facto standard now, and that RedHat is what is used by most Linux developers (both in the free software and commmercial software world). This means that when a developer packages an RPM of their work they basically only test against RedHat, leaving the Caldera users to build the software themselves (assuming that it comes with source), or to install the correct libraries (if it is closed source). This is a pain. So when someone does pay for a Linux distribution, or signs up for service and support which distribution do they choose? Well duh, they choose RedHat. It's the most popular. It has the most developer support, and it runs all current Linux software "out of the box."
Caldera, in their infinite wisdom, has decided to combat this by charging a per seat licensing fee, which is basically guaranteed to make their distribution even more unpopular. I personally thought that Caldera saw the light some time ago when the GPLed their installation routine. Caldera has always had a fantastic distribution, but RedHat was more open (if not quite as good) and so RedHat got the market share (and the sales). It turns out that most Linuxers would rather have an inferior piece of software that they can fix over a fancy proprietary piece of software that they can't. Being open is the only way to survive in the Linux game. It is certainly possible to sell proprietary add-ons to Linux, but the base distribution has to be Free Software or your customers look elsewhere. There are very few Linuxers that are interested in building their software on anything but a truly open platform.
I would have guessed that Caldera had already learned that (the hard way), but apparently they need another smack or two with the clue stick.
Because, when all is said and done, the folks that are willing to pay for Linux software and support are much more likely to pay for the most popular distribution. Caldera is never going to be the most popular distribution if they keep these tactics up.
The Linux users that are testing their applications on a "free" version of RedHat are very likely to be the folks that sign up for service and support when their Linux application becomes mission critical. And you can bet they won't be signing up with Caldera.
--
150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for slashdot.sig (129323052 bytes).
Yes, actually there is. Remember the roots of Caldera are in Novell. Novell is still deeply rooted in many companies - and for good reason. For many, it combines the best of NT (ease of use) and Unix (power, speed, reliability.)
For companies with millions invested in Novell systems, the advantages of Linux are offset by the learning curve and the difficulties in integrating it into their existing systems. Caldera is a godsend for those companies, and they aren't going to even blink at these licensing fees. A lot of Calderas work is available under the GPL, yes, and it's quite possible to take any other distribution and integrate it perfectly into a Novell network - but it still isn't the easiest thing to do. Pay Caldera and they do the work for you. You get a system that is "plug and play" for that environment, instead of one that can be hacked into shape for it, and you get topnotch support from people that know both linux and novell inside and out.
I don't expect Caldera to ever get much mindshare out of the hacker set (excepting the ones they pay) however it has always been very attractive for enterprises that use novell and need a linux system that will fit into their existing network with minimal fuss. And, I repeat, those customers aren't going to blink at the licensing fees. It's still far more attractive than the alternatives to them, and it's a drop in the bucket compared to what they are used to paying anyway.
This was probably a very good decision for Caldera - the only people that it's going to bother are the ones that weren't going to be their customers anyway. And I'm sure they can use the revenue.
"That old saw about the early bird just goes to show that the worm should have stayed in bed."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
The open-source community typically shies away from any really serious, challenging discussion of turning a profit from products like Linux.
Let's face it: people do not run a company [like, oh, RedHat or Caldera] because they are philanthropists. They do it because they want to make money.
So someone comes up with a way to do that, and suddenly people are squirming. I'm not objecting to the licensing per se, but rather to the "Gee... I dunno" reaction.
Either you can make money from Linux or you can't, but enough fence-sitting.
Honorary Member of Jackie Chan's Kung Fu Process Servers
I guess theoretically they can do it, although it sure feels wrong somehow
Call me to task if I'm wrong, but when you take the viewpoint that it is wrong for a company to do EXACTLY what is permitted under an "open" license, you are stepping very close to the "It has been EXPOSED, it is now infected with open code" viewpoint that Ballmer suggested.
BTW, I believe that BOTH Taco and Ballmer are wrong, but their motives for WHY are different.
---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---