Ail to the Chief: 20 CEOs and State Heads Gone in 2010-11

Updated – It’s a bad time to be in charge. Lots of major companies have dropped CEOs for unpleasant causes in 2010-11:

Company Person Why They’re Gone
Apple Steve Jobs http://zeke.ws/ogcSIO
BP Tony Hayward http://zeke.ws/mUhrNd
Google Eric Schmidt http://zeke.ws/p2N5TL
HP Mark Hurd http://zeke.ws/pYoID5
Léo Apotheker http://zeke.ws/n3vsbI
Nokia Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo http://zeke.ws/rgtWOI
T-Mobile USA Robert Dotson http://zeke.ws/oeozcx
Yahoo! Carol Bartz http://zeke.ws/rdzRGI

Very strange to see the “who’s-who” list of tech – Apple, HP, Google, Nokia, Yahoo! – shaking up their leadership in the same short period.

…But then again, I’d probably rather be a fired CEO than one of the heads of state or government who either resigned or lost their posts amidst human rights outcries and widespread economic instability in 2010-11:  

Country Person Position Why They’re Gone
Chile Michelle Bachelet President http://zeke.ws/psUwPU
Egypt Hosni Mubarak President http://zeke.ws/nuiJ40
Ireland Brian Cowen Taoiseach http://zeke.ws/oT607A
Japan Naoto Kan Prime Minister http://zeke.ws/pmcECv
Jordan Samir Rifai Prime Minister http://zeke.ws/nIW8Bu
Libya Muammar Gaddafi Dictator http://zeke.ws/qulhTp
South Korea Chung Un-chan Prime Minister http://zeke.ws/oodoP1
Syria Muhammad Naji al-Otari Prime Minister http://zeke.ws/qEuFD8
Thailand Abhisit Vejjajiva Prime Minister http://zeke.ws/nUfYnT
Tunisia Zine El Abidine Ben Ali President http://zeke.ws/oDskWY
United Kingdom Gordon Brown Prime Minister http://zeke.ws/pu9lyQ
United States Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House http://zeke.ws/pHUUQv
Yemen Ali Abdullah Saleh President http://zeke.ws/pXyBf4
I find this self-selected list pretty staggering as-is. Feel free to let me know if I missed anyone important…

How eBooks and e-Readers Fall Far Short of Dead Trees

eBooks have been a great thing for me- I rarely think to carry a book along with me or have a bag for carrying one, but I always have a smartphone on me, plus an iPad at times. When I was in Spain in 2009, I read a novel on my iPhone that’s over 1000 pages long in paperback form. No, a 3.5″ backlit LCD screen isn’t the nicest reading experience, but I’d like to borrow a saying from the photography world that I believe applies here:

The best way to read a book is the one you have with you.

Continue reading How eBooks and e-Readers Fall Far Short of Dead Trees

On WordPress, Thesis, and profitable GPL software

My twitter feed (full of people in the WordPress community after meeting a ton of people at WordCamp Boulder last weekend) unexpectedly caught fire this morning on the #thesiswp hashtag. I had no idea what the fuss was about, but I wasn’t surprised when I read into it: the item in question is Thesis, a robust premium WordPress theme that costs a minimum of $87, and whose source is under a closed software license.

The debate and confusion is really about the licensing status of custom WordPress themes. WordPress is covered by a copyleft license which requires that works derived from the software be covered by the same free, open source license (specifically, GPL v2.) But “derivative works” is a pretty vague concept, and can be interpreted in many different ways. That’s why WordPress founder Matt Mullenweg wrote the Software Freedom Law Center, some of the most experienced legal experts on libre software issues. They provided a rather comprehensive interpretation of the issue:

“In conclusion, the WordPress themes supplied contain elements that are derivative of WordPress’s copyrighted code. These themes, being collections of distinct works (images, CSS files, PHP files), need not be GPL-licensed as a whole. Rather, the PHP files are subject to the requirements of the GPL while the images and CSS are not. Third-party developers of such themes may apply restrictive copyrights to these elements if they wish.”

This falls in between WordPress developers’ wish that the whole community support libre software and Thesis’ completely closed license. Theme PHP must be GPL-compliant, but the graphics and CSS may be licensed otherwise.

As someone who makes custom themes for clients, I am familiar with the feelings of apprehension about open sourcing some of your work – often done for a client who neither knows nor cares about the finer points of free software principles. The common fear is that by giving away your code, you also give away your business model. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. (Unless your business model depends on every customer abiding by your copyright – a foolish strategy in light of how easy it is to pirate web app source code, not to mention an overvaluation of the originality of your source code) (UPDATE: WordPress’ own Jane Wells points out that it’s even less complicated than this for custom theme work, as you only must publish your source under GPL if the theme itself is publicly distributed.)

The truth is that many companies comply with the GPL, retain their trademarks and licensing rights (including WordPress theme graphics and CSS), and do so to great profits. Google, Apple, Facebook, Red Hat, Novell, and countless others make their GPL source available – as do many other WordPress premium theme makers. You can sell themes as long as your PHP complies with the GPL. Pirates can easily copy the rest of your theme regardless, but embracing the GPL not only complies with copyright law and the license terms, but it supports the ideals that made WordPress possible, and makes the whole community project stronger for everyone. And you don’t have to go out of your way to be financially sustainable while doing so, either. Novell and Red Hat sell their entire OS open source under the GPL, the Mac OS X kernel and UNIX userland is open source, so there is no reason why a WordPress theme can’t be both GPL-compliant and profitable.

In short:

  1. Know the license before you use any software
  2. REALLY know the license if you plan to make any money by reselling/extending/developing on top of that software
  3. Comply with copyright law and license terms
  4. Have a business model that relies on your ingenuity and competitive advantages, not on often-disrespected intellectual property laws. If it works for so many on the Fortune 500, it probably can work for your small business.

Attention to detail: New Belgium

image

This tickles my design sensibilities: Fort Collins hometown hero New Belgium Brewing rolled out a new set of labels for their product line. I’m torn on the redesign overall, mainly because I’m sentimental about the old artwork. (Though I appreciate how the new ones verge on Dharma Project packaging!)

But it took me longer to notice something more subtle about the redesign: at least with their Mothership Wit organic wheat beer, the label color pretty much exactly matches the color of the brew itself!

(It probably took me so long to realize this because it took 90 degree heat to get me to buy yellow beer.)

What’s happened to Ubuntu?

Cloud storage SaaS. Music stores using unlicensed codecs in the OS. What happened to the days when the focus was on making a modern Debian desktop targeted at everyone, including nontechnical folks? I don’t feel like the Ubuntu OS has gotten any worse, but I fear that all of these new initiatives will eventually distract Ubuntu’s leadership from the desktop OS they’ve been so great at making. In my humble opinion, this makes it look like Canonical is getting desperate to find ways to make the Ubuntu project more financially sustainable, and is taking any form of revenue stream it can find, even to the potential detriment of the quality of its main product.

(For the record, I think openSUSE is currently the best Linux desktop, but really would rather have something Debian-based like Ubuntu.)

Proprietary Vendors Want Open Source Sanctions

The Guardian reports that  International Intellectual Property Alliance requested that the U.S. Trade Representative to put countries using open source in government on a “Special 301 watchlist” – a list of intellectual property-violating nations, or “state sponsors of piracy.” The recommendation states:

The Indonesian government’s policy… simply weakens the software industry and undermines its long-term competitiveness by creating an artificial preference for companies offering open source software and related services, even as it denies many legitimate companies access to the government market.

Rather than fostering a system that will allow users to benefit from the best solution available in the market, irrespective of the development model, it encourages a mindset that does not give due consideration to the value to intellectual creations.

As such, it fails to build respect for intellectual property rights and also limits the ability of government or public-sector customers (e.g., State-owned enterprise) to choose the best solutions.

In general, this is just another example of an established, successful industry trying to maintain power by coercing governments to make emerging business models illegal, rather than bothering to innovate and create sustainability in the free market. I rant about this all the time, so I won’t continue to do so here.

But since this was filed by the “International Intellectual Property Alliance” – an interest group which conveniently separates this action’s publicity from the companies it represents – I thought I’d just call out just a few of the member companies which are behind this anticompetitive action: (this list goes through member organizations of the IIPA, including the BSAESA and AAP)

  • Adobe
  • American Association for the Advancement of Science
  • Apple
  • Bloomberg Press
  • The Cato Institute (Free market libertarian economics think tanks for government regulations?!)
  • Cisco Systems
  • Dell
  • Electronic Arts
  • Harcourt, Inc.
  • Houghton Mifflin Co.
  • HP
  • IBM
  • Intel
  • McGraw-Hill
  • Microsoft
  • Motion Picture Association of America
  • Nintendo
  • Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)
  • SAP
  • Sony
  • Symantec
  • Xerox
  • Countless University presses (MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, Oxford, Universities of California, Chicago, New York, North Carolina and more)

While there isn’t evidence that these companies directly instigated the effort to stifle competition from open source, they are the financial backers of this anticompetitive organization, and thus have a responsibility to be accountable for its actions.