Some of the most intense debates I've seen in the open source community have been discussions covering what is or what isn't required by the popular open source license, the GNU GPL. For example, it is common practice in the open source CMS market to distribute themes that include the templates (the code) under the GPL and the artwork (including CSS) under a different license. Under the GPL, is this practice legal or not?

On opposite ends of the GPL debate are staunch supporters for and against the GPL. Someone usually argues that distributed theme packages for a GPL licensed CMS must always be distributed under the GPL. To do anything else would be illegal. Another person will usually argue that the time and money the theme developer put into a theme gives him or her the right to distribute the theme any way they wish. When the discussion has finally reached this level of completely opposing views, the sparks will fly.

This time around it was the Wordpress community that found itself asking the various legal questions. Matt Mullenweg of Wordpress asked the Software Freedom Law Center for some legal clarification on the GPL issue. Today, Matt posted an article with the law center's response and provides his own input too. The truth can be found somewhere in the middle.

Working for a large organization, it should be no surprise to all that my workplace is going down the SharePoint path for its "enterprise software" solution. What may be surprising to some is that SharePoint confuses me.

Is SharePoint a document management system or a content management system? Every executive touts using SharePoint's collaboration features, but behind closed doors I only hear whispers that those collaboration tools aren't so great. I'm told Sharepoint is a cheap solution to implement, yet over the years I have never heard a CIO actually tell me they're saving money using SharePoint. Then there is the Microsoft Sharepoint licensing agreements. Every time I read a Microsoft license I can't help but wonder if I'm on a road that doesn't offer my organization appropriate exit ramps.

Luckily, there are people like Russ Edelman to help better explain the SharePoint experience to me. Russ Edelman is president of Corridor Consulting whose company is co-founder of SharePointGovernance.Org. Edelman has written one of the best articles I've read on identifying the needed resourses necessary to support SharePoint, Determining the True Cost of Microsoft SharePoint.

Indeed, the true costs of deploying and supporting SharePoint are not well understood. Fundamental misconceptions about SharePoint prevent organizations from deploying it effectively and realizing its value. Many IT executives view SharePoint as a shrink-wrapped product that can be installed and configured in hours or days. In fact, it cannot. SharePoint is truly an enterprise information platform and must be treated as such. That means SharePoint configuration work needs to be well-planned and designed—not conducted in an ad-hoc fashion.

I encourage you to read the article as Edelman does a good job in explaining the various resources that are needed to adequately support Sharepoint. Now that I'm less confused about SharePoint, can someone help me to be less worried?

I originally thought the article from Silicon.com, "Naked CIO: Open source ain't cheap" was written by a troll.  Most IT authors realize that the quickest way to get a rise out of readers is to say something negative about one of two topics, Apple computers or open source. This author decided to write about the latter.  Reluctantly, I have to agree with the author that for most enterprises running while open source is no more expensive than proprietary solutions it also certainly is not compellingly cheaper.

A few sources of costs for the enterprise running open source given by the author include:

• The subscription fees for open source products are ongoing costs that for larger organizations can be quite expensive.
• The cost of experienced and knowledgeable support IT support staff can be more expensive compared to support for traditional software platforms.
• The cost of integration in a mixed environment is more expensive than in a pure Windows shop.

In my own organization, I've observed the need to support open source in the enterprise often brings a rise in the yearly subscription costs.  Also, it still is quite a hassle to integrate Linux and Windows clients under one roof (usually by bringing the Linux desktop into Active Directory for consolidated management control).  However, I'll argue by utilizing your IT staff properly, the costs for subscription fees and propriety/open-source integration can be lowered.

So yes, I agree that when it comes to propriety and open source, "in both cases the cost models are significantly different but the total cost of ownership and support are very similar".  However, this fact does not quite answer why open source is gaining traction in the enterprise. Instead, the author points out the very reasons why enterprises are adopting open source solutions.

Last week, I mentioned that the the Drupal SMFforum Integration module was no longer being supported by the module's project leader, "vb". Apparently, Simple Machines had not granted permission to the module developer to distribute code found in the SMF application as required by the Simple Machines License. While some discussion followed this announcement at the SMF forums, as well as here at CMS Report, none of this discussion compared to what took place at the Open Source Community.

The good news is that Simple Machines LLC has granted vb to continue distributing some of the SMF code to work with the Drupal SMFforum Integration module. vb wrote:

I am glad to announce that distribution of the smf_api_2 package is resumed due to the express permission granted from Simple Machines LLC.
You can download the new package from http://vgb.org.ru/download.

"Orstio", SMF CMS Bridge Developer, added the following at Open Source Community:

I think we are all happy that we've come to an arrangement that benefits everyone.

Hopefully we will be able to work more closely with vb on the future of both his project and SMF so that code redistribution is eventually phased out by making future versions of SMF more accommodating to this type of integration.

Development of the SMFforum Integration module for Drupal is no longer.  Amy Stephen over at OpenSourceCommunity.org pointed out on her blog that the module's project  leader, "vb", pulled the module due to licensing disagreements with SMF LLC.  Amy references vb's original post at the Drupal forum, but she has a lot more to say.  Amy's an active participant in the Joomla! community, a community which had their own issues with a bridge between Joomla! and SMF.

According to vb's post, an email sent by Michael "Oldiesmann" Eshom, Project Manager, Simple Machines LLC stated that:

The problem isn't with the smfforum.module file or the packages distributed on drupal.org. The problem is with the "smf_api_subs.php" file that you're distributing as part of the smf api package - it contains modified versions of several SMF functions, and you did not ask for permission to use this code or distribute it.

It appears that Simple Machines LLC doesn't have so much of a problem with bridging SMF and Drupal as much as they have issues with their own code being used without proper permission.  The Simple Machines License clearly states that "Any Distribution of a Modified Package or derivative requires express written consent from Simple Machines LLC."  No word on whether Simple Machines LLC would endorse the use of their code if permission is asked.

eWeek has a slideshow of Microsoft's top 25 open source projects.

With a bid underway to obtain the blessing of the Open Source Initiative for two of its software licenses, Microsoft is working to burnish its open source credentials. Here are the 25 most active projects, as of August 21, on Microsoft's CodePlex open source project hosting Web site, along with the licenses under which the projects have been released.

Let me ask you this, what would likely happen if Microsoft opened up Windows Vista?  Do you think open source developers would pitch in to improve Vista or would they gut the code and start building a new Windows operating system from scratch?

I ask the above question because after three months of using Windows Vista I'm about to give up.  I haven't been this frustrated since Windows ME and I'm now counting the years instead of months before I'm comfortable enough to deploy Vista in the office.  At home, I'm ready to buy my wife a Mac (something I said I would never do) and convert my own Dell E520 into a Linux box.

I am not an anti-Microsoft person but make no mistake I'm anti-Vista all the way.  I know I'm not the only one about ready to give up on Vista and many of us will likely give Microsoft a chance to put things right with Vista's first service pack.  However, if the Vista operating system is still buggy after its service pack, this long time Windows user will be saying adiós Microsoft.