Based on the comments from Sean Michael Kerner on internetnews , the Verizon CEo doesn't understand the impact of open source, or even can successfully parse the question.

What's even more interesting is this report from Cnet, "Verizon switches programmers to Linux" So in spite of saving millions in 2002, the CEO doesn't recognize open source.

Or this one from linux-watch, in which Linux is chosen as the Verizon mobile platform.

My CEO can tell you what open source is. I suspect yours does too.

Anyway, I'm more than willing to serve a couple of years to help the good folks at Verizon understand the impact open source can and does have on their business every day.  And I'll even throw in some free consultations to the board.

I'm not a lawyer, though I get to spend a lot of time around them in relation to standards and open source work. So here goes.

First, the specification is a document. It describes the SWF file format. It's like a book (albeit a short one). You, the reader don't need a license to read a book.

Open nearly any book and you'll see a copyright notice basically saying you can't copy the book. Same thing here

In fact, let's think of this as a cookbook. There are some pretty interesting recipes (SWF, FLV/F4V, AMF) that are there. You can certainly bake a SWF "cake" based on the recipe, and you don't need our permission to do so. You might have to buy some exotic ingredients that the recipe calls for to get it exactly like the lovely illustrative pictures, but you don't expect the cookbook to contain all your ingredients. And while some places provide ingredients for free (such as Tamarin or Flex SDK), not all ingredients are equally free (just as codecs aren't free even to us).

You buy your ingredients (or grow them, if you wish), you use the SWF recipe to bake it, and  voila, a SWF-powered application.

Now, as with nearly every product, specification, etc around, there's other interesting text.  Trademarks, references to other links, no offer of warranty on the contents. Again, absolutely normal. If you build it, you can't call it by our trademark names. If you use  someone else's materials, we aren't responsible for the contents.  (Here, think of using a oven to bake that cake.  We aren't responsible for bad eggs someone else sells you, nor if you mislabeled salt as sugar). And it's absolutely standard for no warranty to be extended.  Your "cake" is completely under your control, and we aren't responsible for how it turns out.

SO, no copyright traps. Feel free to write your own software that implements the specification. Since the specification does not include source code, you can't infringe our source code.

So, we'll look into ways to clarify the issues, but bottom line is that the specification is open and ready for you to cook up a storm.

My version shows 9.0.124.0 on all of them. While I didn't test it, I'm told you can also add Solaris to that list as well.

It’s true we aren’t able to support every single Linux distribution and we know that Linux users want Flash Player for 64b Linux. But Adobe works hard to support the most popular distributions for Flash Player (and Adobe Reader) just as we do with the other operating systems.

Adobe may not deliver all of our software as open source but we firmly believe in the power of the open web. Flash Player isn’t open source. But Adobe, with a group of industry partners just announced the Open Screen Project. As our part of the project, Adobe removed all restrictions on using the file format that drives the Flash technologies, SWF and FLV/F4V. With the release of AMF in February along with BlazeDS, and an upcoming release of Flash Cast, Adobe is equally committed to making sure the web, at least our part, stays open.

Other open activities from Adobe include contributing the ActionScript Virtual Machine as open source to Mozilla’s Tamarin project. This is the same open source AVM in Flash Player 9 and Adobe AIR. Adobe is actively engaged in the Tamarin project. Providing Flex -- a free open source framework for building RIAs, which includes the source to the ActionScript components from the Flex SDK, the Java source code for the ActionScript and MXML compilers, and the ActionScript debugger from the SDK. Additionally, other major portions of Adobe AIR, such as Webkit (the HTML engine) and SQLite for the local database functionality are open source today.

The power of the web is found in its global reach, open exchange and access to all. Adobe recognizes that the extended web, reaching from devices to desktops needs to be equally open and as such is removing barriers that will enable content creation, applications and access to spread widely.

SWF,AMF,Flash (R) Player(TM),Adobe

Today, May 1st, Adobe and a number of industry leaders is kicking off the Open Screen Project.

"So what is this Opens Screen Project of which you speak", whispers the web?

Well, let's set some context.

There's a challenge today across the industry that affects just about everyone. On desktops, there's a consistent runtime for content and rich applications, called the Flash Player (and increasingly for applications, Adobe AIR). But the web is not just desktops anymore, the extended web spreads from phones to MIDs to Settops, consumer electronics, and desktops.

So, together with a pretty influencial group of industry leaders (see website for details), Adobe is kicking off the  Open Screen Project, designed to create a consistent runtime environment that removes barriers for delivery of content and applications to everything from mobile phones to desktops.

This project kicks off today, and while it will be a continual thing, Adobe is making some significant announcements as part of the project.

First, Adobe is removing all use restrictions on the SWF specification. While SWF (the binary file format for playback) formerly had a license agreement that limited use of the specification, it's now gone. And BTW, the same applies to FLV/F4V, the streaming format. This is effective immediately.

Second, we will be publishing the port layer APIs for the Adobe Flash Player.  Not immediately, but "watch this space".  As we, working with the partners on the project create the consistent runtime, that porting layer will be made openly available to enable others to embed the technology easier.

Third, we're going to publish the data protocol specifications that drive Flash Cast as well. Expect to see that roll out over the next few months.

Fourth, with the first release of the runtime from the Open Screen Project, Adobe will remove all Adobe licensing fees from the Flash Player for devices.  (Yes, note the "for devices", the Flash Player has always been free for desktops).

(And don't forget the AMF specification, which we published in Feb 2008 as part of the BlazeDS open source initiative. It fits in here as well.)

So what does this all mean?

Well, it breaks down this way.  The power of the web is in its reach, open exchange and access. Adobe recognizes that the extended web, reaching from devices to desktops needs to be equally open and as such is removing a barrier that will enable content creation, applciations and access to spread widely. Similar to what we have seen with other open specifications, we expect that innovation and capabilities will appear that we ourselves would never get around to, or maybe even think of.

To us, this is a pretty major step. It's been worked on for a while now, and it's barely started. Since it's just underway, if you'd like more information, email the project at the Open Screen Project.

Ryan Stewart has a great blog on the impact of this.  Check out his insights!

So, since I can't say it near as well as our CTO, Kevin Lynch, drop over here and let Kevin tell you why this is important.

And let me know what you think..

(actually, there are a lot of our projects out there on the newly launched Adobe Open Source site.)

In short, open source is important to Adobe.

 A year ago (a bit more), when I joined Adobe for open source, I was personally frustrated in trying to find all the places we have open source activities. And yes, it's not perfect yet.  But one of O'Reilly's thoughts on development patterns in open source is the perpetual beta. Consider our open source work a perpetual beta; it's change, evolve, grow.

There was some interesting blogs on how little, how slow.

Well, let's look at it this way. A research paper pointed out the change in communication models over the years, from phone calls, to emails, to IM and Tweets. The interesting things was in the age dynamic. Kids tend to favor the 140 character message, adults favor the phone call.

Well, many of you probably are in the mix of email, IM, tweet, etc, You've learned the power of new behavior. Companies also need to learn new behavior.And we're trying to move a company by the easy way, explanation, rather than the hard way, explosion.

Anyway, I'm sitting here at the Adobe Engage event, and we demonstrated the AIR alpha on Linux (Ubuntu), with the same app directly across from Mac.  Small steps, but the fact that they are occurring are important.

So it's a journey. Please join in with us. We're recreating the experience and making it possible to show Adobe the interest and power of the open source world. But that depends on you as much as it does us.

And it even got noticed. Be it Shankland on CNET, appearances on "The Open Season" , or just a chance to delve back into the roots with Adobe Edge, it's been a pretty active year. And now, one more step.

Adobe is launching it own portal into Open at Adobe. Yeah, it's low key, but then, it's about source of it all, not just glitz and glamor.  It's where to find all sorts of stuff that's going on in Adobe, source, news.  It's a place to talk to us. It's a place to tell us what you're working on.

Like any good project, you could think of this site as perpetual beta. It's going to change, and hopefully, you'll be one of those folks helping it change. In fact, if you've got an open source project related to Adobe products, tell us about it.

So, please.  Hop over to http://opensource.adobe.com.  Say HI!, download some code, tell us what you think.

And feel free to come back.

Adobe has joined with Mozilla and Symbian to support the work of the SQLite Consortium to help ensure free, open access and development of SQLite.

The SQLite Consortium is a group of companies that use SQLite in their products and who have banded together to help insure that the SQLite Developers have funding to continue enhancing and improving SQLite and so insure that the SQLite Developers remain independent and free to act in the best interests of the community.

Adobe recognizes the importance of providing support for technology and tools that are open source because of its value to the entire developer community. By supporting the work of the SQLite consortium, Adobe is supporting the continued growth and improvements in SQLite.

SQLite is a different concept in SQL databases and is intended for non-traditional roles. SQLite is serverless - it writes directly to ordinary disk file, and SQLite is designed to require no maintenance or administration. And SQLite powers a heck of a lot of products, from Adobe and from others.

Adobe's support of the SQLite Consortium demonstrates Adobe's commitment to open source, and belief that technologies such as SQLite should remain independent and free in the best interests of the community.

And the Rich Internet Application space is ready for both. Adobe® AIR™ lets developers use their existing web development skills in HTML, AJAX, Flash and Flex to build and deploy rich Internet applications to the desktop.

Over on one of my counterparts (James Ward) blogs, is an invitation to apply for an opportunity to test AIR on Linux.

You know, this isn't for the faint of heart.  It's in the wild and wooley world of lots of builds, lots of things that might not work.  But I can't think of any group that  could make it possible for AIR to make it onto Linux.

So, hop over to the home of Adobe's RIA Cowboy and give us a hand.

Privatization, or privateering. Are those chum filled waters attracking pirates? And it's not even "talk like a pirate day"

Read more about it on Groklaw.

Not technology, mind you.  But innovation in product and market.

Now, I can come up with lots of interesting examples of technology, cooler, clever, etc. But my thoughts on products and companies were usually rejected. Some of those rejections are perhaps suspect; is Alfreso really related to Vignette?

So, here's the challenge. Give me a company or product that is open source from onset, and that defines a market or enables a new business. (note, not a new business model, a new business. )

---

One of the comments asked for an extension to the question.

Well, trying not to limit this too much, but. Say that the Content Management Software defines a new business. Is this uniquely powered by open source innovation? Or is the RIA space? Is there something unique in mobile?

The successes of open source (quick, name the top ten products in open source) seem to be following a commoditization trend. What I want to know (since I'm really tired of this Ivory tower view of the world I'm limited to right now), is what am I missing? What product, project, or concept categorybegan with open source, or is uniquely enabled by open source?

Is it ever a good idea to open source a program or technology from within a company if the company is no longer enhancing it? Basically, is dead code ever a good thing for open source?

My immediate reaction to this was no. Then yes. And finally, a definite maybe. (Inspired no doubt by a glass or to of my new fave-rave Cabernet, Parallel.)

So, it seems wise to appeal to the wisdom of the internet. What do you think? (If you want to go comment before reading farther, feel free, I'll wait).

First no.  It seems that if a company is no longer interested in a product, then the act of open source is a Monty Python attempt to run away. Companies that open source code, particularly complex code have a obligation to aid and assist the community in working with that code. One of my rules for considering open source (in fact, the principal rule) is "Who cares?". That question goes both ways.  Who cares about the code inside the company as well as outside the company. What shape is the code in?  Who takes ownership? It seems like the problems are big, bigger than any advantages.

But then, well, yes.  If a company isn't interested in supporting or extending a product, why shouldn't the open source community (mythical though it may be) have a shot at it.  Aren't there customers that are using it? What happens to them? Can't the mere act of opening good code balance against the lack of corporate support?

Finally (in vino veritas, you know), a definite maybe, surrounded by  ifs.

If someone cares that the program continues, and is will to commit their resources, why shouldn't the code be released? If the code is good enough, and doesn't include other properties, why not release it? If a community is available to control and govern it, why not? If the product was good enough to build a market on its own right, why should we believe it can't continue?

So, to both of my readers <grin>, what do you think? Should dead code be released?  Are there examples of it working, or failing? And what do you think are the steps that would help us decide?

I said it in 1998 and it's still true today. "Linux will only be important when nobody cares."

End users don't care about the operating system. Developers care. Information architects care. Administrators care. But the guy doing his job, be it reading email, talking on his phone, driving a taxi doesn't care... as long as it works. When it breaks, then these guys get upset. Why/where is Linux successful today? In places controlled by a "care' category. Where is it heading? In places where "breaking" means a big deal. What's been the hard part to crack? (In '99 I predicted a 5% desktop for Linux by 2006). Places where it OS is overwhelmed by the applications.

Fortunately, the applications are coming up to meet the "good enough" levels and the "doesn't break" requirements. And fortunately, people are beginning to care.

Linux is an (nearly) invisible enabling technology. So was Intel at one time. Intel successfully branded "Intel Inside". Unfortunately, it's not "Linux inside" to the end user, it's Red Hat, or Debian, or SuSE, or Ubuntu. It could be "Linux Inside", but based on a previous life with MIPS, the phrase really should be "Attitude Inside". (This was a short lived T-shirt run of MIPS before the Intel lawyers sharpened their pens.)

The open source world is full of attitude. It's full of ambition, talent, overarching goals and ego. It's creative, driven and a great place to work. But in infrastructure, it's invisible (except to specialized people who care) and should be. And in applications, it needs the attitude to drive and thrive.

We hype how well Apache does, and it's success being an open source success. Nonsense. Apache's success is  because of how well it works, what it does, and to be fair, it's underlying costs. Maybe driven by open source, but not because it is open source.  And honestly, of the billions of hits on Apache served pages, how many of those visitors ever go "Wow. Thank goodness this web site is running on open source Apache!".

Does the average advertising executive care if the image he picked was photoshopped or GIMPed? Really? The artist may care, the designer might care, the ad exec could care less.

One of my colleagues has a rule here that you may not just say "XML".  You have to state "XML for ". Try it.  XML alone describes nothing.  XML for ____ describes everything. Linux needs a similar rule.

Anyway, my apologies for the rant. Triggered by an exchange of emails on how we need to promote Linux... when honestly, it will win just as well without hype.

How the mighty have fallen.

It seems particularly telling when the SCO site is advertising the hot news for SCO Unix is the "Free Daylight Saving Time Patch".

Oh well...

In conjunction with the move of Red Hat, and others, it's apparent that there is a misunderstanding of the availability of CEO types in open source and open source talents for executive positions in general... or the reverse.  not sure yet.

As a guy who has sat through a number of pitches for start up funding (from A round to E round) on both sides of the projector, it seems that the issue is a lack of recognition that the business model is changing in the software industry. It's not enough to focus on the coolness of the technology.  It's more important to deliver the appropriate service, not just the appropriate product. oh, and by the way, make money, return value, keep yourself out of jail, be cool. Note again, it's not the "open source business model", it's the "business model" for "open source"

Stop and think about this for a second. Ignoring the business aspects and expecting the technology to drive uptake is a great way to keep a hobby alive, but not to create the world domination that open source development can attain. Open source is and should be far more than a hobby.

The new CEOs are most often from outside the tech industry... in fact, often from adjacent service industries. So, are the companies brilliant or simply lacking in vision for the folks in the trenches of open source. Or does the the misconception that open source types want to give it all away make this a moot and misunderstood point. And does the understanding of service industry types on open source mate well with the technical types creating the new universe.

Off the top of my head, I can think of 5-10 open source people I wouldn't mind running a start up as CEO that wouldn't show up on a recruiting search. I'm more limited as to ones that I'd trust  with my $50M business.  And I'd bet that none of my candidates would ever be acceptable to a big name VC/PE company. (it seems to be one of the standard questions these days "Who's going to be the CEO", often asked of the-then CEO).

So do we need a new crop of CEO talent? Open source trained, willing to accept that usines is changing? I think the answer is no... we just need the chance to prove what we all can build.

I've been attending open source events since before it was called open source. I "flew" penguins in Raleigh Durham, had early discussions with maddog Hall, and even had my smirk photographed down under. I've got a Golden Penguin on my shelf... and would love to take on the chance for another. But that said, most open source conferences are just not worth (me) going to.

The OSTT, at least last year, was different. Interactive.  small groups discussing in depth concepts and beliefs around commercial activities and open source.  No holds barred opinions, and yet consensus. Meeting some of the major players and shakers in the industry. Meeting newcomers that both have a clue and give a damn. And darn little sitting around listening to drivel, and no marketing... well, not much.

During the event last year, we had a presentation on the-then GPLv3, rev (something).  Unfortunately for the presenter, I read ahead on a slide and started expressing my opinion on certain "features". Now, I am not a lawyer (though there were a "lot" of them there last year) but I managed to get a point across that may have made a difference, and with the current flavor of GPLv3, Adobe has actually considered it, and has adopted the LGPLv3 for one of our efforts. (But I am surprised they are letting me come back <grin>).

There are certainly folks who last year pointed out how elitist this event is. I heard from folks last year that it should be open to anyone who wanted to attend, free (as in beer). And you know, those people are probably the ones that I run into at every other show, telling me how Adobe is doomed, that Adobe should just open source everything. I talked about that in a different blog, and lets leave it at that.

I want discussion and reasoned opinion. And if you want to offer me that, feel free to let me know. I'm looking forward to the OSTT 2008, and expecting to come away with a new appreciation of open source and ways to make it work with and for Adobe.