• The optimzied. non debug libraries, are now in /lib under the distribution, not in /lib/opt where they used to be. I see no good reason for this, to be honest (place the libraries where you want, of course, but once a release is out, don't move them around at random in upcoming releases). This has been reported as bug #58532
• To make it realhard for us in the community to test this release Candidate version of MySQL, to iron out the bugs, MySQL decided not to include dynamic debug client libraries, only the static ones. Why this makes things difficult, you have to do some development on Windows to userstand. For a bunch of reasons (not necessarily good reasons, but if you are Microsoft, you are allowed to do whatever you choose, no reason needed, except that maybe it's the 7th hour on the 7th month and it's afull moon coming up or something), Micosoft compiles stuff so that a static library depends on stuff included by the compiler itself. So if the compiler version changes, the library will not work properly anymore. In short, you need to build your applications with the same version of Visual Studio as the MySQL Client library was built with. Yikes!

In addition to the lightweight "headless" appliance (which can only be accessed and configured via a remote network connection), I've now also created a GUI-based version. This appliance starts a minimal GNOME desktop and a Mozilla Firefox browser, which in turn opens the Drupal installation page by default. I hope you will find this useful if you want to toy around and test Drupal 7 without having to go through the entire OS and LAMP stack configuration yourself. In fact, you can even test this appliance via the recently added test drive option from right out of your web browser!

The appliance is now also available in OVF format. SuSE Studio now also builds Amazon EC2 images, which don't seem to be available for download from the SUSE Gallery yet. I assume this is a recent addition to the continuously improving SUSE Studio functionality, hopefully these images will be made available soon.

If you would like to give it a try, but you don't have a free server handy, how about using a virtual machine instead? Using the fabolous SuSE Studio, I've created an appliance based on openSUSE 11.3, Drupal 7.0-alpha7 and MySQL 5.1 with the InnoDB plugin and strict mode enabled (both for the SQL mode and InnoDB mode. Using this configuration helps to ensure that Drupal works well with the current version of MySQL/InnoDB and does not use any "questionable" SQL statements. This might be especially interesting for additional modules - Drupal core did not reveal any problems using strict mode so far.

You can download disk images for VMware/Virtualbox/KVM or XEN from the SUSE Gallery (free login required). Just boot the appliance in your virtualization application of choice, choose your keyboard layout and step through the network configuration and Time Zone selection. Once the appliance has booted up and the login: prompt appeared, point your web browser to the appliance's IP address to start the Drupal installation/configuration. MySQL has been pre-configured, there is an empty database named "drupal" and a user "drupal" with the same password to access it. You just need to enter this information in the Drupal Database configuration dialogue during the installation. Anything else can be configured to your liking.

After you have finished the installation, you can toy around with a fresh Drupal 7 installation! Install additional modules, change the themes, add content. And make sure to report all bugs that you run into while doing so! Have fun.

It ought to be simple: either the software meets the Open Source Definition or it does not. But it is not always easy to tell what license is being used, and in the case of software being delivered as a service, does it matter anyway?

The ability to deliver software as a hosted service enables some companies that are claimed to be 100% open source to offer customers software for which the source code is not available. Coincidentally, James Dixon has this week highlighted one example in the form of Nuxeo Studio, a configuration and customization environment for the Nuxeo ECM offerings, which is delivered as a hosted service to Nuxeo’s Connect – Developer subscribers.

The nature of Studio’s license came up in a conversation I had recently with Nuxeo CMO Cheryl McKinnon, and I had been meaning to write a post on the subject of hosted subscription services ever since.

Nuxeo Studio is the latest in a line of value-added subscription services that blur the lines between open and closed. It started, arguably, back in 2001 with Red Hat Network, a hosted monitoring and management service. The stand alone Red Hat Network Satellite followed two years later but it wasn’t until June 2008 that the code officially became open source, as project Spacewalk.

Similarly, JBoss Operations Network was first introduced as JBoss Network, part of the JBoss subscription, in March 2005. The code for that was made available in the form of the Jopr project in 2008.

Meanwhile MySQL introduced MySQL Network Monitoring and Advisory Services as part of MySQL Enterprise in October 2006 as it continued its shift towards subscription revenue (and away from its traditional dual licensing approach).

More recent examples include Nuxeo Studio and Acquia Network’s remote site management services.

In his post James Dixon argues that the delivery of a service like Nuxeo Studio is effectively the same as the open core licensing model, in that it is the delivery of proprietary extensions to an open source core. Florent Guillaume, director of R&D at Nuxeo, and Eric Barroca, Nuxeo CEO, have responded in the comments to that post and Eric’s original to argue that it is not.

My own feeling is that Nuxeo’s approach is not open core, since the original definition of open core concerned proprietary products. However, the existence of Nuxeo Studio means that Nuxeo is clearly not 100% open source.

For that reason, I have come to believe that we need to add a new revenue trigger category to our open source business strategy model, that makes a clear distinction between support subscriptions for 100% open source code, and value-add subscriptions that offer additional hosted services.

It is also a reminder of the importance of transparency. Open core vendors are regularly attacked for misleading potential customers with the promise of open source while delivering traditional licensing. Our recent transparency test indicated that for the most part open core vendors are clear about what features are in which version, and with which license.

I spent some time the other day investigating the web sites of various OSS-related vendors and unfortunately the same cannot be said of all vendors (whether they are open core or “pure” open source).

Too often phrases like “open source subscription license”, “commercial open source license” and “value-added component” are thrown around without any explanation of what exactly is meant, and the so-called open source purists are not immune to glossing over the details.

Simon Crosby recently commented that everybody making money with open source actually has a proprietary angle. I don’t think that is 100% true, but it is getting harder and harder to identify the open source purists.