[ close ]
Help Upgrade the Web: Download Firefox 3.5

one laptop per child and open source

May 3, 2007 in Freedom, OLPC | 26 comments

I’ve been quietly waiting for someone from OLPC to say something officially and it sounds like a quote has finally made it into an ars technica article:

According to Walter Bender, president of Software and Content at OLPC, there is no agreement in place between OLPC and Microsoft to offer XO laptops with any version of Windows. Bender also indicated that Microsoft has not contacted OLPC regarding its $3 software bundling program, nor have any governments requested that the XO be outfitted with Windows. In short, there is no existing collaboration between Microsoft and OLPC aimed at outfitting the XO laptop with Windows.

The relationship can be explained thusly: Microsoft has some XO machines. They are trying to get Windows working on it. Sometimes they show up and ask random hardware questions. The OLPC guys say “look at the code.” They go away again. Sometimes they brick machines (because they have to replace the awesome firmware we have with a poopy PC BIOS) and send them back to the office to get them unbricked. Sometimes they complain that the machine has hardware problems and we reply that it works fine here.

For once Microsoft is getting the reverse Linux laptop experience: little support and little documentation for the hardware. The result will be a platform that doesn’t include any of the really novel features that we’re building in, bad power management, no systems management via the firmware and apps that will randomly crash because they can’t fix the virtual memory problem in the same way we’re approaching it. A second class citizen, to be sure.

The commitment to open source and free software is still one of the main principals of the project. Learning requires the transparency that free and open source software provides.

  1. Nick’s avatar

    Nick on May 3, 2007 at 3:18 pm

    Finally someone from OLPC cleared out FUD and conspiracy theories that we saw in the last weeks. Thank Mr. Bender and you, Chris. I was waiting for an official word, but definitively not a very unexpected description from an insider about the difficulties MS has… Great reading!

  2. Just A-wondering’s avatar

    Just A-wondering on May 3, 2007 at 4:33 pm

    How about the rumours that extra hardware was added, at extra cost, just for Microsoft? Truth or not?

  3. John (J5) Palmieri’s avatar

    John (J5) Palmieri on May 3, 2007 at 4:37 pm

    Please read Jim Getty’s post on http://planet.laptop.org regaurding why the extra hardware was added:

    http://www.gettysfamily.org/wordpress/?p=34

  4. GoatTuber’s avatar

    GoatTuber on May 3, 2007 at 4:41 pm

    “For once Microsoft is getting the reverse Linux laptop experience” – that’s funny. I wonder how many developers have ventured to Redmond and asked them “hey, how can I get this working in Linux?” They’d only get a response like “read the… uh… exit sign”.

    I’m glad to see the MS/OLPC news get cleared up. I didn’t like seeing how the fact that OLPC wouldn’t prevent Windows from being installed got spun into it being a partnership/install option/you name it, and then nobody said “oh sorry, we didn’t mean it like that”. Maybe hype like that just generates more traffic for them, who knows.

    Keep up the good work everyone, I love what you’re doing.

  5. Søren Hauberg’s avatar

    Søren Hauberg on May 3, 2007 at 5:42 pm

    So, when they read the source, do they have to publish their own code under the GPL (assuming the OLPC code is GPL) ?

  6. Hugo’s avatar

    Hugo on May 3, 2007 at 6:43 pm

    “So, when they read the source, do they have to publish their own code under the GPL (assuming the OLPC code is GPL) ?”

    Yeah. Afterall, we have to go to great lenghts to make sure our reverse engineering is clean-room. Why don’t they? They just assume OLPC won’t sue them?

  7. Matthew’s avatar

    Matthew on May 3, 2007 at 7:15 pm

    Great post. Made me smile.
    You guys and OLPC rock!

  8. Don Marti’s avatar

    Don Marti on May 3, 2007 at 7:37 pm

    Jim Gettys has some good points about this issue too. “Microsoft gets what we do with others in this situation, no more, no less: access to the information we have.”

  9. David Nusinow’s avatar

    David Nusinow on May 3, 2007 at 7:44 pm

    +1 For “poopy PC BIOS”. I’m a big fan of the OF stuff you guys have going. If I ever get time to poke at an XO, I’ll probably play with that first.

  10. Alex Bogak’s avatar

    Alex Bogak on May 4, 2007 at 3:15 am

    Great stuff!

    I really love the OLPC project, and not just because they do a great thing, I just love the process itself. The final product will benefit all open source communities, especially those, that create applications for it.

    I also had written an opinion peace on the subject of comparison of OLPC with other laptops (and it was published on LinuxToday and Groklaw, so its genuine ;-), it can be found on my blog (I don’t write the url here, but if someone wants to read it look for “OLPC reviewers review” on LinuxToday).

  12. Scott Preece’s avatar

    Scott Preece on May 4, 2007 at 2:40 pm

    “So, when they read the source, do they have to publish their own code under the GPL (assuming the OLPC code is GPL) ?”

    No, that’s true when dealing with patents, but not with copyrights. You can’t copyright facts and you can’t copyright functional aspects, only expression. Clean-room engineering in this kind of situation is generally [IANAL] a manifestation of corporate lawyers’ aversion to risk. So long as they don’t copy the code, or ape the non-functional aspects of its organization, it’s not infringement.

    Now, it’s quite possibly that Microsoft’s own risk-averse lawyers might insist on them figuring it out from scratch..

  14. Greg’s avatar

    Greg on May 4, 2007 at 4:01 pm

    “So, when they read the source, do they have to publish their own code
    under the GPL (assuming the OLPC code is GPL) ?”

    No, that’s true when dealing with patents, but not with copyrights

    Incorrect. Clean-room development does not have any affect on a patent, use of the idea is still infringement no matter if you came up with the idea all by yourself. The advantage of clean-room development in regards to copyright is greater accountability against claims of copying. Microsoft should not be reading the GPL sources unless they will release the resulting software under a GPL compatible license.

  15. Scott Preece’s avatar

    Scott Preece on May 4, 2007 at 5:35 pm

    Greg is right about patents. With patents the end-point is more-or-less all that matters. What I should have contrasted copyright to was use of non-public (unpublished) documents, such as documents obtained under an NDA, where the information in the document is protected by contractual requirements.

    With copyrights (published material), access to the original material is one of the things that would be considered in an infringement suit. However, such a suit would only occur if the code resulting from the reading was very close to the original. As noted, you are allowed to learn from the material and use the facts embodied in the material, you just can’t copy it (with certain exceptions).

    Clean-room engineering is a strong defence against a claim of infringement. However, so is just writing clearly different code.

    Greg’s “should not” may be stating his ethical position rather than a legal position. Learning from published code doesn’t violate the law [again, IANAL] and doesn’t offend my ethics, but YMMV.

  19. Crayon’s avatar

    Crayon on May 14, 2007 at 10:36 am

    [...]Now, it’s quite possibly that Microsoft’s own risk-averse lawyers might insist on them figuring it out from scratch.. [...]
    Whoa, when has risk ever stopped them from stealing ideas and blatant patent infringement? As long as the returns are greater than the pitiful sums they are eventually fined they’ll always take the “risk”.

  20. Josh Bradshaw’s avatar

    Josh Bradshaw on May 15, 2007 at 11:48 pm

    That’s a great article. It’s interesting what you say about the politics, spin and obfuscation surrounding OLPC. Your article is very welcome as it attempts to get at the truth. What is becoming clear is that the OLPC is a not the solution but a starting point for development. This project needs to be handled in a sensitive way. Different needs and cultures must be addressed properly. Only then will the One Laptop Per Child project be a success. Right now is an exciting time for technology, particularly mobile technology covering laptops, mobile phones and PDAs. Also the web and they way they all work with the web. I get my laptops and peripherals from Portable Universe and I can thoroughly recommend them. The best thing for people to do is to talk to them, let them know what your needs are (both current and future) and they will come up with the best laptop for you. I also get blank DVDs there for my backup.
    http://www.portableuniverse.co.uk

  23. mqhrbboeig’s avatar

    mqhrbboeig on June 18, 2007 at 5:37 am

    Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! znjylltwuvh

  24. andres’s avatar

    andres on July 5, 2007 at 9:08 am

    On 10 May, public school students from Cardal, department of Florida, each received one laptop. This is the first experience of the government’s “Plan Ceibal” that has many objectives, including reducing illiteracy in every department of Uruguay…

    http://www.uruguaydailynews.com/2007/05/14/one-laptop-for-each-student/