Sun has awarded the first ever open source J2EE certification scholarship to the ObjectWeb Consortium, to begin certification testing for JOnAS (Java Open Application Server). ObjectWeb is a non-profit open-source software community that includes projects such as C-JDBC, JORAM, Enhydra, and others.


Read Sun makes crucial step toward open source J2EE.

Only one other entity, the JBoss Group LLC, has ever applied for a J2EE scholarship but was rejected due to disagreements about their commercial nature.

Good news!

Wei Jiang
Perfecting J2EE!

Could it be?

for (Iterator iter = setAppServers.iterator(); iter.hasNext(); )
  {
  AppServer server = (AppServer) iter.next();
  if (server.isOpenSource() && !server.getName().equalsIgnoreCase("JBOSS"))
    {
    server.sponsor();
    server.certify();
    }
  }

Peace,

Cameron Purdy
Tangosol, Inc.
Coherence: Easily share live data across a cluster!

if (server.isOpenSource() && server.getName().equalsIgnoreCase("JBOSS")) {
    throw new IllegalAccessException("Too good of an app server");
}

>
> for (Iterator iter = setAppServers.iterator(); iter.hasNext(); )
> {
> AppServer server = (AppServer) iter.next();
> if (server.isOpenSource() && !server.getName().equalsIgnoreCase("JBOSS"))
> {
> server.sponsor();
> server.certify();
> }
> }
>
> Peace,
>
> Cameron Purdy


What is even more bizarre is that Sun will not even let JBoss Group pay for certification. It is one thing to deny JBossGroup application for the scholarship, quite another to deny them to even license the TCK for $$$.

As a JBoss user, I demand to know why Sun has not allowed JBoss Group to license the TCK. They have agreed to pay the TCK tax, the commercial license, so what is the big deal here???!!!??? Anybody know how I can contact Sun on this? I want to complain personally. I can't believe Sun is blantantly barring JBoss Group and JBoss from being certified, either through scholarship, or through the normal commercial license.

Hans

What is even more bizarre is that Sun will not even let JBoss Group pay for certification. It is one thing to deny JBossGroup application for the scholarship, quite another to deny them to even license the TCK for $$$.

It's their attitude. They've maintained their big mouth business attitude too long so Sun likely decided to ERASE them out of the Java world.

As a JBoss user, I demand to know why Sun has not allowed JBoss Group to license the TCK.

Rather think about to switch over to Jonas. It will be certified and is free as well.

Congrats to the Jonas team, btw. This certification will give them the proper attention.

-- Andreas

you've applied the wrong test.

the correct test is:

if (server.isOpenSource() && server.getVendor().isNonProfit())

>
> the correct test is:
>
> if (server.isOpenSource() && server.getVendor().isNonProfit())

Nonprofit or not, I still want to know why Sun won't even let JBoss Group pay for TCK.

Hans

> >
> > the correct test is:
> >
> > if (server.isOpenSource() && server.getVendor().isNonProfit())
>
> Nonprofit or not, I still want to know why Sun won't even let JBoss Group pay for TCK.
>
> Hans

My understanding was the they didn't reach yet an agreement about the price...

Don't take it too seriously ... I was just joking ... not trying to diss either Sun or JBoss.

Peace,

Cameron Purdy
Tangosol, Inc.
Coherence: Easily share live data across a cluster!

No offense taken. The question raised is extremely valid. If JBoss is willing to pay, they are fair game and Sun has to answer the question.

You should be careful henceforth. Many of your jokes get taken too seriously here at TSS. Remember the jBoss download numbers? :)

Jonas is sponsored by for profit companies. Get real

Neither is Jonas their main business asset, nor do they sell Jonas consulting or documentation. Get real, t g

No consulting? Bull
http://jonas.objectweb.org/support.html

ObjectWeb doesn't do the consulting, it's handled by, ironically, Bull TeleService. :-)

    -Mike

pun was intended..check the link

Okay, then goto Bull's website and start looking for Jonas,
then goto JBoss Group and look for JBoss. Get it now?

> then goto JBoss Group and look for JBoss. Get it now?

At least JBoss Group is a bit more honest at what they are doing instead of hiding behind a non-profit.

As t g stated:

http://jonas.objectweb.org/support.html

This is getting more and more muddy. I hope Sun clears all this up soon. Right now they seem really two faced and hypocritical.

Hans

You call it hiding. I call it a clear seperation between the non-profit caretaker (ObjectWeb) and commercial, for-profit interests (Bull). JBoss shows no such clear seperation. And while I wouldn't call JBoss people dishonest, at the same time "honest" doesn't ring quite true either.

   -Mike

Get over yourself. You disagreed with the JBoss guys great, you proved you are a technical genious (wink), and now you are proving you have absolutely ZERO common sense whatsoever. You are proving that you have a personality as mature as your shoe size. Find something to do with your time, work for that financial company you brag about instead of spending your time on forums. You are the kind of person who give developers a bad name, no open mind, caught in your own world. Read for yourself, here are some snippets from the ObjectWeb website:

"JOnAS is the Open Source implementation by ObjectWeb of the J2EETM specification. JOnAS is a pure JavaTM implementation of this specification that relies on the JDK. JOnAS is part of the ObjectWeb Open Source initiative, which was launched in collaboration with several partners including Bull, the France Telecom R&D division and INRIA."

"Bull provides professional Support Service for JOnAS. Several coverage options are available, including a full 24X7 coverage. This is an enterprise class support service that can be provided thanks to the involvment of key developers of JOnAS ObjectWeb team. A detailed description is provided here (pdf file). Fore more information please send a mail to srv.services at bull.net."

"Bull is the main contributor of the JOnAS open source application server. Bull is an international IT group that specialises in designing, developing and implementing secure IT infrastructures. Bull is dedicated to helping customers transform their processes and infrastructures in order to take full advantage of information technology to drive their market growth. To reach this objective, Bull provides a complete offer that includes not only IT services, from consulting to systems integration and outsourcing but also the design and development of infrastructure solutions, with particular emphasis on servers, storage and secure management software. Bull has gained strong recognition in the major economic sectors, such as, the public sector, finance, industry and telecommunications."

These are my favorites and they are all cut and paste from the Jonas website. So, I guess the real questions are as follows:

1. Is it better to have large companies hiding behind a non-profit getting Sun's IP for FREE?
2. IMHO a schlorship should be given to someone in need or someone who has proved exceptional ability and deserves it. Based on this assumption, who has done for for J2EE, ObjectWeb (Bull, France Telecom, etc), or JBoss and JBoss Group.
3. Would you feel comfortable as an end user IT organization using technology from a company non dedicated to making money? Does this make you feel like they are doing the best job they could? When profits as the for-profit companies hiding behind the non-profit start to tumble, do they pull support for the non-profit?
4. Does Sun have a clue what they are doing? First iPlanet, then SunOne, now the Java Enterprse System. I heard a rumor that they paid almost 1,000,000 on a market research study to determine that Java was a well known brand. How many people on this forum would have done it for less.

In summary, JBoss should pay for certification and show everyone that they are thriving and a healthy FOR-PROFIT company. As an IT manager for a large company this would help give me more confidence to bring JBoss further into my data center.

I hope this nonsence ends soon and Sun picks their heads out of their asses, and then we can have multiple FREE certified open source products. They you can choose which one based on features, performance, functionality, and all the typical ilitys.

Arun

+1

I really think that you just crossed the good manners line in that post.

And I think the same, there is a difference with JBoss and Jonas.

 JBoss is JBoss Group's main revenue stream but that is not the case with JONAS/Bull.

JD

JBoss Group does NOT sell JBoss, JBoss the product is FREE and is not part of a revenue stream for anyone. Any company including Bull can offer JBoss support services. And I am sorry for the harsh tone of previous post, but some people just do NOT read and need to be spoken to in this way.

What is the use of a application server with NO documentation? Do you think BEA would have sold a single copy of weblogic without their comprehensive documentation? Do you think objectweb or apache would remove commit privileges from developers who decide to provide consulting and compete with Bull/CDN?

Just look at the distinct reactions from jboss and objectweb... while objectweb is talking with ASF about joining forces, jboss.org is worried about LGPL violation. There's a clear difference in the focus of there 2 projects... JBoss Group LCC is profe$$ional opensource, objectweb is opensource middleware. Do you wanna get listed in objectweb's website as a company providing support for jonas? Fill in a registration at http://consortium.objectweb.org/registration.html and start contributing. Please, show me where the CDN guys can do the same on jboss.org... even though they did quite some contribution to jboss I was not able to find info about their consulting services at jboss.ORG

>

The CDN thing happened in June. CDN removal from JBoss CVS was in August after the Elba fork and the Geronimo LGPL infringements. I wonder if ObjectWeb would tolerate such behavior? Or any other open source project for that matter. ObjectWeb runs under the LGPL license too.

So, no, JBoss Group and ObjectWeb would not remove developers because they compete on services. Personally I was surprised that JBossGroup didn't remove CDN in June when the split first happened. It showed, to me at least, that they are at least trying to be professional.

> Just look at the distinct reactions from jboss and objectweb... while objectweb is talking with ASF about joining forces, jboss.org is worried about LGPL violation.

As they should. LGPL is a contract between the open source developer and the project. It means that the developer wants his code to ALWAYS remain open source. The Apache license just does not safeguard against this. I point out the Jetspeed and AXIS projects and their relationship to IBM for examples. If Apache changed its non-LGPL policy, then this would be fine. But if Geronimo is deriving from LGPL code and putting under the ASL license, this just is a lack of integrity and breaks the trust of the open source developer that wanted his/her code to remain open source.

And again, ObjectWeb goes under the LGPL license too.

>There's a clear difference in the focus of there 2 projects... JBoss Group LCC is profe$$ional opensource, objectweb is opensource middleware. Do you wanna get listed in objectweb's website as a company providing support for jonas? Fill in a registration at http://consortium.objectweb.org/registration.html and start contributing. Please, show me where the CDN guys can do the same on jboss.org... even though they did quite some contribution to jboss I was not able to find info about their consulting services at jboss.ORG


No where on ObjectWeb site does it state that you can solicate your services under the support.html page cited above.

hans

\Arun Patel\
Get over yourself. You disagreed with the JBoss guys great, you proved you are a technical genious (wink), and now you are proving you have absolutely ZERO common sense whatsoever. You are proving that you have a personality as mature as your shoe size. Find something to do with your time, work for that financial company you brag about instead of spending your time on forums. You are the kind of person who give developers a bad name, no open mind, caught in your own world. Read for yourself, here are some snippets from the ObjectWeb website:
\Arun Patel\

Wow - that paragraph is so empressive I don't even know where to begin. :-) I'm not a genius in anything, but I'm technically competent in a few areas. My common sense measurement is somewhat higher than ZERO. As for personality and maturity, you may want to re-read that incredible paragraph above and see who's calling the kettle black.

[ A bunch of quotes from Arun Patel ]

What your quotes show is that several for-profit companies are participating in an open source initiative through a non-profit organization, called ObjectWeb.

My point is, you say these for-profits are "hiding" behind the non-profit organization. This implies it's some sort of shell set up to scam people somehow - well, it's not. Bull or other partners may drop out of the ObjectWeb initiative, but ObjectWeb would live on as a distinct entity.

JBoss Group, in contrast, is on their own as a for-profit. JBoss Group does not develop JBoss in the environment of a consortium or non-profit collaboration. If there are disputes over the code base, it's the for-profit JBoss group that thumps its chest and threatens to sue. In JOnAS' case, if there are issues it's ObjectWeb that takes them up, not Bull or some other for-profit company.

Do you see the distinction?

    -Mike

>
> Do you see the distinction?
>
> -Mike

Yes, I see the distinction. Companies that provide support and services for $$ hide behind a non-profit so that they can dodge the Sun TCK fee. While, JBoss Group, that is made up of the core JBoss contributors, must pay a hefty sum. This is Bull $hit and should be addressed by Sun.

As for LGPL violations? I don't think FSF would look too fondly on it either.

Hans

We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this. In effect what you're saying is that if a non-profit organization has some corporate for-profit members, those corporate members are "hiding" behind the non-profit.

At the same time - Bull et al (the et al is important - we're talking multiple companies) do not have JOnAS as their primary line of business. It's something that a small part of their companies are collaborating on. JBoss Group is all about JBoss and selling services around their code base.

\Hans Helmut\
As for LGPL violations? I don't think FSF would look too fondly on it either.
\Hans Helmut\

As I said, I think the license of the code base is a red herring in this discussion. But I'll go further and say that nothing has been alleged anywhere.

    -Mike

That is fine. :-) It is an interesting discussion though, isn't it? And fun to argue :)

> In effect what you're saying is that if a non-profit organization has some corporate for-profit members, those corporate members are "hiding" behind the non-profit.
>
> At the same time - Bull et al (the et al is important - we're talking multiple companies) do not have JOnAS as their primary line of business. It's something that a small part of their companies are collaborating on. JBoss Group is all about JBoss and selling services around their code base.
>

Yes you are correct and this makes the situation even more unfair as Bull(and RedHat now) is just trying to expand its revenue base, can pay the majority developers that work on Jonas as a part of their overhead costs as employees of Bull(they are a multi-billion dollar company), and STILL avoid the TCK tax. While JBossGroup on the other hand is a small company made up of JBoss contributors, has to pay the TCK tax, as well as all the costs of running an open source project. And to top it all off, Sun will not even let JBoss Group PAY FOR the TCK!

Where the JBoss Group developers probably (and hopefully) have a stake in the JBoss Group company, I wonder how many Jonas/Bull employees have a significant stake in Bull? How many Jonas developers see one cent from the support that Bull or RedHat will deliver?

> \Hans Helmut\
> As for LGPL violations? I don't think FSF would look too fondly on it either.
> \Hans Helmut\
>
> As I said, I think the license of the code base is a red herring in this discussion.

A red herring in the free or not free TCK for JBoss Group, yes. It is not a red herring in the JBossGroup/CDN/Geronimo discussions because I believe GPL and LGPL licenses should be protected.

> But I'll go further and say that nothing has been alleged anywhere.
>
> -Mike

Alleged, but unproven as of yet. Although I did a quick check eyeball check myself and found 10 files with the same name.


I will finish with....

I just wish that we could get all the red tape away and these certification issues out of the way (it really is just a rubber stamp) so that we can focus on who is the better implementation and/or who has better support services if you care about that. Sun should either give JBoss the scholarship or let them pay for TCK. It is extremely unfair to let them hang in limbo.

Hans

\Hans Helmut\
A red herring in the free or not free TCK for JBoss Group, yes. It is not a red herring in the JBossGroup/CDN/Geronimo discussions because I believe GPL and LGPL licenses should be protected.
\Hans Helmut\

Intellectual property is already covered by copyright law. Only the owners of the copyright can change its licensing terms. Short of being public domain, the type of license is irrelevant - only the copyright owners can change it.

\Hans Helmut\
Alleged, but unproven as of yet. Although I did a quick check eyeball check myself and found 10 files with the same name.
\Hans Helmut\

I'd say it depends more on the contents then on file names. In J2EE you're going to find alot of things like Transaction.java, TransactionManager.java, Dispatcher.java, TransactionLocal.java, etc, etc. Also keep in mind that some of the Geronimo folks are the same people who did a bunch of the JBoss code, so naming simularities like this may be common.

The problem I have with this whole Geronimo/JBoss "controversy" is that there's exactly the same physical evidence as there is in the SCO/Linux case: none. No one has pointed out a smoking gun, which is rather weird considering that both projects are open source with the source easily available and compared. If there were _actual_ copyright violations where Geronimo people were copying JBoss code and slapping a different license on it, you'd think Marc Fleury would already have made a formal complaint.

    -Mike

Hans,

You appear to be a bit too ingrained into the JBoss way of thinking in that they are being 'picked on' by Sun and that they are not 'hiding behind open source licensing'.

If you had a slightly more open mind, you would see that Mike has put some very valid points, especially regarding Bull and their relationship to ObjectWeb and Jonas. The main consideration really is that Bull will certainly earn revenue from any services they offer in relation to Jonas, but that is not their main source of revenue, or their prime business model. Other companies can offer these services, and can also join ObjectWeb. Just because the particular 'support.html' file does not state that is not a fair argument.

With JBoss and the JBoss Group, the link is much more direct. Their business model has been explained and described many times and is an acceptable approach to money-making. That some people find it unacceptable is a different issue.

That they have not yet got agreement from Sun for J2EE certification is down to previous practices and ongoing negotiations, so may still happen. With the direct link between the open source product and the services (and documentation) group, I personally think it fair that Sun wish to charge JBoss Group for certification.

I still come back to the point that you claim Bull (and others) are 'hiding' behind a non-profit organisation to make money and get free certification - this is a very obtuse intepretation of the facts. Especially about 'hiding'!

That's my tuppence worth, at any rate.

I'm biased I'll admit. I know JBoss well and I don't want to learn all the nuances of 5 other app servers. I hope JBoss becomes the Linux of App servers.

But I don't see a big difference between Bull/Jonas and JBossGroup/JBoss. I think both should fit under the scholorship program.

First off congratulations to Jonas. I don't have a problem with Jonas getting the certification for free per se. It has been a valid effort, INRIA is a respectable house, even if a bit academic to my taste, I do congratulate them on the scolarship, at least they won't have to pay.

I don't even have a problem with JBoss Group paying for certification, even if every dollar we spend on it are dollars we made with you guys as customers. As we repeatedly said we AGREED to pay SUN and are waiting on a contract. We are still waiting.

As a note it should be clearly said, as for some reason SUN execs and some posts here think we sell the product, THE PRODUCT IS FREE (LGPL) always will be.

Which leads me to 2 scenarios,

<normal> SUN launched the 'scolarship' clearly as a Open Source branded effort with apache on stage for that announcement etc. I remember the "OS diva" (name escapes me right now, apologies) telling me that was good for JBoss etc and that we would get it. Even back then I knew intuitively it was boloney, a reaction to IBM land-grabbing open source and a rushed program, ill thought out imho. Bygones.

The whole non-profit definition leads to non-sensical results with respect to the open source positioning, namely that the open source developers would pay while the french government would get it for free. It is a fact today. The scolarship is a 'non-profit' program and as is very clear to us, we believe there is a viable future for professional open source. The scolarship *if it wanted to be open source* should base the definition on licenses. OSI approved licenses, not non-profit status. Open source is about licenses not non-profit.

<paranoia>On the waiting for the contract for the past 2 months. SUN may be favoring redhat with jonas as the first to get PR for that announcement of 'scolarship'. I am supposed to meet the SUN folks this week in CA for an update on the way open source certification will work (for jonas and us). The paranoid in me thinks the PR 'thunder stealing' helps their friends more than anything. JBoss out of the gates with TCK would have been (still will be) a good PR story and we will get to talk about it here when it comes out ;)

I may be totally wrong and it may all be the simple consequences of the non-sensical way the program is set up with respect to open source and SUN just walks through the moves, we were denied the scolarship.
Next they make sure Jonas and us do the TCK right which is actually fair. We pay, the others don't pay, it is ok, it doesn't even put us at a disadvantage but the result is so not a 'open source' program. That to me it would warrant a back to the drawing board on the whole scolarship program.

SUN is giving away TCK to large multi-billion for-profit companies, while the developers of JBoss Group pay. OK, we will pay and it sends a message to the market that we are viable and responsible in fact commercial in our support and a real company with money behind JBoss the FREE product.

Professional Open Source is a real business model, Onward,

marcf

As I understand it, the issue isn't the license - on many levels the license and how you "sell" your product (or don't, as the case may be) - is probably irrelevant.

The question is also probably not "what code base is this run against?".

The question is: "who wants to run this compatability test and reap the benefits of it?".

If a bunch of talented but underfunded people in Micronesia forked JBoss, started a non-profit organization to nuture the code base, and wanted to certify it, I imagine they could be sponsored. If JBoss, a for-profit commercial company wants to certify, then as a commercial company they pay.

Perhaps I'm missing some nuances here, but in general it actually seems pretty clear cut to me. The license IMHO is a red herring.

    -Mike

>
> marcf

"Red Hat plans to offer a Java 2 Enterprise Edition application server. This product will be based on the Java Open Application Server, from European middleware consortium ObjectWeb."

More:

Red Hat moves into enterprise software

jonas last I checked was amongst others sponsored by france telecom and redhat, which are for profit companies.

I don't quite see why JBoss shouldn't be ellegable

Sponsorship is far different to making profit. Luminaries form JBoss will tell you that they gain revenue from the services they provide (consultancy and the such) and from the documentation. So technically, JBoss Group is not a non-profit organisation

Calum

JBoss project = opensource

JBoss group llc = commercial services company that happens to employ a number of developers

you can just as easily view Jboss llc as sponsoring the JBoss project, they sponsor it because they feel they gane something by doing so , much like redhat and france telecom, last I checked these weren't charitable organisations eighter.

Just compare how documented is Jonas... that IS opensource, imho a far different thing from 'hey, i give you this source code, but no docs, no advise, until you pay your fee'. for me jboss is just another comercial j2ee srv, but with another business model

I can tell you are not a JBoss user. The user lists and forums are very active and the JBoss Group developers always answer questions. Especially Adrian Brock, Scott Stark, and Juha Lindfors. THey have answered my questions numerous times.

Hans

<quote>
JBoss project = opensource
JBoss group llc = commercial services company that happens to employ a number of developers

you can just as easily view Jboss llc as sponsoring the JBoss project, they sponsor it because they feel they gane something by doing so , much like redhat and france telecom, last I checked these weren't charitable organisations eighter.
</quote>

It's quite different to SPONSOR an OS project, like telecom does, and OWN an OS project, like JBoss. Giving away the License to JBoss.org would have the same effect as certify JBossGroup.com. They wouldn't have to pay for their license, it would be taken for granted.

For example, even if IBM opensource the core of WebSphere (yucks!), they would still have to pay for selling their commercial version. If JBoss gets the License, the JBoss Group would gain as much trading power as any other certified J2EE vendor, and would not pay for that. "Same as Telecom" you would say. But they don't sell app servers, either RedHat.

> For example, even if IBM opensource the core of WebSphere (yucks!), they would still have to pay for selling their commercial version. If JBoss gets the License, the JBoss Group would gain as much trading power as any other certified J2EE vendor, and would not pay for that. "Same as Telecom" you would say. But they don't sell app servers, either RedHat.

Actuallly this doesn't apply to RedHat as they are in the same sort of business JBossGroup is. So your argument just falls apart.

Hans

This is a good news for ObjectWeb, congrats!

For J2EE beginners, who want to use ObjectWeb products Enhydra and JOnAS,
we released EJOSA (Enterprise Java Open Source Architecture = Enhydra and
JOnAS Application) Template 1.3.5.

http://ejosa.sourceforge.net
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ejosa
License: LGPL.

EJOSA is a project supporting an effective development of J2EE-based applications. The template model provides a collection of many Open
Source components available such as Enhydra and JOnAS. EJOSA Template
only uses Ant scripts for "execution" and "build" management, no batch
files, no dependency to IDE, no IDE dependent plug-ins. Just purely
Ant scripts for everything (build, start, stop, etc.)!

If you use NetBeans (also good for J2EE beginners):
- Mount your "ejosa" directory.
- Just click and push F6 on the Ant "start" or Ant "build" to start
  your EJB container, Servlet container or to build your EJBs with
  XDoclet, etc. You can use AspectJ within your J2EE application
  as EJOSA Template integrates AspectJ with its build and start
  Ant files as needed.
- In the documentation you can also see, how to debug J2EE applications
  easily within NetBeans.

Just download EJOSA Template and you're ready to develop your own
J2EE application easily. Everything except JDK and IDE (NetBeans,
Eclipse 3.x) are included, no need to download other Open Source
libraries. In the documentation you can see the process diagram to
use EJOSA Template:
- Creator of Component API: Build your specification.
- Implementor of Component API: Implement your business layer.
- User of Component API: Implement your presentation layer.

More information about EJOSA Template in the documentation:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/ejosa/ejosa1.3.5-doc.pdf?download

Regards,
Lofi.
http://www.openuss.org

Anyone care to comment (good, bad, indifferent, uninformed, biased, whatever) on the effect this will have on Apache Geronimo ?

Yeah, this will affect Geronimo and BEA long before it starts to eat into JBoss's share. Congrats to Jonas.

Steve

ROTFL. Geronimo has to have an actual working codebase before they can even start to compete. Unless of course they steal from other projects....

Hans