New thinking from JBoss CEO: From licensing to EJB 3

Discussions

News: New thinking from JBoss CEO: From licensing to EJB 3

  1. Lots of new thinking from Marc. Certainly worth the time to read. and concidentally, Marc makes some observations related to the recent BSD vs GPL discussion in the Geronimo M1 release thread. In a blog entry he dives into transparent middleware, EJB 3.0, AOSD, and more.

    If I had to choose which part was most interesting to me, and there were plenty to choose from, I suppose the most interesting is his thinking on the Axis project at Apache.

    He says:
    "Then what happened is the project took off, people started contributing, IBM contributed a lot, and when it was stable and almost a product, then IBM forked back into IBM Corp. a proprietary version, which is allowed by the BSD-style license that the Apache Software Foundation has. That led me, my guys, our group, and all the other users that contributed to Axis in a void"
    Now, I don't really know if this happened. (I'd be surprised if it did in the way he describes) and I don't really know how many of his guys contributed to Axis - it's public information in the commit logs - but it's a good thought-experiment:

    If someone stops contributing to an open source project and continues developing privately, does this actually harm other contributors, or is it just that they don't benefit from the work of others?

    Since this could happen with non-BSD-derived licenses as well, is there anything that can be done?

    How does this differ from the normal risk that you encounter when depending on a commercial software vendor to continue a product line? In this case, it appears that Marc was dependent upon the contributions of IBM, and now w/o IBM contributing, is JBoss stuck on their WebServices stack?

    -geir

    Read JBoss CEO Opposes Open-Source Java

    Also read Transparent middleware, EJB3.0, Las Vegas TSS
  2. Honestly, I think all this brouhaha to "open-source" Java is more about politics than any tangible value for developers.

    Some of the FOSS community's arguments make sense; they're just not strong enough to convince me the risk is worth taking.
  3. Marc is just speaking his usual balderdash according to Geir Magnusson Axis is as healthy as ever. And Sun is not going to give up their running gold cow that brings in an enormous amount of cash to Sun without they having to do anything (Other people do it for them).

    Besides, who needs a fork of Java?
    It already has happened, and very successfully.

    Everything is a moot point, air balloons. Maybe Marc felt the need to be seen as the good guy from Sun viewpoint.

    Regards
    Rolf Tollerud
  4. Fleury: There is a branch that is still open source and is still the Axis branch, but essentially, all the development is gone because IBM was the biggest one, and they have gone back proprietary. [So IBM said], 'Thank you, our corporate decision says that it's more advantageous to us to take it back to us proprietary. See you.' Then there's no commitment [to open source].

    That is very disturbing to me because all of a sudden what I thought was a safe bet as a user of that technology, not even as a developer, is gone. And now I'm scrambling to save that, and how do we do it, and maybe we start committing ourselves to Apache. I can't imagine how the developers that committed to that project feel about this because all of a sudden that product road map for that project disappears because the biggest committer to that project has gone back into the proprietary world.
    Mmmh! 1) IBM or any organization may always decide at any time to stop contributing to an open source project. That is their strategical choice. What if suddently Jboss Inc goes brankrupt? JBoss Inc will of course stop contributing to the JBoss project. And what? That is usual business. But the Jboss project will continue (perhaps at a slower rate) with other contributors... Similar for Axis 2) IBM could not have suddently, as we may understand it, change the license of what they already contributed to Apache. Once it is open source, it stays open source forever. However they may of course decide to fork the project and to release a new proprietary only version. But MySQL may also suddently decide to launch a MySQL 5.0 which would be commercial only, so...

    Stéphane
  5. That led me, my guys, our group, and all the other users that contributed to Axis in a void
    Hardly so. Axis is actively being worked on, 1.2 beta has just been released.
  6. Here's the only patch/bug i remember from jboss folks: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=axis-dev&w=2&r=1&s=christoph+jung&q=b

    Please correct me if i am wrong.
    Developer ML archives : http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=axis-dev
    Users ML archives : http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=axis-user

    CVS commits go into the dev mailing list, as well as any bug reports...So the truth is out there :)

    thanks,
    dims
  7. The Truth is Out There[ Go to top ]

    Here's the only patch/bug i remember from jboss folks: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=axis-dev&w=2&r=1&s=christoph+jung&q=bPlease correct me if i am wrong. Developer ML archives : http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=axis-devUsers ML archives : http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=axis-userCVS commits go into the dev mailing list, as well as any bug reports...So the truth is out there :)thanks,dims
    And Cristoph isn't even a member of JBoss Group. So "my guys, our group" apparently doesn't have to someone in JBoss Group, but anyone who contributes to JBoss.

    All your guys are belong to us :-)
  8. The Truth is Out There[ Go to top ]

    I like this also about Millions:

    "Millions will use transparent middleware, that is the whole point" :)

    Dmitry Namiot
    http://www.servletsuite.com
  9. Devil in the detail[ Go to top ]

    Rickard et al.

    I think you are being a bit unfair, Marc never actually said that his guys contributed to Axis, he said we have based some of our work on Axis and then, later on, said That led me, my guys, our group, and all the other users that contributed to Axis in a void.

    So if JBoss group has based some work on Axis, now they're screwed. Also screwed are other users who contributed to Axis.

    But then again, I don't know the guy.
  10. Devil in the detail[ Go to top ]

    Rickard et al.I think you are being a bit unfair, Marc never actually said that his guys contributed to Axis, he said we have based some of our work on Axis and then, later on, said That led me, my guys, our group, and all the other users that contributed to Axis in a void.So if JBoss group has based some work on Axis, now they're screwed. Also screwed are other users who contributed to Axis.But then again, I don't know the guy.
    I don't think I'm unfair, I'm just distinguishing between "probable" and "possible" interpretations of what he said. What you said is (maybe) "possible", but it's not very "probable".

    But you are right that the devil is in the details, in this case the distinction between "possible" and "probable".
  11. axis committing[ Go to top ]

    We do not have axis committers, but will probably be submitting patches here and there. When talking about AXiS and JBoss, he meant as users.
  12. Devil in the detail[ Go to top ]

    Rickard et al.I think you are being a bit unfair, Marc never actually said that his guys contributed to Axis, he said we have based some of our work on Axis and then, later on, said That led me, my guys, our group, and all the other users that contributed to Axis in a void.So if JBoss group has based some work on Axis, now they're screwed. Also screwed are other users who contributed to Axis.But then again, I don't know the guy.
    No one has been 'screwed' at all. That was one of the many baffling items in the article.

    The so-called 'fork' happened years ago, and the Axis project just kept going - it has released three ( or more?) versions since then, has a roadmap, and now even a C++ version.

    Seems like a healthy, vibrant project to me, with free (of course) implementations available under the business-friendly BSD-derived Apache license. Go look for yourself :

    http://ws.apache.org/axis/

    Marc said :
    I'm talking about the implementation [of SOAP in the Apache Axis project]. The implementation is gone. So the rug was pulled out from under our feet, basically."
    (Added section mine for context) The implementation didn't "disappear". Marc simply must have misspoke again. Or maybe the reporter misunderstood what he was saying. Licensing is confusing.

    When a contributor stops contributing to a codebase with a BSD-derived (or *GPL) license, it doesn't "disappear". Simply, that contributor stops contributing. All the work they contributed remains free and available to others to use and build on.

    The true history seems to be that IBM contributed an their "SOAP4J" codebase to pre-SOAP-standard project which the Apache community continued to develop as Apache SOAP. Apache Axis is a follow-on project by the Apache community that rearchitected, and implmented the final standard, and subsequent versions of the standard.

    BTW - Apache SOAP is still available too :

    http://ws.apache.org/soap/

    (but the follow-on project Axis is where active development is happening)
  13. Must remember[ Go to top ]

    No one has been 'screwed' at all.
    Must remember not to believe anything Marc says...
  14. Be it their FUD with SUn or licensing issues or making big claims or commenst about EJBs or not providing JBOSS documentation but charging high for consulting servies- somehow JBOSS people just happen to create some disturbance in the coomunity with some arguable remarks. I guess they dont have much to do right now. I might sound noisy - but hey - go read what MArc and others JBOSS buddies have said in the past.....
  15. I don't often comment on any of Fleury's statements, but in this case I must respond.

    I have read his interview on CRN and besides seeming somewhat staged, I hear the same old Fleury. It has nothing to with the community—it is strictly his personal agenda. He now has funding and has changed his tune. Surprise, Surprise.

    I believe in the Axis project and as far as IBM’s previous involvement, what make this any different than Eclipse. As far as I know, IBM created Eclipse and donated the project to the open-source community. Sure IBM still has a great deal of interest in the project and they are basing a product line on Eclipse, but it is now ours. We should be grateful for such a head start.

    I personally think Axis is doing well. I have used it (very successfully) on several projects and will continue to do so. I like it so much that I am writing a book on the subject.

    If I was a committer to the Axis project, I would personally take offence to his comments:

    "There is a branch that is still open source and is still the Axis branch, but essentially, all the development is gone because IBM was the biggest one, and they have gone back proprietary."


    Just my thoughts,
    James Goodwill
  16. The thing to keep in mind when reading Fleury speak is that he's very adept at being vague and hinting at things without actually coming out and saying it concretely. It's a case of saying just enough to spark people's imaginations and let them fill in the blanks, without saying anything specific enough to be called out on. If you try to refute a "point" that Fleury makes in writing, when you research it you find more often than not that there is no specific text that you can quote to refute - it's just vague and slippery enough that he can wiggle out in which ever way he chooses. And if you try to engage him on such subjects he'll just keep repeating the same old slippery verbiage until you give up out of frustration.

    Of course the downside for him on this approach is that a number of people eventually detect this pattern and just tune him out, but it's a formula that's as old as sin and still befuddles a respectable number of people, even though who should know better.

    The Axis stuff is just a prime example of Marc at the top of his game - he makes a number of insinuations and accusations without _quite_ actually making them. He lets the reader make the final connections himself. Note that he never really defines JBoss' relationship with Axis or says anything too direct that you can quote and intelligently respond to, except for a couple of slips (which people are latching onto here).

        -Mike