Discussions

News: Opinion: The Open Source Monopoly

  1. Opinion: The Open Source Monopoly (45 messages)

    Lajos Moczar caused a bit of a stir when he wrote "A First Look at Apache Geronimo." Now, he replies to the comments in a piece which discusses his opinion on the true meaning of open source.

    Introduction
    Last month I wrote an article on Apache Geronimo for JavaWorld called "A First Look at Apache Geronimo." In the summary, I stated that "Geronimo aims to be the first J2EE-certified open source J2EE server." As can be imagined, that statement generated a flurry of emails and responses, most of which claimed that in fact, JBoss was the first open source J2EE certified server.

    In my reply to some of the reader feedback I received, I clarified that I did not consider JBoss open source in the same way Apache Geronimo is open source. That statement led to more controversy and so I decided to respond fully in a separate article. This paper is my response.

    While it may seem a minor issue, the JBoss-Geronimo issue is symptomatic not only of problems with open source, and its definition, but with how we handle computer technology in general. As I will show in this paper, JBoss is by no means in the spirit of open source and should not be considered an open source product. But more, the fact that a company like JBoss can consider itself an open source company is a disturbing sign that the true meaning and intention of the open source movement has fallen victim to the very issues that engendered its inception.
    Read more: The Open Source Monopoly

    Threaded Messages (45)

  2. ??[ Go to top ]

    #1. http://theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=29958
    According to Geir, at least "ideas" and according to jBoss maybe more came from jBoss.

    #2. And this variant ... is no longer open soure:
    http://www.gluecode.com/website/support/index.jsp
    GlueCode no longer lists it's mamagment team, that cosists of "CoreDevelopers network".

    It is possible that "Core Developers Network" left jBoss, filtered code trough naive Apache, then became "closed" source, but you figure that out for you if you can connect the dots.

    In any case, jBoss develop this.

    .V
  3. ??[ Go to top ]

    It is possible that "Core Developers Network" left jBoss, filtered code trough naive Apache, then became "closed" source, but you figure that out for you if you can connect the dots.In any case, jBoss develop this..V

    booh. jBoss is a group of saints led by Saint Peter himself with the direct mandate of Jesus, and the Core Developers Network and Gluecode are pure burning evil. Ffear them, never use Geronimo and buy Tomcat/Struts consultance from Vik. Open source rules. Gee, common Vik. :-P
  4. ??[ Go to top ]

    ... buy Tomcat/Struts consultance from Vik.
    Don't forget JDNC, for the holly trinity.

    Spoken like the burning bush! Hallelyauh.

    .V
  5. ??[ Go to top ]

    ... hail to the king baby ...
  6. Professionals write Open Source[ Go to top ]

    Very thoughtful paper...

    First a minor nit: Even ASF is not the pure volunteer model. Many professional programmers are paid to develop software that is then donated to ASF (or paid to improve ASF software).

    I think that the real lasting advantage of the OSI sanctioned licenses lies in the potential for competition. A Professional Open Source company has to be very conscious of what they charge for their services, or they will spawn competitors that will under-cut them.

    Here's an example... suppose that JBoss tries to adopt the per-CPU licensing model for support that is soooo popular with the closed source companies. Assuming that there's money to be made, you'd see someone found "KBoss" and offer the same support, but at a cut-rate price.
  7. What a dinosaur[ Go to top ]

    I have seen this kind of arguments in other areas as well. Some "old boys" are scared of natural changes and wan't things to be the way they were in the good old days. I'm pretty much an old boy in the it/os world myself, but anyhow...today I'm an adult and need a job too (oooh those happy days when I lived at home...:-)
    Things will evelove in a natural way, the os movement must adapt to changes in the environment just as anybody else.
    I don't like the complaining tone of the article. The author assumes very much what other people thinks, knows and wants. He makes the impression that all the geeks are completely ignorant and doesn't get it?.

    Just because a company want's to make money doesn't mean they want to lock the customer in crappy solutions for ever. Really! Everybody has to eat, some do it more ethically than others. But today I don't think the non-ethical ones will get away with it. On the contrary to the author of the article, I think most people today can think on their own. The author indicated he used to run a bussiness himself, did you try to force your customers into crummy solutions just to keep them? Or did you try to give them the best value-for-money so you would keep them?
  8. Incoherent Rambling[ Go to top ]

    The author poses lots of questions, and then moves on to answer other questions instead that were not posed. He throws up some nice flamebaits, but then evades actually arguing them. He shows little understanding of what open source is, debating some weird straw man definition of his own based on a cursory reading of Cathedral and The Bazaar, afaict. Hint to the author: the open source definition is not about social interaction models, it's about software licenses. He also manages to sneak in a bug report about Tomcat's memory management in that article, for whatever reason.

    It reads like a very lame attempt to regurgitate some of last year's Sun blogging campaign about Red Hat, open source, Linux and how it all results in evil lock ins. But contrary to the author, Schwartz can ramble coherently, and is pretty funny in his blogs. Another hint to the author: Sun's 'Linux == Red Hat == Evil' campaign was about Oracle, not about MySQL.

    cheers,
    dalibor topic
  9. It's not anti-capitalism[ Go to top ]

    It's anti-competitive. I don't know if Lajos Moczar is directly connected to the Geronimo crew, but please remember that Geronimo is a "fork" of development effort by people with significant financial backing who used to work on JBoss or for JBoss, inc. Their aim is to provide a competitor to JBoss that can be forked for closed source, and to reach some of the profit that Jboss Inc. has made based on their trademark and reputation.

    There are two problems that the Geronimo team has with JBoss... 1) It cannot be redistributed closed-source. 2) They do not own the JBoss trademark. Well, and mabye NIH syndrome. ;)
  10. It's not anti-capitalism[ Go to top ]

    Aaron:

    Your arguments are so blindly zealous that I hate to even argue against them .. but I just can't bear to let such blatant propaganda sit there in public view without someone pissing on it ..
    It's anti-competitive.

    So introducing a new open source project is now the definition of anti-competitive? I thought that was the definition of competitive?
    please remember that Geronimo is a "fork" of development effort by people with significant financial backing who used to work on JBoss or for JBoss, inc.

    Unless you want to introduce some actual proof, it's already been clearly shown that Geronimo is not a fork of JBoss.

    (By the way, the last time that this accusation came up, the only thing that got proven was that someone illegally stripped the Apache license off of Apache code and checked it into the JBoss source tree.)
    Their aim is to provide a competitor to JBoss ..

    That's the first thing that you said that makes sense.
    .. that can be forked for closed source ..

    This doesn't make any sense. Why would they release their work as open source code in order to keep it from being open source? Why wouldn't they just write software without making it open source?

    Once it's released with an Apache license, they'll basically be inviting other competitors to the table, including JBoss (which can use the Geronimo code for JBoss, turning it into (L)GPL just like Linux did with huge tracts of FreeBSD).
    .. and to reach some of the profit that Jboss Inc. has made based on their trademark and reputation.

    There are two problems that the Geronimo team has with JBoss...

    1) It cannot be redistributed closed-source.
    2) They do not own the JBoss trademark.

    I suppose the reason why companies are investing in Geronimo development is to somehow profit. Such a conclusion seems hardly astute.

    Redistribution isn't a problem -- remember, they are taking the "anti-competitive" step of writing their own J2EE server.

    Regarding the trademark, I doubt that basing software on Apache (speaking of trademarks) is that bad of a start. In fact, last I checked, JBoss was bundling Apache Tomcat. Isn't that neat how Apache's licenses work?

    I just don't understand how another open source J2EE server is a bad thing -- unless you are an investor in JBoss, Inc.

    Besides, Resin's now open source and it's a great little server ;-)

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Shared Memories for J2EE Clusters
  11. It's not anti-capitalism[ Go to top ]

    It's anti-competitive. I don't know if Lajos Moczar is directly connected to the Geronimo crew, but please remember that Geronimo is a "fork" of development effort by people with significant financial backing who used to work on JBoss or for JBoss, inc.

    Nice conspiracy theory. Let me give you some facts.

    Geronimo is largely an integration project that builds on OpenEJB, TranQL, ActiveMQ, HOWL, and Jetty. Considering JBoss doesn't use any of those projects except Jetty, exactly how much integration code do you think was "forked" ? The answer is none.

    At the heart of all the integration is the Geronimo kernel, which has already been rewritten three times and borrows ideas quite liberally from Paul Hammant the creator of Pico.

    As a co-founder of both OpenEJB and Geronimo, I dislike hearing theories that Geronimo is a fork. Yes, some of the people on Geronimo come from Ex-CDN/Ex-JBoss origins--we've all read that news--but this is not the whole of the team.

    Alan Cabrera, a heavy contributor on OpenEJB for more years than I can count, wrote the Geronimo security service and is working on CORBA integration. Jacek Laskowski, another long time OpenEJB committer, did a great deal of work with the OpenEJB/Tomcat integration and is now working on Geronimo/Tomcat support. Aaron Mulder, an OpenEJB contributor from way way back, who wrote a hot deployer for OpenEJB is now doing lots of work on both Geronimo security and deployment. Gianny Damour, a new OpenEJB commiter never affiliated with JBoss, is doing the CMP 2.0 CMR and and EJB-QL support. I am working quite heavily on Geronimo webservices support with both XFire and Axis.

    That's just the OpenEJB side of things. Geronimo brings together Apache Tomcat and Apache Axis from the ASF, OpenEJB and ActiveMQ from Codehaus, JOTM and ASM from ObjectWeb, CGLIB and MX4J from SourceForge , and Jetty from Mortbay. Developers from all these communities are working on Geronimo and working with each other.

    People spreading FUD always conveniently forget to mention the contributions to Geronimo made by other communities as it doesn't support their arguments very well.
  12. It's not anti-capitalism[ Go to top ]

    As a co-founder of both OpenEJB and Geronimo, I dislike hearing theories that Geronimo is a fork. Yes, some of the people on Geronimo come from Ex-CDN/Ex-JBoss origins--we've all read that news--but this is not the whole of the team.
    If you listen to previous JBoss Inc. statements where hiring people on Tomcat effectively amounts to "owning Tomcat", then it "makes sense" (in a twisted kind of way) that Geronimo is a "fork of JBoss". In order to understand JBoss-speak you just have to understand their view of reality ;-)

    But also don't forget that, along the same line of reasoning, if hiring people from previous "projects" amount to a fork, then JBoss is a fork of IONA/Orbix since Bill used to work there.
  13. It's not anti-capitalism[ Go to top ]

    If you listen to previous JBoss Inc. statements where hiring people on Tomcat effectively amounts to "owning Tomcat"...

    Their new released documentation (jbossians) states that "Hibernate is a very popular object persistence framework developed by JBoss.". I'm tired of these things.
  14. It's not anti-capitalism[ Go to top ]

    We'd only get bored if someone removed the joker from the pack.

    Is there a website dedicated to JBoss-isms like we have Bush-isms?

    I'm sorry I shouldn't really find it funny, but it's hard not to.

    How far can retrospective ownership go I wonder?

    Does this also mean that since America invaded Iraq they were responsible for invading Kuwait, since they now 'own' Iraq? (That was retorical!)
  15. Since the author doesn't really try to argue his points in a cohesive manner, it doesn't seem to be anti-anything. It just reads a bit like a bile blog without the punches. I think you're reading too much into it.

    I was originally thinking the author tried to express some open-source-is-secretly-the-evil-lockin-monopoly idea, but upon rereading, I don't think that's his point either. I don't think he tries to make any point. :)

    cheers,
    dalibor topic
  16. I was originally thinking the author tried to express some open-source-is-secretly-the-evil-lockin-monopoly idea, but upon rereading, I don't think that's his point either. I don't think he tries to make any point.

    Well, actually the paper is not that lame, and worth reading (I'm not writing that because he mentions JOnAS as a very good alternative to JBoss or Geronimo as a reinvention of the JOnAS wheel).

    A major point the paper makes IMHO is the distance between urban OSS myths (community, individuals, etc) and reallity (Big Blue backing this nonprofit organisation, these individual contributors being paid to contribute to that project, this company keeping a stranglehold on that project, etc....)

    This paper may sound a bit inflamatory to some open-source proponents -- I think those who live in a dream world or make their best to leave others in their dream world. I find it extremely significant to see how our favorite TSS posters jump in, start shouting "me too, me too" as usual, then complement their 100 line long propaganda with a couple of comments about the paper in a desesperate attempt to look as if they were actually taking part in the discussion :)))

    But this is a beaten to death point. Yes, "successfull" open-source projects due their adoption to massive communication. Yes, IBM invested a lot in promoting Linux, Apache, Eclipse. Sure, JBoss spent huge money promoting their stuff too. And that's true, all four project names mentioned above are brands more than anything else. Red Hat is a little different story, because there is no such thing as an open-source, supposedly grassroot project called "Red Hat".

    Well, believe it or not, the world is evolving. But one thing doesn't change: people have to pay their bills and they find ways to do so. One way was to adapt free software practices so to derive revenues from them. Another way was to put a brand name on this idea and call it "open source(sm)" ;-)

    The monopoly argument in the paper is in my opinion a little to controversial and fails short of coming to a clear point. We all know that monopolies have drawbacks (so extreme that antritrust laws had to be created). Open-source enables cooperation (just as David explained). In attempts to make money, companies would better think of the right balance between production and production capacity. To much of a stranglehold on an open-source project may well kill it in the long term.

    No let me stick my "me too" section in too: taking companies profit making needs into account while keeping this balance is one major points of nonprofits such as ObjectWeb.
  17. Opinion: The Open Source Monopoly[ Go to top ]

    Lajos Moczar

    maybe he need the help to connect the dots, ..
  18. Opinion: The Open Source Monopoly[ Go to top ]

    "Geronimo aims to be the first J2EE-certified open source J2EE server."

    IMO, I think JOnAS will be the first J2EE-certified open source J2EE server :)
    But we love competition, may the best arrives the first :)

    Stéphane
    JOnAS Live Author :)
  19. Opinion: The Open Source Monopoly[ Go to top ]

    This article reminds me a lot of the organic food movement. I feel here like there the problem is a confusion of definitions and concepts.

    When organic food was in it's infancy, you would get homegrown local produce of high quality produced by co-operatively owned small farms. In the minds of many the two concepts then became linked.

    As organic food became popular the larger supermarkets and multi-nationals began supplying organic food (do we have organic Coca-Cola yet?).

    Now the conditions of organic food are laid down by the Soil Association over here (UK). To be certified as organic means you must meet their minimum requirements. This is quite reasonable and why should their be any distinction between whether Coca-Cola want to release an organic product or Dave Smith who is a sole-trading farm owner.

    However there was, as I mentioned, a perceived link between organic food and certain lifestyle/philosophies, I emphasize perceived. Food being organic undoubtedly increases the quality of the food but being organic does not guarantee quality - nor does it assert any lifestyle/philosophy of the supplier.

    So now that low quality, large coprporate and socially irresponsible food suppliers supply organic food, many people have bemoaned the demise of organic food, the lowering of standards, globalization etc. However the word organic _never_ guaranteed any standard or quality or lifestyle. It guaranteed very specific requirements concerning the use of chemicals to grow plants.

    The truth is that actually the people who wanted organic food actually wanted food that was grown locally by smallholders which put service before greed etc. They had higher socially minded/philanthropic values combined with the desire for healthy high quality natural food.

    Now on reading this article I feel the same confusion. Open-source is a standard regarding code availablity, now in the early days most people were community minded individuals who had certain values and even specific lifestyles that became associated with the term 'open-source'.

    They were the pioneers of open-source, as the organic farmers were the pioneers of the revival of organic food.

    They were in the minority 20 years ago and are still in the minority today. They will probably be in the minority in 20 years.

    They are in the minority because of their philosophies and lifestyle - not what they produce.

    Open-source hasn't been spoilt in anyway, it has just spread. Identification of the open-source definition and social responsibility/philanthropy is I believe a mistake.

    I think that ASF/FSF/CodeHaus etc. represent the ideals put forward here and one should focus on supporting their larger ideals rather than the limited idea of open-source. Open-source is a great thing but it has as much to do with legal definition as it has to 'free-software'. Better to support the truly open-organisations if that's what is desired but not to complain about those who will use open-source to sell their products.

    Everyone's got to make a living and in a fiercely competitive industry it's unrealistic to expect even the nicest businessman to not use anything to gain competitive edge.

    Someone always has to pay my wage, I can't begrudge them using all reasonable means to secure that money now can I!
  20. Professional Open Source[ Go to top ]

    I'm not sure I get the point of the white paper...

    First, a note on open source licenses. Open Source begins with the license. We prefer LGPL - which makes sure the code will always stay free and open (especially with the hundreds and hundreds of developers with copyrights on the JBoss code base). LGPL also has the advantage of minimizing the forking of projects because it says that changes can not be distributed unless they are put back in open source. BSD style licenses allow for forking - that is why the big companies like IBM and Sun like to contribute to Apache - because they can then take it back and make a proprietary version. Witness the many forks of BSD-UNIX, and we think the GPL style license is one of the key reasons for Linux success - along with some really good people and code behind the project. We are not as hard-line as others are on license type. In fact, we contribute to BSD-based projects - like the Apache Jakarta Tomcat project, where we are a major contributor.

    Second, a note on the JBoss Professional Open Source business model. We allow open source developers to be more than volunteers - they can actually make a living working on the projects they love. This is similar to sponsored open source that large companies do. We happen to make the money to pay our developers by selling Professional Support and Training rather than selling hardware or proprietary versions of the software. More of a direct correlation or closed loop system that feeds back on itself to assure continued innovation and success. The business model works. Our developers are doing well, we also get large participation for a huge community, and customers see the benefits in terms of great, stable software with great support.

    Bob Bickel
    JBoss
  21. Professional Open Source[ Go to top ]

    BSD style licenses allow for forking - that is why the big companies like IBM and Sun like to contribute to Apache - because they can then take it back and make a proprietary version.

    No offense Bob, but one issue that I'm interested in is how much a project benefits from being issued under an LGPL as opposed to a BSD license. It seems to me that apart from some ideological comfort, the answer seems to be "little or none" in practical terms. I don't want to start a debate about licensing models (again), but BSD licensing doesn't seem to have done Apache any harm.
  22. Professional Open Source[ Go to top ]

    No offense Bob, but one issue that I'm interested in is how much a project benefits from being issued under an LGPL as opposed to a BSD license.
    LGPL does not prevent forking - any GPL project can be forked. What it does prevent is a closed fork created by a company intending to market it as a commercial product, distributed without source.
  23. THoughts[ Go to top ]

    As far as JBoss goes, I just want to reiterate for the umpteenth time that no matter how much code copyright JBoss Inc. owns at this current time, we cannot change the license of JBoss from LGPL. JBoss has had hundreds of contributors over the last 6 years and JBoss Inc. would need the approval of all these contributors to change the license. Furthermore, even if we decided to rewrite everything ourselves, there's no guarantee that we won't trigger the derivative claus of the LGPL license. Given that, JBoss has no desire, motive, or need to move from the LGPL license even if we could.

    JBoss daily recruits and adds new contributors every week. These contributors are NOT JBoss employees, but rather individuals, companies, or academic institutions that want to contribute the the JBoss spectrum of projects. That's not to say that we wouldn't try to hire these individuals. Our business is growing exponentially and we're always on the lookout for new talent.

    Secondly, Let's DISPELL THIS MYTH that GPL/LGPL is a barrier to adoption. I think the mass adoption/success of Linux, MySql, and JBoss have proven that GPL/LGPL is not a barrier to adoption. Furthmore, IMNSHO, the only entities that would benefit from changing JBoss from a LGPL style license to a BSD style license would be middleware vendors.

    Finally, I think the author should ask himself this question. What other popular open source projects are out there? Who do the controllers of these projects work for? What do the companies these guys work for do? What do these companies sell? Do the controllers own these companies? and finally...Should he expand the list of companies he has singled out?

    Bill
  24. THoughts[ Go to top ]

    Whay peoples says JBoss has nothing to do with Open Source ?
    The beauty of Open Source is, imho, that peoples with differents ideals, different goals, different means can work together on a project... No matter what every one hopes to get from the project (money, fame, girls...), as long as the result follows an open source licence.

    Since the beginning, Objectweb, which i'm invlove in, was opened to companies, institutions and individuals and it succeed to create a real synergy and a very profitable emulation. Despite the different sizes, economical model and goals of each member, everybody is heading into the same direction : « developing a free middleware ».

    So let's be kind with JBoss... Ok they love money ;) but they have a good product and they follow the rule.

    Stéphane TRAUMAT
    JOnAS Live author

    PS: I think no one can have girls more easily by participating to an open source project :)
  25. THoughts[ Go to top ]

    I think no one can have girls more easily by participating to an open source project :)

    LOL! Before I worked for JBoss I remember my wife bitchin at me to come to bed when I was burning the midnight oil working on JBoss.

    So, open-source may get you the girls, but it sure might piss off your wife. :)

    Bill
  26. THoughts[ Go to top ]

    When even you apparently..
    Furthermore, even if we decided to rewrite everything ourselves, there's no guarantee that we won't trigger the derivative claus of the LGPL license.
    ..don't understand some of the essentials about how copyright and licenses work, then how..
    Secondly, Let's DISPELL THIS MYTH that GPL/LGPL is a barrier to adoption. I think the mass adoption/success of Linux, MySql, and JBoss have proven that GPL/LGPL is not a barrier to adoption.
    .. do you expect others who are (supposedly) less knowledgeable in OpenSource licensing to grasp the nuances of different licenses, especially considering that the recent "clarifications" of said licenses only made things more confusing.

    I almost feel sorry for you Bill.

    Almost.

    Nah, jk.
  27. THoughts[ Go to top ]

    When even you apparently..
    Furthermore, even if we decided to rewrite everything ourselves, there's no guarantee that we won't trigger the derivative claus of the LGPL license.
    ..don't understand some of the essentials about how copyright and licenses work, then how..

    Please...You know exactly what I was talking about...
    If you are you rewriting parts or all of JBoss, AspectWerkz, JFreeChart, Jac-ORB, insert your favorite LGPL product here and distributing it under a different license, then things become murky.
    Secondly, Let's DISPELL THIS MYTH that GPL/LGPL is a barrier to adoption. I think the mass adoption/success of Linux, MySql, and JBoss have proven that GPL/LGPL is not a barrier to adoption.
    .. do you expect others who are (supposedly) less knowledgeable in OpenSource licensing to grasp the nuances of different licenses, especially considering that the recent "clarifications" of said licenses only made things more confusing.
    It's simple. Do you embed JBoss, JFreeChart, AspectWerkz, JacORB, Jonas, insert-your-favorite-LGPL-project-here binaries AS-IS? Then you have nothing to worry about.
    I almost feel sorry for you Bill. Almost.Nah, jk.

    I feel sorry for you that you have to twist somebody's words to further your own ends/ego when you know exactly what I was talking about.

    And finally I feel sorry for letting myself get baited in replying to your pathetic post.
  28. THoughts[ Go to top ]

    Please...You know exactly what I was talking about...If you are you rewriting parts or all of JBoss, AspectWerkz, JFreeChart, Jac-ORB, insert your favorite LGPL product here and distributing it under a different license, then things become murky.
    If you rewrite an entire project (where "rewrite"!="copy"), then you have copyright of the rewritten code. If you have copyright you can use one or two or ten (arbitrary) licenses to redistribute the code. That's one of the points of being a copyright owner: you get to decide what happens with your code.

    For example, if you want to change JBoss to GPL (as but one out-of-the-blue example) then you could rewrite the parts written by non-JBoss employees and just change the license.

    I, for one, would definitely not mind if you did so. It would make it much easier to recommend, for example, Geronimo to people who want to use an OpenSource J2EE server, as JBoss would not be a reasonable option anymore. So we would both get what we want ;-)
  29. THoughts[ Go to top ]

    Please...You know exactly what I was talking about...If you are you rewriting parts or all of JBoss, AspectWerkz, JFreeChart, Jac-ORB, insert your favorite LGPL product here and distributing it under a different license, then things become murky.

    Not trying to be inflammatory here, but as I understand it, rewriting a component and redistributing it under another license is and always has been a perfectly valid and legal approach. For instance, MySQL does it with code contributions so as not to dilute copyright ownership across a large committer base. Rewriting and redistributing is a common technique used to clear rights.

    But hey, IANAL.
  30. THoughts[ Go to top ]

    Secondly, Let's DISPELL THIS MYTH that GPL/LGPL is a barrier to adoption.

    That's not categorically true; for example, I just interviewed a project lead for a very large company where lawyers had explicitly barred them from using lgpl projects due to the reverse engineering clause. It might be accurate to say that in many cases it's not a barrier, but I know of a number of companies where it certainly is.

    In any case, I'm surprised no one pointed out the real flaw in this paper: Heinz ketchup is in fact the world's best tasting ketchup, hands down. Anyone claiming the contrary really puts their credibility on the line.

    Greg
  31. Quick Summary[ Go to top ]

    Article summary:

    "Open Source encompasses a diverse set of licenses that conform to an easily understood definition established by the OSI. These licenses support an equally diverse set of business models."

    "My name is Lajos Moczar, and I have a personal preference for a very narrow subset of these licenses and business models. Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, and people like Eric Raymond who do not exclusively support my narrow subset are not really Open Source. Please have Eric Raymond contact me if he wants to learn all about Open Source."
  32. Who is behind Open Source ?[ Go to top ]

    Who is behind Open Source ? Sun and IBM.
    This is a recent interview from SUN CEO:
    http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=115993
    where it is said :
    "He predicts a future in which its servers and other hardware form networks that individuals and companies use to store and retrieve important information from huge data warehouses hundreds of miles away. Much of the operation will be controlled by Java, a programming language developed by Sun that runs on just about any device -- from cellular phones to massive servers."

    Well more than 10 years he said also that in another interview. But he revealed much more than above: he said that his intention was to create a Monopoly in software industry like in Telecom by creating a deflation in software so that IT Firms like SEMA GROUP - I remember he mentioned SEMA GROUP - would disappear (I don't think so). This means short term the community benefits but long term the Monopoly plan if it ever succeed could be worst than Microsoft Monopoly since it means Software Engineering Service will be furnished by the material vendors: it's not my interpretation it's his declared intention.
    At the time I read it I didn't care much I don't even have the article any more. But that's what he said believe or not. Well that's the law of evolution, I won't cry for all the Job's loss: I will adapt.
  33. well said[ Go to top ]

    +1
  34. What a smelly pile of crap[ Go to top ]

    This is one of the dumbest things I've read on TSS. This has little to do with JBoss and open-source but has everything to do with the fact that Lajos Moczar is anti-capitalism.

    Because Mr. Moczar clearly doesn't get it, I will spell it out for him. Open-source has everything to do with the license and nothing to do with the contributors.

    This is nothing but worthless drivel. Carry on folks. There's nothing to see here.
  35. Business Objectives First[ Go to top ]

    I don't have much to say about open source vs. close source products. They are just part of the software industry evolution and they both exist for good reasons. Who is angel who is devil? It's not the main issue here. What I agreed with Lajos most is his thoughtful advice in the last few paragraphs of his post, which pulls the spot light back to the ultimate reason why we need software: generating value for business. I am one of the many firm believers of the fact that businesses have been overspending on IT for the past couple of decades. They are victims of marketing hypes who lost their initial objectives of buying technology in the first place.

    Everyone has a stomach to feed, agree? No objection to making money out of open source project. There is no free meal in this planet, agree? Even if you deploy JBoss server without buying JBoss professional service, you still need to pay someone to do it for you and make sure it runs smoothly. So, You can eat whatever meal you think is a bargain, but better think of your own health before hand. Don't eat because everybody else does, or, because it has a good brand.

    My 2 cents
  36. Opinion: The Open Source Monopoly[ Go to top ]

    little little children, why u acting like in school ... pleasing stopping the fighting and giving the hugs to each other. ...

    but asking geronimo/gluecode to washing first please, they smelling of the capitalism too much and they using the free labour for their own gains financally ... this is why i dont liking to contribute the code ... i working and giving code,.. and they selling my work and keeping the money ...
    you bery bad
  37. but asking geronimo/gluecode to washing first please, they smelling of the capitalism too much and they using the free labour for their own gains financally ... this is why i dont liking to contribute the code ... i working and giving code,.. and they selling my work and keeping the money ...you bery bad
    Hey Dude, who's holding you from making some money on JBoss consulting, or Geronimo, or any Open Source project out there? Or even saving some money using an OS product instead of spending a lot of $ on a closed source one with the same quality/performance/features. The same way they can make/save money, anyone can. Of course they may have a head start, and maybe a deeper knowledge of the details, but anyone is free to read the code and learn the details too, and become a successful consultant as well. By your logic, no one would ever contribute to any OS project, since someone might make money on it someday, somehow.

    Regards,
    Henrique Steckelberg
  38. ...[ Go to top ]

    Why was this even posted on TSS?

    The least Moczar could do is to atleast keep a consistent theme in his post... and keep from posting vague crap.

    Anyways I have questions on some of his logic:

    Brandname mind washing:
    Engineers and programmers are not the majority and mainstream. We are not stupid. We tend to analyze things more closely than most people. We read labels, ... When we choose something like Redhat - we're thinking ease of installation and use (good ui, ...). When we choose Debian - we're thinking stability (uses older stable packages). I can go on and on....

    Popularity:
    We don't use software just because 'everyone else uses it' and please Moczar get out of your ivory tower for once and be realistic. Popularity (more often than not) helps (not guarantees) a project evolve faster and (in most cases) better than other not so popular projects. Why? Because the more popular a project is, the more people will contribute (in code, bug posts, documentation, ...).

    Monopolies:
    MS tries to force people to use and pay for their broken software. MS is a really bad monopoly. Redhat, IBM, JBoss, and Co want you to pay them for support, etc... However they don't force you if you don't want to pay for their extras if you feel that you don't need it. Moreover, if you don't like the direction that they are going - you could also make changes to the software yourself.... so even if they hypothetically become a 'monopoly' (I still really don't see how in the traditional sense because of the nature of open source)- it is no where near as bad as something like MS.
  39. ...[ Go to top ]

    "MS tries to force people to use and pay for their broken software."

    How do they do that? By gunpoint or threats of violence. I've bought their products and not once was I forced. No more than I forced them to give me software.
  40. ...[ Go to top ]

    Microsoft's Licensing 6 program?

    Cold Shoulder for MS Plan(news.com).

    Jason McKerr
  41. ...[ Go to top ]

    what is this discussion is all about i am confused now...
    somehwere in the middle i read that this is scrap.. i guess i should have stopped reading at that point itself....

    but this is the way i am, i just like to read so i am at the end of the discussion and still no where.
  42. ...[ Go to top ]

    Why was this even posted on TSS?The least Moczar could do is to atleast keep a consistent theme in his post... and keep from posting vague crap.Anyways I have questions on some of his logic:Brandname mind washing:Engineers and programmers are not the majority and mainstream. We are not stupid. We tend to analyze things more closely than most people. We read labels, ... When we choose something like Redhat - we're thinking ease of installation and use (good ui, ...). When we choose Debian - we're thinking stability (uses older stable packages). I can go on and on....Popularity:We don't use software just because 'everyone else uses it' and please Moczar get out of your ivory tower for once and be realistic. Popularity (more often than not) helps (not guarantees) a project evolve faster and (in most cases) better than other not so popular projects. Why? Because the more popular a project is, the more people will contribute (in code, bug posts, documentation, ...)

    This is shallow. Even if I were to believe your Developers are smarter than every one else (when the number of developers mindless building projects using EJB shows the contrary) what you say still wouldn't work. The developer rearly chooses the products that they work with. The IT management chooses it based on marketing. When the developers have had a say things have started to change. For example in the IDE space - it is more and more being choosen by developers and hence IntelliJ and Eclipse are starting to rule. But a couple of months ago a case came up where a manager in charge of a tools group was going to choose JBuilder over IntelliJ because they couldn't get a sales brouchere from IntelliJ.
  43. A constructive O/S discussion:[ Go to top ]

    O/S is for organizations that are "for profit".
    For example 12 LAMP server plus of-the-shelf PHP application cost vs .Net:
    (License for 12 servers: Exchange, Advanced Server, MS SQL, etc,plus custome development costs, etc. + Virus on-going matianence and user slow down costs)
    Which will allow you for better ROI?
    (It's a rethorical question, don't answer it)

    And issues:
     http://www.cio.com/archive/030104/open.html

    .V
  44. What monopoly?[ Go to top ]

    From the article-
    "As a long-time user of open source software, this Commercial Model is what concerns me the most. I don't deny anyone the right to make money - we all need it. But what I detest, however, is anyone who embraces a movement for marketing or strategic purposes and then ends up doing the same things as the supposed enemies of the movement. This is why I have a problem with JBoss and other such companies. What I'm talking about, in the end, are monopolies. "

    A commercial model is the only one which can be sustainable. All the open source products were adopted widely by the corporate world only after "support" was announce by creating companies - "the commercial model".
    No company will adopt a product in a real production environment unless there is a corporate entity to support it. As a developer in a big corportation I would rather outsource the issues to someone with the expertise. Especially when I dont have the time to delve into the code myself.

    The word monopoly seems to be used in the wrong sense here. jboss or ibm or bea are not monopolies. Not now. Maybe some time in future.

    When you have something like the J2EE standard, and it is not easy to benchmark performance in a conclusive way,the only way a vendor can differentiate himself from the competition is by providing feature which are not a part of the spec. More often that not the customer can differentiate between the proprietay features and standards.
    -ss
    www.indianblogs.com
  45. What monopoly?[ Go to top ]

    The word monopoly seems to be used in the wrong sense here. jboss or ibm or bea are not monopolies.

    Yes, I'd have to agree. I think the word he was searching for was probably something closer to "proprietary", in that a company owns a brand or a trade mark, or becomes synonymous with (basically "owns") an open source project. It appears that the author doesn't approve of that business model, because it gives the business a "monopoly" on a particular name or project, for example.

    On the topic of singling out JBoss, at least JBoss has never reneged on its license (LGPL) or the intent behind it, seeming perfectly content to sell training classes and consultancy instead.

    Of the companies mentioned, I think MySQL deserves infinitely more wrath on this particular account, using a true "trojan horse" business model (which I find both deceptive and in complete disregard of the GPL license).

    I guess what I'm saying is that JBoss still easily qualifies as open source, and while you may not like their business practices, it's hard to make the case that they are somehow deceiving people by claiming to be open source -- they're just "leveraging" the open source marketing term to sell companion services under the JBoss brand, which they own.

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy
    Tangosol, Inc.
    Coherence: Shared Memories for J2EE Clusters
  46. Trojan Horse[ Go to top ]

    <quote>
    ../ using a true "trojan horse" business model /..
    </quote>

    I would be happy if someone could explain this.