Discussions

News: Jahia 4.1 Portal CMS Released

  1. Jahia 4.1 Portal CMS Released (16 messages)

    Integrated content management and corporate portal server Jahia 4.1 has been released, after 2 years since 4.0. Available under self-invented collaborative source license (contribute or pay), Jahia has full Multilanguage and I18N support, Staging environement, Content Workflow, versioning, WebDAV Support, Portlet & servelt support, LDAP, and more.

    The most important change is the migration to Apache Slide 2.2 for the file repository, a Struts-based validation framework, Office and PDF search indexing, and integrated blogging capabilities.

    Threaded Messages (16)

  2. strange licence...[ Go to top ]

    The product looks great, too bad the license does not !

    Why have they even invented a new license for this ?
    They do striclty commercial software, why trying to invent a new name ? Another great idea from marketing people ?

    The "contribution" chapter is also funny. It's about "how to get employees without paying them".
    Great... This pushes OSS, for sure !
    Especially when you know this.

    OSS folks, you'll like this one, from the FAQ again :
    "We do not agree with the freedom to use."
    Then why bothering with pages on OSS ??!! Finally, isn't OSS all about freedom to use ??

    Why not making it clear ? Like : "We sell the software (30.000E btw !!), but we'll give it to you for free if we consider that you improve it".
    That's never "free software philosophy compliant" IMHO (partnering for business existed far before OSS), but at least that would be fair : you make business, you should not need to hide it some way if you trust in what you do...

    Have fun,

    Remi - anyway I'll wait for a FREE open-source one, thanks !
  3. I used to work for a non-profit that did some work with Jahia 3.x.

    Before my time there, the non-profit did some significant portlet-related work, and contributed it back to Jahia. My understanding is that Jahia accepted it, but decided it wasn't significant enough.

    They also used to offer discounts/free copies to educational institutions; the non-profit trained underpriveledged inner-city folk in software development, graphic design, and network infrastructure. However, the Jahia folk decided that the organization didn't qualify. I can't find any mention of the educatonal discount on thier current product.

    Beyond licensng issues, their 3.x codebase was *horrible*. I spent about 4-5 days tracking down a number of concurrency bugs, where two users could submit content to the CMS at the same time, but both submissions would end up with the same ID (last in wins :). [We didn't bother sending patches, given our past experience, and 3.x was near end of life anyway. Oh, and don't get me started on their 3.x JSP tag libraries. Shudder.]. Granted, 4.x is mostly a re-write, but we were seeing terrible performance with the 4.x late betas.

    I've since left the non-profit, and they've since switch over to using Magnolia [http://www.magnolia.info/en/community.html, LGPL license], which beats Jahia in ease of use and development, hands down.
  4. switch over to using Magnolia [http://www.magnolia.info/en/community.html, LGPL license], which beats Jahia in ease of use and development, hands down.

    Thanks for the pointer. I'm not familiar with those CMS thingz but definitly feel they could save me some work...
    A good LGPL system seems to me like the best way to get into it.

    Have fun,

    Remi
  5. Hi Scott,

    Sorry you had a bad expericence with Jahia 3.x but as you mentionned it this version is now 4 years old and fully obsolete! Jahia 4 is a full refactoring and the future still under development Jahia 4.5 (JSR168) and Jahia 5.0 (JSR170) releases will also integrate major new changes.

    Just to come back on your *company* contribution understanding, it is wrong. Indeed we effectively received some code, but without any license agreement. I wrote several times to you management either to formalize such a contract or to sign a formal partnership agreement, I never ever received any answer. In such a situation, for obvious legal reasons, it was clear that we could not redistribute your enhancements.

    As a final note, I just wanted to precise that this is not because the source code is freely available that you can do what you want with it. The same is true for GPL or for other (F)OSS licenses. Jahia is not free for non profit organizations but only for charitable ones (or other open source projects), please check the Jahia pricing page: http://www.jahia.org/pricing. So your non-profit, if it is the one I think about, had (I should say *still has* because some of its customers are still using Jahia) simply no right to use Jahia in production. But I would be pleased to clarify the situation. Please just send some answers to my emails. That's all I am asking about ;-)

    Cheers
    Stéphane
    Jahia Ltd
  6. Why not GPL ?[ Go to top ]

    BTW, why not a dual licensing approach ?

    * GPL for the ones who can afford / want to redist their code as GPL too (clients must agree on this actually, but some don't mind - at least that's how it is for the SMEs I work for, they only want the stuff to work and usually don't care about license stuff or property rights, and finally I get paid for workdays so... Even more, some of them agree on the principle ! They can understand the cost is less for them if they redist everything as OSS too, and cost drives decisions 99% of the time...).
    * Stricly commercial for the ones who don't contribute and want to sell products using your stuff, like you do now.
    * Partnerships for contributors, like you do now.
     
    That would be more "OSS compliant" IMHO, since it would force the ones who don't pay to really play the OSS game : their stuff would be "de facto" GPL too...

    As far as I see it (of course, I may be totally wrong, it wouldn't be the first time !!!), the only way for OSS to survive is GPL. There's no room for semi-measures there.
    Hey, it's an IT thing, guys, we should have foreseen it was kindda binary stuff :-)

    Have fun,

    Remi
  7. Just to come back on your *company* contribution understanding, it is wrong. Indeed we effectively received some code, but without any license agreement. I wrote several times to you management either to formalize such a contract or to sign a formal partnership agreement, I never ever received any answer.

    Sounds about right for the organization; I left last year because of (lack of) management issues. Thanks for clearing up your side of the story, though.

    So your non-profit, if it is the one I think about, had (I should say *still has* because some of its customers are still using Jahia) simply no right to use Jahia in production.

    Fair enough; it's your license, and the non-profit should have abided by the rules. However, I do wish Jahia would refrain from using "open" terminology (Tagline: "Jahia 4.1 - The Open Unified Web Platform";) when your license would never be accepted as an OSI-approved license.

    FYI, the organization in question has exited the software development market, so you won't see any further infractions from them.
  8. Hi Remi,

    What's bad about trying to enforce a strong quid pro quo paradigm? Jahia never claims to be compliant with OSI, however Jahia is neither closed source proprietary and commercial software: the source code is freely available for anyone at anytime. The only restriction is on production servers and, if you deicde to participate and contribute some additional code, you automatically get some discounts or even free licenses (or shares if you become a long term committer). We might have used a simple dual licensing business model but IMHO it is difficult to apply it on a finished product such as a CMS/Portal program. We might also have sold expensive commercial support and assistance agreements in order to cover our IT investment costs.

    But finally we preferred simply enforcing a quid pro quo ("something for something"). We are very happy to share our source code for no payment with those who agree to contribute (enhance, debug, document, translate,...) to the project, but we also think it is fair to charge a fee from those who are not ready to involve themselves in the community.

    So, in summary our licensing policy is harmful only to the one who attempts to get an unfair benefit of other peoples' work. The choice of license is completely up to the user.

    We believe that this quid pro quo principle is the best way to ensure the availability of high-quality, rapidly evolving software while keeping full and free access to the whole source code. Thanks to the community of contributors, you have a battle-tested and well-integrated software. Thanks to the paying customers, you can afford to hire great developers and have them work full-time on developing and maintaining the product or on being involved on other pure OSI compliant projects the program relies on.

    Finally as such a business paradigm also seems to interest several other developers around the world, a Foundation is being created in order to promote such kind of licenses (http://www.softdevelcoop.org/).

    Peace,
    Stéphane
    Jahia Ltd
  9. Hi Remi,What's bad about trying to enforce a strong quid pro quo paradigm?

    Hi Stephane,

    Nothing, if honest.
    My problem is that you extensively use the term "Open Source", which should be closely related to the fact that anybody can obtain code and *execute* it the way he wants...
    Of course, it also has a link to the pricing. I won't learn you that OSS==free in (almost) every developer's mind...

    The fact is I can't appropriate Jahia until I pay for it (in whatever form).

    Isn't that more close to regular commercial software enginering than regular OSS ?
    Jahia is neither closed source proprietary and commercial software: the source code is freely available for anyone at anytime. The only restriction is on production servers

    Well, what may I do with software I can't deploy or operate for clients ????
     and, if you deicde to participate and contribute some additional code, you automatically get some discounts or even free licenses (or shares if you become a long term committer).

    Unless you decide it's not a valuable contrib...
    In this case I wrote code (investment) and I still have to pay for using the product (re-investment).
    Who would take that risk ?
    I can't, sorry...
    So, in summary our licensing policy is harmful only to the one who attempts to get an unfair benefit of other peoples' work.

    What about GPL ?
    I mean, your stuff would fit well in the GPL form I think... I see CMSs as "building block" for making finite products (dynamic webapps).
    I'd be ready to pay for docs (books) and even services (consultancy) if they can save me work... that's the GPL way.

    And btw, you clearly "get an unfair benefit of other peoples' work" too when you include any ASF (or other) lib !
     The choice of license is completely up to the user.We believe that this quid pro quo principle is the best way to ensure the availability of high-quality, rapidly evolving software while keeping full and free access to the whole source code.

    Free access ??? No, once again I don't think it's free in any form ! I have to pay or contribute to use it, and honestly, source code is quite useless until you compile and execute it...
    Thanks to the community of contributors, you have a battle-tested and well-integrated software.

    I won't comment on that : I use very robust OSS software everyday (Hibernate, Tomcat, etc.). And I never had to pay for it. I even never looked at the sources...
    But I bought the Hibernate book.
    Thanks to the paying customers, you can afford to hire great developers and have them work full-time on developing and maintaining the product or on being involved on other pure OSI compliant projects the program relies on.

    Funny... You don't want your stuff to be *really* free, but using real OSS blocks does not seem to be a problem for you...
    Do you really donate to ASF ? Do you really invest that much in fixing bugs in OS servlet containers or logging APIs ?
    You're a company, sorry but I don't think you reverse your benefits (cash and/or contrib) to the various free software foundation(s).
    What now if ASF had the same licensing politics than you ? You wouldn't even had the opportunity to get your product see daylight, OS or not !
    Finally as such a business paradigm also seems to interest several other developers around the world, a Foundation is being created in order to promote such kind of licenses (http://www.softdevelcoop.org/).

    Well many business models exist, there will always be people to agree with them...
    But to me, this "strange licence" does not reflect the OSS principles at all.
    OSS is all about freedom to use. I usually compare it with public domain : get it, do whatever you want to do with it, it's like it's yours...

    That's why I commented this post. This type of "bias advertising" does not deserve OSS, it even goes against it. Users finally get lost, think that OSS was only a trick to get them locked-in commercial solutions, just like they were before. And they'll go back to M$ 'cause at least they make it clear : "we sell you stuff, you'll have to pay, here's the bill".

    Cheers

    Remi
  10. Hi Remy,

    Let me just answer to some of your points because they are really based on wrong assumptions:
    Nothing, if honest.My problem is that you extensively use the term "Open Source", which should be closely related to the fact that anybody can obtain code and *execute* it the way he wants...Of course, it also has a link to the pricing. I won't learn you that OSS==free in (almost) every developer's mind...The fact is I can't appropriate Jahia until I pay for it (in whatever form). Isn't that more close to regular commercial software enginering than regular OSS ?

    Please tell me where exactly we misuse the term "open source". We take great care of not using this term and to avoid as much as possible to mix Jahia with any FOSS licenses. We even created a whole web site which clearly explain our license paradigm (and which is mentionned and linked in this thread announcement so that there is no possible confusion).

    Moreover Jahia is free for test and development purposes. It also free (=gratis) for charitable organisations or open source projects.

    Finally "open source" does not mean free (like a free beer). Please read this page as you mention the GPL: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/selling.html
    Unless you decide it's not a valuable contrib...In this case I wrote code (investment) and I still have to pay for using the product (re-investment).Who would take that risk ?I can't, sorry...

    Like for any community oriented project, the current committers may decide to accept such or such contributions according to their vision of the project. I agree that the current Technical Board may refuse a contribution. But around 50% of the customers currently pay in kind or sponsorize new enhancements without any problem and it is very rare when we refuse a contribution. Finally, as mentionned, a vendor neutral Foundation will be soon in charge of evaluating such contribution issues (if any) and acts as a referee.
    What about GPL ?I mean, your stuff would fit well in the GPL form I think... I see CMSs as "building block" for making finite products (dynamic webapps).I'd be ready to pay for docs (books) and even services (consultancy) if they can save me work... that's the GPL way.

    Mmmh - this is not exactly the GPL commercial way. If you take MySQL or others similar companies based on the same business model, they are dual licensing their programs letting customers fear a possible viral effect on their programs: http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/

    So I do not really see the difference with the Jahia license excepted you can NOT pay in kind and that, for a finished product (and not a library or a "middleware") the GPL is more difficult to apply because you can not rely on any viral effect. This is the main reason why we could not use the GPL/commercial license as MySQL did and we needed to invent something in-between.
    Funny... You don't want your stuff to be *really* free, but using real OSS blocks does not seem to be a problem for you...Do you really donate to ASF ? Do you really invest that much in fixing bugs in OS servlet containers or logging APIs ?You're a company, sorry but I don't think you reverse your benefits (cash and/or contrib) to the various free software foundation(s). What now if ASF had the same licensing politics than you ? You wouldn't even had the opportunity to get your product see daylight, OS or not !

    Please do not comment on things you do not know. Jahia Solutions employs several open source committers including Apache or Codehaus ones. Jahia Ltd directly sponsorized some key Apache committers in order to enhance some code for thousends of dollars. Finally some Jahia modules were released under some BSD like licenses. So please tell that to other projects (open source or not) that reuse existing librarires without contributing anything back in return but not to us!

    Jahia aims to be the glue on top of OSI libraries. You pay (in cash or in kind) for the glue. Else you may perfectly glue all these libraries together on your own. You will just loose a lot of time. So this is quite similar to buy a book to gain time on your training and learning curve. Here the doc is free but the glue is commercial. That's all.
    This type of "bias advertising" does not deserve OSS, it even goes against it. Users finally get lost, think that OSS was only a trick to get them locked-in commercial solutions, just like they were before. And they'll go back to M$ 'cause at least they make it clear : "we sell you stuff, you'll have to pay, here's the bill".

    Here again where the bias? We never claimed to be OSI compliant. Just for your information, Java/J2EE is not OSI compliant too even if "gratis". The Sun Community Source license is even more "proprietary" than the Jahia one. So is this also a "bias"?

    Finally I live in a proprietary house, drive a proprietary car and drink proprietary beer... Think free as in freedom, not free beer.

    Cheers,
    Stephane
  11. We even created a whole web site which clearly explain our license paradigm (and which is mentionned and linked in this thread announcement so that there is no possible confusion).

    Yep. Read it before I post, and that's precisely where I got that (pretty bad I admit) feeling about your license policy !
    Moreover Jahia is free for test and development purposes. It also free (=gratis) for charitable organisations or open source projects.

    Open source projects ?
    You mean I can develop a Jahia-based solution, deploy and operate it at my client's IF my product is OSS ?
    I did not get that from your web !
    Finally "open source" does not mean free (like a free beer).
    [CUT]

    Of course it doesn't.
    My problem is that your license is precisely not very clear on that point, you know, it's "Free" (in the $ sense) if you contribute...

    I prefer the way QT does for example : free ($) download for OSS software that's used to build free OSS software :-)
    (btw, you can still sell it, as you say)

    In a few words, what I'd like is get jahia for free, buy docs if needed, buy support if needed, and deliver OSS to my clients at a lower cost.
    The issues in OSS are mostly about the cost of course...
    Like for any community oriented project, the current committers may decide to accept such or such contributions according to their vision of the project.

    Yes but Apache would not charge me anything you know... that's a bit different !
    Actually I don't care if the contrib will be accepted : it's free (OSS) software so I do what I want with it...
     I agree that the current Technical Board may refuse a contribution. But around 50% of the customers currently pay in kind or sponsorize new enhancements without any problem and it is very rare when we refuse a contribution.

    I was only making assumptions... don't feel personnally blamed it's not my intention. I'm just trying to understand the issues of that license.
     Finally, as mentionned, a vendor neutral Foundation will be soon in charge of evaluating such contribution issues (if any) and acts as a referee.

    This looks mandatory. You can't play both parts, for sure...
    Mmmh - this is not exactly the GPL commercial way.

    Sorry, my mistake : it's *one of* the "GPL commercial ways" !
    And that's the one I like most, as you can guess.
     If you take MySQL [CUT]

    Precisely, from MySQL's web :

    "For those developing open source applications, the Open Source License allows you to offer your software under an open source / free software license to all who wish to use, modify, and distribute it freely. The Open Source License allows you to use the software at no charge under the condition that if you use MySQL in an application you redistribute, the complete source code for your application must be available and freely redistributable under reasonable conditions. MySQL AB bases its interpretation of the GPL on the Free Software Foundation's Frequently Asked Questions."

    What you call "viral effect" is MySQL not being maintained any more in the GPL version ?
    Yes that's a risk.
    But then you may have a community maintaining it and making it fully OSS (see the thread about Harmony), and free of charge :-)
    I do not really see the difference with the Jahia license excepted you can NOT pay in kind

    Well, I see a big difference : I use MySQL for free in almost all applications I deliver :-P
    It's even delivered with most of the linux distros... for free...
    Please do not comment on things you do not know.

    OK ok, sorry, once again don't feel offensed, it's just about business models...
    A private company makes money, that's the primary goal it usually deserves. So obviously, you benefit somewhere of the work others have done free of charge... Seems to make sense doesn't it ? Unless you give back 100% of your incomes to the FSF (or smth like this) and you are a non-profit, you actually benefit of code you did not pay in any form...

    Once again, no offense, just a fact...

    I also reckon that IT needs companies like you to sponsor free software at the moment, so I would rather thank you instead of blaming :-)
    Jahia aims to be the glue on top of OSI libraries.

    Yes, and linux distros are the glue on top of the linux kernel... Still, I pay through buying books or packaged distros once again... but most of them are still available for free download !
    You pay (in cash or in kind) for the glue. Else you may perfectly glue all these libraries together on your own. You will just loose a lot of time. So this is quite similar to buy a book to gain time on your training and learning curve. Here the doc is free but the glue is commercial. That's all.

    Mmmhhh, that makes more sense, in the concept. Excepted I *have* to buy the book if I want to run the software...
    Here again where the bias? We never claimed to be OSI compliant. Just for your information, Java/J2EE is not OSI compliant too even if "gratis". The Sun Community Source license is even more "proprietary" than the Jahia one.

    Yes and that's a *big* problem, fully agreed.
     So is this also a "bias"?

    DEFINITLY !
    How many Java users never thought that Sun could come and claim money tomorrow if they feel to ?
    So yep, bias too (even more !) IMHO.
    Finally I live in a proprietary house, drive a proprietary car and drink proprietary beer... Think free as in freedom, not free beer.

    I don't know why you all talk about free beer.
    Feck, I pay more for beer than software !
    Where's your favourite pub ?
    :-)

    Cheers

    Remi
  12. In a few words, what I'd like is get jahia for free, buy docs if needed, buy support if needed, and deliver OSS to my clients at a lower cost.
    The issues in OSS are mostly about the cost of course...

    Of if I resume, you want some gratis programs whoever spend time and money developing and maintaining them (especially if you can avoid contributing to them) in order to sell your own customers services but achieve a lower TCO than with a proprietary program. If you really need some support, you agree to buy some assistance contract so that the developer slave on the other hand can support you the day and develop the night and during the week-end. Mmmh, I understand your needs but, I do not know why, I think this is not a viable and fair business model especially when you have dozens of monthly salaries to pay each month on the side of the program's developers (or you have to sell millions of books!).

    So open source programs are great for infrastructure layers, to promote a new standard or to commoditize an (amortized) technology. But FOSS products are not so good for ready to use finished programs or for innovation (ok there are exceptions as always). Please always look where the money come from. Most of the open source committers, especially in the Java world, are paid professionals. So a University may sponsorize a project, but at the end this is your taxes. Large software vendors may sponsorize a project but this is either to better sell their proprietary modules on top of that (e.g. recently Servlet for free but the whole J2EE stack being commercial) or to improve cross-selling opportunities (I give you that but you need to buy such and such services + other programs). And so on.

    So there is no "gratis" software (excepted for the rare real charitable contributors but working on a video game the week-end is fun, working on a CMS, a Portal or an ERP during the week-end is less enthousiastic!). Never forget that each line of code has a cost and someone has to finance it at the end (and I do not include maintenance costs of such lines of code + docs + migration scripts + etc...).

    As you said: you agree to spend more for a few beers than for software. Why? Software is much as difficult to make as a beer. So why do you accept to pay your beer and not a program?

    Freedom is really about having a way to avoid vendor lock-in not about financing the code. You have (or at least should have) the right to make a living by coding.

    Cheers,
    Stéphane
  13. Hi Stephane,

    Sorry for the late reply... been overbusy last days, writing code on top of OSS I did not pay for ;-P

    Seriously, this discussion has started a thread inside me, and it's been running with a pretty high proirity. You just bootstrapped this reflection and I must admit you could actually make me change my mind...
    Of if I resume, you want some gratis programs whoever spend time and money developing and maintaining them (especially if you can avoid contributing to them) in order to sell your own customers services but achieve a lower TCO than with a proprietary program.

    Yep, this is pretty cool :-P

    But I may be bias. I wear two hats : "research fellow" on one side, and I develop solutions for SMEs as a "freelance" let's say, on the other side.

    Researchers never pay for any software and never buy finite products anyway. I used many stuff in the context of R&D projects and it was not even question about the licencing politics... Anyway even commercial editors offer their products free of charge for R&D use most of the time (a good way for them to get everybody locked-in btw).

    When I wear my second hat, SMEs can't afford to buy expensive software that still needs training and adaptation (this have to be done for money by people like me you know... we also have to survive :-) ).

    Btw, I also sometimes pay for software (if I have no real choice actually). I recently bought a swing lib (http://www.zvalley.com/wingz.htm) that saved me lots of work, and just reported this on the bill to my client.
    I bought the version with source code which was more expensive, and it was useful. Just like you had the sources with delphi you know... But there's a difference between "delivering the code" and "delivering OSS" : wingz does not claim to be OSS !

    That's what I found strange at first sight in your approach : your web is full of OSS statements, but as far as I knew I could not find the difference with the zvalley approach...

    But you are right. Now I see the difference : the source I bought from ZValley isn't mine.
    If I buy Jahia I can consider it's my property and do whatever I want with it (if I understand a bit of this meta-discussion :-P).

    I reckon that's a (pretty big !) difference I did not catch before.
    If you really need some support, you agree to buy some assistance contract so that the developer slave on the other hand can support you the day and develop the night and during the week-end.

    Well I never said that...
    I just told you I would pay for that support (e.g. Mambo & I-don't-remember-which-company who sells mambo customization) or for docs. It has nothing to do with slavery, that's work !?
    Mmmh, I understand your needs but, I do not know why, I think this is not a viable and fair business model especially when you have dozens of monthly salaries to pay each month on the side of the program's developers (or you have to sell millions of books!).

    ... or days of consulting.

    But I must admit, after I though deeper about all this, that I also find it rather complicated !!!
    Maybe it's a question of scale...
    So open source programs are great for infrastructure layers, to promote a new standard or to commoditize an (amortized) technology.

    You mean "gratis" ?
    Right. Kicked-off by researchers, then maintained and pushed by the industry (e.g. CORBA ORBs, XML Parsers, etc.)...
    Sounds efficient, since the benefit is not direct : your ROI is about delivering better solutions faster, and you need that brick that others need too...
    But FOSS products are not so good for ready to use finished programs or for innovation (ok there are exceptions as always).

    I agree in some way. But still, what's a product then ?
    Why would a db would be more a product than an ORM for example (MySQL / Hibernate) ???
    What about linux ???
    Please always look where the money come from. Most of the open source committers, especially in the Java world, are paid professionals. So a University may sponsorize a project, but at the end this is your taxes.

    I have absolutely no problems with that !
    I'd be even more happy if my country was more into innovation and research...
    But, apart my natural pessimism, good things too there : the French administration pays delevlopers to do OSS now ! I recently used a french XML indexation and research system from the minister of culture !!! They switch to linux / OO based systems (thousands of workstations) !!!
    So yes : paying taxes so that my country develops viable, long-term, open-source, non-proprietary, blah, blah, blah software is something I really appreciate !
    Large software vendors may sponsorize a project but this is either to better sell their proprietary modules on top of that (e.g. recently Servlet for free but the whole J2EE stack being commercial)
    or to improve cross-selling opportunities (I give you that but you need to buy such and such services + other programs). And so on.

    For sure, large software vendors care about incomes. I don't think their plan is not to deliver OSS software *anyway*, nor to deliver it for free (even less). This looks obvious.

    But once again they may have cross-requirements (previous example about ORBs, etc) they can fulfill by partenring into OSS projects.
    Big vendors A, B, C, university D, E, research lab F... Sounds like a good consortium even if each partner has different exploitation plans.
    And everybody able to use the stuff gratis does not shock me . Anyway their business won't change (they don't sell the product directly but use it for other matters), and even my small person may help some day, who knows (I remember I reported bugs sometimes, I remember I discussed with users about various questions concerning the "product")...

    So big vendors may have no interest in small businesses. High license fees would not even allow me to do my "independant" job as I do now. They would not permit my clients to use efficient and open softwares.

    So, we (small businesses) may just forget about Java and all that very-nice-but-unaffordable OSS technologies, we can't afford it, and get back to MSOffice based solutions.

    Yes, they don't work so well, they often turn into nightmares, they're proprietary more than anything... but they are affordable.
    And this *because* MS is the leader and sells millions copies...
    Look : if Linux was maintained by private companies only with a "collaborative OS license", would you see it installed by more and more people like it's happening now ?
    I mean, small companies could not put the cash on the table, and anyway they could not contribute *directly* in any other way than user feedback...

    No : they'd buy windoz and linux would be the "privilege" for the ones who can afford it (either in kind or cash) :-/
    Linux would be a solaris-like system, only for big players.

    Actiually, free distribution of Linux made it happen in some way...

    So I agree with you on many points, but I still don't feel it deserves "freedom of code".
    What's the point in a code that's open but nobody can afford to buy it ? I don't know exactly where, but I still have a problem with that definition of freedom :-/
    So there is no "gratis" software (excepted for the rare real charitable contributors but working on a video game the week-end is fun, working on a CMS, a Portal or an ERP during the week-end is less enthousiastic!).

    :-)
     Never forget that each line of code has a cost and someone has to finance it at the end (and I do not include maintenance costs of such lines of code + docs + migration scripts + etc...).

    I know that, but just think about a "collaborative" model instead of a "business" model... I don't think that profit-oriented ecosystems ever deserve progress and freedom.

    Healthy OSS seem to depend on collaboration between partners and goodwilling at the moment. Look at some projects (pretty large sometimes) that are ran by private and public bodies. They don't expect to make money from the software, only get reserach publications or have an efficient tool to build other stuff on top of it easily...
    Different motivations for a common objective.
    Making it OSS pushes innovation.
    Making it freely available pushes people to use it.
    As you said: you agree to spend more for a few beers than for software.
    Why? Software is much as difficult to make as a beer.

    I'm not convinced about that, this is subject to another discussion...
    :-)
    So why do you accept to pay your beer and not a program?

    Because I'm a lazy person.
    I could also get free documentation (that's public domain, you can find this in books in any college library) about how to make my own beer and get it for free (or almost : I would have to do things by myself).
    I could also start a "friends of free beer" community with folks that are ready to invest a minimum of their time for "free" beer (it's not free any more since you have to spend time for it).
    Collaborative (the Beer Community) vs. Profit oriented (Heineken et al)...
    The only difference is a person who's not in the community could not drink our beer : but this is solved by the intangible nature of software. A download does not decrease the stock, whereas by beer tank will go empty pretty quick if I distribute my beer for free !!!
    I think the comparison is impossible. A software is "virtual", beer is damn concrete (excepted when you drink a few pints more than you should :-) ).

    So I think we always come back to your point about "products".
    And how to distinguish a "product" from something else ???
    That's the real question I think, and as far as I see it there's no possible generalization. This can be decided on a per-case basis, and even this may not be enough !!!

    Look : what about linux for example ? Would you classify it as a product or as an "infrastructure layer" ?
    It's not even about the nature of the software (library, finished app, etc.) I think, but more about the nature of the consortium and the ways people there see OSS...
    Freedom is really about having a way to avoid vendor lock-in not about financing the code. You have (or at least should have) the right to make a living by coding.

    Of course, once again I fully agree, I know that situation by heart.
    Unfortunately, freedom has never rhymed with incomes... this may be the real issue actually.

    Thank you very much for that very interesting discussion.

    Cheers

    Remi
  14. Re: strange licence...[ Go to top ]

    We are not happy with the current "offical" SDC site, that is why once we work out some techinical and taste issue (what color theme to use) we will replace it with http://www.softdevelcoop.org/newsite (btw if you have a preference for one of the color themes let me know)
  15. Re: strange licence...[ Go to top ]

    This type of "bias advertising" does not deserve OSS, it even goes against it. Users finally get lost, think that OSS was only a trick to get them locked-in commercial solutions, just like they were before. And they'll go back to M$ 'cause at least they make it clear : "we sell you stuff, you'll have to pay, here's the bill".CheersRemi

    I personally would rather see a well thought out purposal such as the one SDC offers (yes I am biased since I am one of the co-signers of the "progressive licensing manifesto" which serves as the backbone of SDC's efforts). The reason being is such use of OSS (and no we *never* made a claim of being OSS persay) actually is actually very harmful to the long term supportablity of the product. The reason being that if the developer can not get somekind of compensation for their work I really wonder if they will find mainting it worth it in the long run.

    Also in many ways the OSS movement has actually harmed the
    industry when the intention was to actually free us from (both user and developer) of people like Microslut. The reason being is there is money to be made off OSS, witness Red Hat/etc. it just that the developer is cut out of it. In any definition of fairness this is not justice, matter
    of fact being a religious person I consider this a violation of "thou shall not steal".

    The so called corporate open licenses are actually worse then closed source in some ways in that they basically treat contributers like slaves/serfs. Progressive licensing seeks to heal this situtation since it clearlly states that contributions are on the same par as my orginal work. For personal reasons I would never support a license model that doesn't allow this basic freedom.

    Bottom line the only place where progressive licensing and OSS differ is clause 6 of the OSD. We feel this is significant enough that we do not refer to our work as OSS nor do we refer to it as proriatary.

    Note:

    Even though Stephane uses rather business like methaphors, something the rest of the progessive source community
    is attempting to ween him from ;-) his goals and ours are
    much more in line with the orginal goals of FSF and other
    OSS groups then even we care to admit.
  16. Re: strange licence...[ Go to top ]

    Hey Stephane,

    I contacted you guys recently about your contribute-or-pay license and was told that basically, unless you work for a large corporation that can dedicate resources on a full-time basis to contribute to Jahia, developers interested in using Jahia on a production server do not earn licenses through contributions.
    Hi Remi,What's bad about trying to enforce a strong quid pro quo paradigm?

    The exchange can never be equal because a single developer could never contribute on the scale needed to counterbalance the value of Jahia. A few modules, some documentation, or some debugging cannot compare to the value of the software as a whole, so "something for something" equates to "your work for our expensive software at a slightly discounted price". Each contribution makes Jahia better, but what does the contributor get? A $1000 discount maybe? He still cannot use the software in production. Perhaps he should license his contribution as "for development and testing only".
    Jahia never claims to be compliant with OSI, however Jahia is neither closed source proprietary and commercial software: the source code is freely available for anyone at anytime.

    Unless you are interested in the source code strictly from a research standpoint, what use is this? Surely this offer will get you higher ranking search results aimed at developers looking for open source CMS software, which might lead to more contributions to enhance Jahia. These developers, however, will ultimately get the short end of the stick.
    We might also have sold expensive commercial support and assistance agreements in order to cover our IT investment costs.

    I agree. It would have been more honest and straightforward on your part.
    But finally we preferred simply enforcing a quid pro quo ("something for something"). We are very happy to share our source code for no payment with those who agree to contribute (enhance, debug, document, translate,...) to the project, but we also think it is fair to charge a fee from those who are not ready to involve themselves in the community.

    Here is where we begin to see the origins of resentment about your license. This notion of enforcing community involvement is anathema to the open source community. Most open source projects that I'm familiar with have an open door policy for people who want to get involved. Mailing lists, source code repositories and documentation are freely available, and committer status is also usually an option for serious people. Your source code sharing policy sounds more like a form of slave labour where developers have to work to earn their freedom to use your software in any meaningful sense. Even with contributions you still have to pay. Isn't that like a double slap in the face? Since we already know that open source is about access, openness and freedom, you can see why some resent this kind of license.
    So, in summary our licensing policy is harmful only to the one who attempts to get an unfair benefit of other peoples' work.

    This is an unfair assumption. You will never know the intentions of people interested in your software. Maybe some would like to use it without giving anything back, but I'm sure there are many others (like myself) who have been looking for a good Java-based CMS/Portal product and would be happy to contribute. Your license filters out both types of people. This statement also hides the fact that Jahia (the company) is actually the one who benefits unfairly from other people's work.

    I agree with Scott and I too wish Jahia would refrain from using "open" terminology. There's nothing wrong with commercially licensed software, and there is nothing wrong with open source software, I find commercial software that attempts to lure in contributors through open source rhetoric is a bit hypocritical.
  17. Re: strange licence...[ Go to top ]

    Hi Ian,
    Hey Stephane,I contacted you guys recently about your contribute-or-pay license and was told that basically, unless you work for a large corporation that can dedicate resources on a full-time basis to contribute to Jahia, developers interested in using Jahia on a production server do not earn licenses through contributions.

    I remember having answered to you last month. Please read carefully my email. I never ever wrote that only large corporations may contribute to Jahia. Why would it be the case? Everybody is welcome in the Jahia community including free-lancers, individuals, start-ups, etc...
    The exchange can never be equal because a single developer could never contribute on the scale needed to counterbalance the value of Jahia. A few modules, some documentation, or some debugging cannot compare to the value of the software as a whole, so "something for something" equates to "your work for our expensive software at a slightly discounted price". Each contribution makes Jahia better, but what does the contributor get? A $1000 discount maybe? He still cannot use the software in production. Perhaps he should license his contribution as "for development and testing only".

    Come on! Jahia values contribution based on average price per man/days (= around 600 Euro per man/day). The Jahia license starts at 5K euro. So a rapid calculation gives ~8 man/days of work = a free license. So this is the level of contribution we require. I think this is not a too large investment versus a free use of the technology. So you may perfectly improve a chapter of the existing documentation, translate Jahia into a new language, develop (rapidly) a small new portlet or so on in 10 days... Moreover we are quite flexible on the contributions we received. So if you plan for example to translate Jahia in Greek and we have not other customer in this country, we will still accept it.
    Unless you are interested in the source code strictly from a research standpoint, what use is this?

    Several customers or parners needs to "reskin" Jahia to adjust all the web views to their own design, several others needs a strong level of customization (custom single sign on connectors; modification of certain back end services;...). You can only do that if you have access to the source code (or let's say, at least, this drastically simplify the customization process).

    I do not even mention the fact that there is no vendor lock-in like with a traditional proprietary CMS/portal server. We are working with more than 30 partners/system integrators. All of them can offer customization services or develop functional enhancement on top of the platform without even having to contact us.

    I think this is important points for a customer. Here again, the only difference with a FOSS license is the reciprocity we require. I personally think this is fair. Now if you are looking for somethink gratis, ok no problem. But there is market niche between the high-end expensive and proprietary Java CMS/Portal solutions and the freely available open source framework. We tried to focus Jahia here and offer a right balanced between freedom and commercial.
    I agree. It would have been more honest and straightforward on your part.

    Here again, what is dishonest from our part? Do you critize IBM, BEA and others because they are proprietary? We freely offer access to all our code base. We allow possible forks. We allow code modifications without our prior consent. We of course also allow contributions and we even reward them (I remind ot you that key committers take a shareholder position in Jahia Ltd). So of course, perhaps the ideal world would be one, with all the programs being free. But I am a liberal capitalistic guy. I have to manage a compny and to pay employees at the end of the month and I do not want them to provide training services or phone call assistance the day while coding the product the night or the week-end. Moreover such an activity will go in direct conflict with the services provided by our partners and we do not want to position ourselves as competitors. So this is not white or black. There is a niche in-between. I think we already offer more than most of the software vendors. This is already a good point, no? ;-)
    Here is where we begin to see the origins of resentment about your license. This notion of enforcing community involvement is anathema to the open source community. Most open source projects that I'm familiar with have an open door policy for people who want to get involved. Mailing lists, source code repositories and documentation are freely available, and committer status is also usually an option for serious people. Your source code sharing policy sounds more like a form of slave labour where developers have to work to earn their freedom to use your software in any meaningful sense. Even with contributions you still have to pay. Isn't that like a double slap in the face? Since we already know that open source is about access, openness and freedom, you can see why some resent this kind of license.

    Perhaps but usually the ones that say that are the ones who just want some gratis programs/libraries. As you may see on http://www.jahia.org the mailing lists are open, the CVS too similar for the bug tracking system and so on. The Jahia community works exactly like a standard open source project, excepted we enforce reciprocity. If you now consider yourself being a slave because you need to contribute 10 man/days work for this community in exchange of the use of the technology, I think you will never committ in all the cases anything to this community. You then act as a free-riders. I personaly have nothing against free-riders. They may improve code by announcing bugs in the mailing list or helping other users. In this sense we use several (very nice) open sourced infrastructure libraries and tries as much as possible to contribute to them. But for the ready to use finished product, we require a certain level of engagement.
    This is an unfair assumption. You will never know the intentions of people interested in your software. Maybe some would like to use it without giving anything back, but I'm sure there are many others (like myself) who have been looking for a good Java-based CMS/Portal product and would be happy to contribute. Your license filters out both types of people. This statement also hides the fact that Jahia (the company) is actually the one who benefits unfairly from other people's work.

    So feel free to contribute then... ;-). If you thing your contributions will bring you more money than the value we acquire it, you still may perfectly sell it as an add-on. But most of our customers do not want to become software vendors. Tis is not their core business. They want to use a CMS and a Portal solution. According to the stats, the level of integration for this kind of product is equivalent to 3 to 5 times the price of the software. So this means that most of the customers needs some kind of product enhancements, some custom protlets or other kind of modifications. We then just require that they contribute part of this 3 to 5 times budget to Jahia Ltd in exchange of a free use. I think this is fair. And all the customers we work with (more than one hundred including the European Parliament, The French Ministery of Finance, Alstom, Valeo,...) also think this is perfectly fair. They spend far, far more each year on proprietary licenses for some J2EE stuff (and I won't say any name ;-) ).
    I agree with Scott and I too wish Jahia would refrain from using "open" terminology. There's nothing wrong with commercially licensed software, and there is nothing wrong with open source software, I find commercial software that attempts to lure in contributors through open source rhetoric is a bit hypocritical.

    So I can not use "open source", neither "open", nor "source", then what can I use? Usually when you mean open source this equals to "Open Source" with caps. Finally most of the libraries we are embedding are effectively Open Source. Only the glue is not (but the full source IS provided). So IMHO I can pretend to use the work "Open" without being hypocrit... But of course this is my point of view and this can be further discussed ;-)

    Cheers
    Stéphane