Billy Newport on S2AP: very nice, shame about the license

Discussions

News: Billy Newport on S2AP: very nice, shame about the license

  1. Billy Newport has posted "SpringSource application server, very nice, shame about the license" - a blog entry saying "It looks like what others and I have been planning/hoping to do over the next few years," but "Most vendors have absolutely no interest in a GPL type license."
    I know SpringSource are doing valuable work making OSGi consumable by the mass market. OSGi is too hard for most people. Spring-DM is a great step in the right direction and I think Adrian is standardizing some, if not all of this, in OSGi anyway. I think the commercial vendors see the value as not in the platform but in the profiles running on top. I expect to see a commoditized runtime for hosting profiles or middleware/applications. Springsource for now seems to be treating the platform as the valuable thing and I just don't see that. Of course, this is what they have so it's valuable to them. IBM and other vendors have a library of profiles like messaging, process flow etc that is why there is a different perspective. I understand why they are doing it but I don't see it being widely adopted by the large commercial vendors. IBM has already contributed a lot of code in Equinox etc under commercial friendly licenses and this will likely continue (I don't speak for IBM in this blog). I’d like to see monitoring of this also pluggable and I don’t see a need for APIs here. What I’ve seen of Wily and William Louths JXInsight has convinced me that we do not need APIs to do monitoring. Aspects are hands down for Java, the way to go and SpringSource has tackled getting AOP to work in an OSGi environment and hopefully that gets standardized also. I think monitoring will be a valuable profile on top of the common runtime and I fully expect vendors to be selling this to monitor what-ever people deploy on this infrastructure. So, to summarize, I don’t see the platform as the valuable thing. I see it as a commodity. I see profiles and monitoring profiles as the valuable thing and I’d like to see a commercial friendly licensed OSGi distributed runtime as the new JVM that vendors build middleware/profiles for. Given, Spring DM is Apache licensed, I can see the extra work in the Spring server being clean roomed and made available with EPL or Apache pretty soon and this will limit the value from selling the SpringSource server. Duplicating higher value profiles like process flow etc is clearly not so easy and this is why these are the valuable things that vendors will continue to charge for. I don't want to trivialize what SpringSource has done, it's very cool and it's needed but given most of its components are Apache 2.0 or EPL then the last gap is a lot simpler than building a Java EE or BPEL flow engine, thats all.

    Threaded Messages (27)

  2. I totally agree. GPL makes this a no-go for us, no matter how good or interesting it is.
  3. I totally agree. GPL makes this a no-go for us, no matter how good or interesting it is.
    Does it mean that Linux is also no-go for You (which is, kernel, GPL also)? You run services (applications) on top of linux and nobody ask anything. It's Your business. You can also run Your services on top of S2AP, also without any problem, and be sure nobody will ask You to reveal Your sources. Artur
  4. Re: boring[ Go to top ]

    Are you serious, after 225+ posts in the initial thread, do we really need another thread ab/ some dude's blog post, let me ask u something, Joe, why didn't my blog entry or anyone's else's ab/ the S2AP get front-page attention? Is it because of this stupid GPL perspective, who cares...obviously, SpringSource did their homework with lawyers, and are not trying to sabotage their business or that of their partners (contrary to marcf's ISV rant), and the issue of licensing is a dead one... I admit I know nothing more about GPL than what I have gleaned from reading about it, but that is part of the problem, it shouldn't be more complicated than knowing the base-line of what OSS is... Now, if u want to do something useful, I have two suggestions, one related and one quasi-related: 1. A discussion ab/ OSGi in the JCP, and what really is the the greatness of this approach, as it has attracted most of the app server vendors.... 2. Spring at Java One sessions, this would give us some analysis of how the JEE6 debate is going to shake-out.... both of these are infinitely more relevant to the "community" than licensing debates, apologies for the flame, and for not abiding by my own directives not to edit, and just to let posts percolate, and let people self-edit... i am just stunned that a re-hash was the best that could be done during Java 1... douglas dooley douglasdooley.blogspot.com
  5. Re: boring[ Go to top ]

    Billy Newport has been a poster on theserverside for a long time and he works on WebSphere/for IBM. I know I was interested to hear what he thought.
  6. Re: clarification[ Go to top ]

    I thought I was fairly clear, I am not anti-Billy Newport, I am anti-rehash of a long GPL thread, without some further analysis of more pertinent issues around Spring, than licensing... I understand he works for IBM on WebSphere, which is mildly relevant considering they are a theoretical competitor to SpringSource's new 'app server', so great, I apologized as well for trying to edit thread topics... just disappointed that it was not accompanied by some better Java One news (we're waiting, Frank) and/or something beyond OSS licensing noise... btw, do u work for IBM, or did u once? dd
  7. Re: clarification[ Go to top ]

    Douglas, more news is coming - but I think S2AP news is worth reading. As far as your post is concerned... honestly, I didn't see it. I just went back over the news queue to look for it: nothing. As far as "news during J1" - good question. What kind of news do you guys want? Do you want the short blurbs without context, or do you want stuff that's vetted for general relevance? (Most of the "news" during J1 is news because it's DURING J1.)
  8. Re: J1[ Go to top ]

    Joe, R u in SFO? Is the conference in the new wing of Moscone? I have not been there since '03, and miss the bean bags in the lounge, as well as McNealy on Friday morning keynotes, but all good things must come to an end, so I have heard.... I don't know what I can expect from Sun in the way of news, but the Liferay announcement is cool (particularly with the re-emergence of Mr. Mark Herring to the software products biz, if only we wouldn't have lost him in the first place), and a little more Glassfish noise is always welcome to me... I really think the onus is on Sun and Spring to present separate business cases around the technology decisions for JEE6, and its many, many moving pieces...I am hopeful Frank will do his usual depth of due diligence, perhaps tomorrow.... but if u have some insight in to Spring 2.5 + Glassfish v. 3 presos, i would love to hear your perspective...
  9. Re: J1[ Go to top ]

    Joe,

    R u in SFO? Is the conference in the new wing of Moscone? I have not been there since '03, and miss the bean bags in the lounge, as well as McNealy on Friday morning keynotes, but all good things must come to an end, so I have heard....
    And so they do.
    I don't know what I can expect from Sun in the way of news, but the Liferay announcement is cool (particularly with the re-emergence of Mr. Mark Herring to the software products biz, if only we wouldn't have lost him in the first place), and a little more Glassfish noise is always welcome to me...

    but if u have some insight in to Spring 2.5 + Glassfish v. 3 presos, i would love to hear your perspective...
    And you'll get it - but I have to form it first! :) And yes, I'm in SFO until Friday evening.
  10. Re: clarification[ Go to top ]

    btw, do u work for IBM, or did u once?
    Are you asking ME? If you are, yes, I worked for IBM as a contractor for a while in Charlotte, NC (beautiful campus, BTW) on a product called ProductManager, basically a revision tracking system for a CAD. (This has been documented and available on the web for years now - and is presently available on archive.org - as it's what finally jaded me toward the GPL and the FSF. If you're interested, I have the content of the page, and can repost it.)
  11. Re: clarification[ Go to top ]

    btw, do u work for IBM, or did u once?
    Are you asking ME? If you are, yes, I worked for IBM as a contractor for a while in Charlotte, NC (beautiful campus, BTW) on a product called ProductManager, basically a revision tracking system for a CAD.

    (This has been documented and available on the web for years now - and is presently available on archive.org - as it's what finally jaded me toward the GPL and the FSF. If you're interested, I have the content of the page, and can repost it.)
    How about now? How is the work environment in SpringSource?!!
  12. Re: clarification[ Go to top ]

    Heh, whoa, wait: I don't work for IBM, nor have I for some ten years - and I have never been employed, directly or indirectly, by SpringSource. I don't know what working with Rod is like. :)
  13. Re: clarification[ Go to top ]

    Heh, whoa, wait: I don't work for IBM, nor have I for some ten years - and I have never been employed, directly or indirectly, by SpringSource. I don't know what working with Rod is like. :)
    Oops sorry, I thought you are the marketing manager of SpringSource ;)
  14. Re: clarification[ Go to top ]

    Oops sorry, I thought you are the marketing manager of SpringSource ;)
    I really hope you don't mean that, even though I suppose you could... it's funny, I get crap from both sides. The Spring guys typically think I'm anti-Spring, and the non-Spring guys think I'm pro-Spring. I can't win. :)
  15. Re: clarification[ Go to top ]

    ... it's funny, I get crap from both sides. The Spring guys typically think I'm anti-Spring, and the non-Spring guys think I'm pro-Spring. I can't win. :)
    You obviously swing both ways Joe :-) -John-
  16. Re: clarification[ Go to top ]

    Are you kidding? No. I've never worked at an IBM shop. If you look at my post history you'll see some pro-JBoss stuff from a few years back. Licensing is a very important issue to many people. There's a reason they chose GPL and I wish Spring, Rod, et al. the best. We've moved towards python/Django lately, so if you want to find my fanboy-funnybone, that's where it will be. :) Much love. SL
  17. I am more concerned about the fact that the source for S2AP is not available through a public subversion repository. That the current JIRA is clearly only containing end-user support questions and that the source is only distributed through periodic zip files. Also, the mailing lists and forums are hidden behind a customer login on springsource.com. Why not simply host all this on sourceforge and springframework.org so that people can actually interact with it. This project would have so much more value if it were a real open source project. S.
  18. I am more concerned about the fact that the source for S2AP is not available through a public subversion repository. That the current JIRA is clearly only containing end-user support questions and that the source is only distributed through periodic zip files. Also, the mailing lists and forums are hidden behind a customer login on springsource.com. Why not simply host all this on sourceforge and springframework.org so that people can actually interact with it. This project would have so much more value if it were a real open source project. S.
  19. I am more concerned about the fact that the source for S2AP is not available through a public subversion repository. That the current JIRA is clearly only containing end-user support questions and that the source is only distributed through periodic zip files. Also, the mailing lists and forums are hidden behind a customer login on springsource.com.

    Why not simply host all this on sourceforge and springframework.org so that people can actually interact with it.

    This project would have so much more value if it were a real open source project.

    S.
    That's very true. I was also disgusted that I needed to register before download... Usually I don't download anything what requires registration, frankly... Artur
  20. I am more concerned about the fact that the source for S2AP is not available through a public subversion repository. That the current JIRA is clearly only containing end-user support questions and that the source is only distributed through periodic zip files. Also, the mailing lists and forums are hidden behind a customer login on springsource.com.

    Why not simply host all this on sourceforge and springframework.org so that people can actually interact with it.

    This project would have so much more value if it were a real open source project.

    S.


    That's very true. I was also disgusted that I needed to register before download... Usually I don't download anything what requires registration, frankly...

    Artur
    that's so the sales guys can spam you. everyone needs more spam! peter
  21. I am more concerned about the fact that the source for S2AP is not available through a public subversion repository. That the current JIRA is clearly only containing end-user support questions and that the source is only distributed through periodic zip files. Also, the mailing lists and forums are hidden behind a customer login on springsource.com.

    Why not simply host all this on sourceforge and springframework.org so that people can actually interact with it.

    This project would have so much more value if it were a real open source project.

    S.
    I guess S2AP isn't "real" open source... But, where have we heard that before? ;-)
  22. I am more concerned about the fact that the source for S2AP is not available through a public subversion repository. That the current JIRA is clearly only containing end-user support questions and that the source is only distributed through periodic zip files. Also, the mailing lists and forums are hidden behind a customer login on springsource.com.

    Why not simply host all this on sourceforge and springframework.org so that people can actually interact with it.

    This project would have so much more value if it were a real open source project.

    S.


    I guess S2AP isn't "real" open source...

    But, where have we heard that before? ;-)
    It would be really nice if one of the Spring guys could answer to this one. I think many people are curious whether this is just some commercial product for which sources happen to be available for download or whether it really is a fully open source project. S.
  23. Validation[ Go to top ]

    To quote from Billy's blog:
    I’d like to see a commercial friendly licensed OSGi distributed runtime as the new JVM that vendors build middleware/profiles for. Given, Spring DM is Apache licensed, I can see the extra work in the Spring server being clean roomed and made available with EPL or Apache pretty soon and this will limit the value from selling the SpringSource server.
    Our licensing makes this product freely usable by end users. This is not the case, for example, with WebSphere, so I find it surprising that an IBM employee would criticize our more open licensing strategy. Sure, we expect to see others attempt to provide similar value, under a variety of licenses. This is the ultimate validation for what we're doing. As Billy notes, numerous people have thought about or tried to tackle the problem--the difference is that we have solved it and made the solution available in open source. The SpringSource Application Platform represents a major value add over existing projects. It delivers a coherent OSGi/Spring/enterprise vision right now. We expect more open source projects and vendors to enter the space. Technology competition is great and benefits the community. We will strive to maintain our leadership and always deliver the best available solution. Rgds Rod
  24. Re: Validation[ Go to top ]

    To quote from Billy's blog:
    I’d like to see a commercial friendly licensed OSGi distributed runtime as the new JVM that vendors build middleware/profiles for. Given, Spring DM is Apache licensed, I can see the extra work in the Spring server being clean roomed and made available with EPL or Apache pretty soon and this will limit the value from selling the SpringSource server.
    Our licensing makes this product freely usable by end users. This is not the case, for example, with WebSphere, so I find it surprising that an IBM employee would criticize our more open licensing strategy.

    Sure, we expect to see others attempt to provide similar value, under a variety of licenses. This is the ultimate validation for what we're doing. As Billy notes, numerous people have thought about or tried to tackle the problem--the difference is that we have solved it and made the solution available in open source.

    The SpringSource Application Platform represents a major value add over existing projects. It delivers a coherent OSGi/Spring/enterprise vision right now. We expect more open source projects and vendors to enter the space. Technology competition is great and benefits the community. We will strive to maintain our leadership and always deliver the best available solution.

    Rgds
    Rod
    maybe it's just me, but how can you be sure someone else didn't already solve the same problem? Maybe someone else solved it and didn't bother to tell the world about it. I often find that solutions I "think are new" aren't new at all. Just that I wasn't aware someone else already did it. peter
  25. Re: Validation[ Go to top ]

    To quote from Billy's blog:
    I’d like to see a commercial friendly licensed OSGi distributed runtime as the new JVM that vendors build middleware/profiles for. Given, Spring DM is Apache licensed, I can see the extra work in the Spring server being clean roomed and made available with EPL or Apache pretty soon and this will limit the value from selling the SpringSource server.
    Our licensing makes this product freely usable by end users. This is not the case, for example, with WebSphere, so I find it surprising that an IBM employee would criticize our more open licensing strategy.

    Sure, we expect to see others attempt to provide similar value, under a variety of licenses. This is the ultimate validation for what we're doing. As Billy notes, numerous people have thought about or tried to tackle the problem--the difference is that we have solved it and made the solution available in open source.

    The SpringSource Application Platform represents a major value add over existing projects. It delivers a coherent OSGi/Spring/enterprise vision right now. We expect more open source projects and vendors to enter the space. Technology competition is great and benefits the community. We will strive to maintain our leadership and always deliver the best available solution.

    Rgds
    Rod


    maybe it's just me, but how can you be sure someone else didn't already solve the same problem? Maybe someone else solved it and didn't bother to tell the world about it. I often find that solutions I "think are new" aren't new at all. Just that I wasn't aware someone else already did it.

    peter
    Peter, It's pretty evident that lots of people have tried to solve the same set of problems that are solved by the Platform, and that solutions are not forthcoming. Support for LTW, throwaway classloading, resource path adaptation, thread context classloader management and application isolation and scoping to name but a few represent the innovation present in the Platform. Speculation as to whether some of these issues have been dealt with in private projects seems to me to be irrelevant, and experience with customers who have tried these private projects supports the assertion that this is not the case. Regards, Rob
  26. Re: Validation[ Go to top ]

    To quote from Billy's blog:
    I’d like to see a commercial friendly licensed OSGi distributed runtime as the new JVM that vendors build middleware/profiles for. Given, Spring DM is Apache licensed, I can see the extra work in the Spring server being clean roomed and made available with EPL or Apache pretty soon and this will limit the value from selling the SpringSource server.
    Our licensing makes this product freely usable by end users. This is not the case, for example, with WebSphere, so I find it surprising that an IBM employee would criticize our more open licensing strategy.

    Sure, we expect to see others attempt to provide similar value, under a variety of licenses. This is the ultimate validation for what we're doing. As Billy notes, numerous people have thought about or tried to tackle the problem--the difference is that we have solved it and made the solution available in open source.

    The SpringSource Application Platform represents a major value add over existing projects. It delivers a coherent OSGi/Spring/enterprise vision right now. We expect more open source projects and vendors to enter the space. Technology competition is great and benefits the community. We will strive to maintain our leadership and always deliver the best available solution.

    Rgds
    Rod


    maybe it's just me, but how can you be sure someone else didn't already solve the same problem? Maybe someone else solved it and didn't bother to tell the world about it. I often find that solutions I "think are new" aren't new at all. Just that I wasn't aware someone else already did it.

    peter


    Peter,

    It's pretty evident that lots of people have tried to solve the same set of problems that are solved by the Platform, and that solutions are not forthcoming.

    Support for LTW, throwaway classloading, resource path adaptation, thread context classloader management and application isolation and scoping to name but a few represent the innovation present in the Platform.

    Speculation as to whether some of these issues have been dealt with in private projects seems to me to be irrelevant, and experience with customers who have tried these private projects supports the assertion that this is not the case.

    Regards,

    Rob
    I'm gonna have to say it's arrogant to assume no one else has solved the same problem. Just because you haven't seen proof of it doesn't mean you're the first. let me give you an example. Last year myself and several others were thinking about using non-blocking HashMaps to support multi-threaded RETE implementation. I looked through the existing literature and searched extensively. After 8 months of looking, I didn't see any commercial products or research project using the approach. Then a few months later I heard from one of the old time rules guys that Dr. Charles forgy had thought of it and tried it. Dr. Forgy didn't bother to write a paper about it or tell the world. In fact, it went unnoticed for several years. When I was searching the existing literature, I kept thinking, "someone must have tried it already and know if the idea is feasible." Seems like these days Springsource is more interested in boosting the hype and ego, but that's just my bias perspective. peter
  27. Re: Validation[ Go to top ]

    Rod I'm sorry, but we seem to have forgotten about eclipse.org already? Lets be fair here, SpringSource is benefiting from IBM contributed open source code in the form of Equinox. We're also helping with OpenJPA available with an Apache 2.0 license. There is more to IBM than WebSphere just as there is more to SpringSource than S2AP. Thanks Billy
  28. Bollox![ Go to top ]

    If you're running a small software business how the hell are you going to make any money from giving away free software under Apache license? Of course you can provide services but that's not scalable, margins are tight, competition is tough and your company is only worth the value of your next contract. Now it's easy for IBM, they could just take <10% of their marketing budget and employ several hundred programmers to write Apache code - a la Eclipse, they won't make money from Eclipse but it makes them look like a cool company because the "donate" to open source. Spring are a small innovative company that simply can't employ dozens of people to sit around and write free code. They need to make money and there are two simple choices, closed source, perhaps with the source available to paying customers rather like Atlassian or GPL. I've never heard anyone moan about Atlassian, perhaps SpringSource should simply make it closed source because so few members of the programming public actually contribute to open source anyway. It's very true that several companies don't like GPL and will shun the SpringSource license but there's little difference from buying a closed source product from BEA, Oracle or IBM, it just happens that you get the source code with GPL and if it works these companies will overcome their prejudices. There are still more companies that don't use open source than those that don't like GPL, they're in the minority. For SpringSource the benefits of owning the source (with GPL) by far outweigh the disadvantages. Billy, what proportion of IBM's turnover goes into Apache license programmers, I bet it's less than SpringSource's contributions. -John-