Rod Johnson gives a detailed account of the SpringSource policy update based on community feedback. From his blog: "Some have stated concerns that Spring would cease to be open source. The phrase "license change" kept being bandied around -- despite the fact that we were not changing the licenses of any Spring code. While such speculation was unfounded, it's still concerning."

Let me take this opportunity once again to guarantee that Spring will remain open source for the community, under the current (Apache) license. Period.

We are amending our maintenance policy in the light of community feedback. We will make regular binary releases from the Spring trunk available to the community, with no 3 month window. For each version of Spring, community releases will be available while it remains the trunk or until the next version is stable.

This is a step in the good direction. I think that, the same way that the old policy deserved our critics, this correction deserves our praise. Rod has been very patient listening to us, seeing our points, and thinking about the situation, and that certainly deserves our gratitude. Errare humanum est. Now back to business! Regards, Daniel Fernández.

Awesome move!!. Rod is the Man!!, Congratulations to Spring Source developers. Regards.

This removes any problems I had with the new policies.

Thanks Rod, Thanks SpringSource !

A couple of clients I was working for were seriously considering moving off Spring with the previous announcement. Now they will stay :)

A couple of clients I was working for were seriously considering moving off Spring with the previous announcement. Now they will stay :)

+1

This changes completely the picture: no matter how much effort it takes to upgrade between two major versions, you'll always have a clear opensource upgrade map if you need it.
Works for me :)
Thankyou very much for listening to the community!

Rod : move appreciated. What is NOT being said ====================== What are the chances that going forward, Springsource will adopt a 6-9 month policy for releasing major releases. Meaning, 5-6 months after a release(let's call that 3.0), a new major release(let's call that 3.1) will become stable enough and then the updates to the 3.0 version will STOP become publicly available ?

Meaning, 5-6 months after a release(let's call that 3.0), a new major release(let's call that 3.1) will become stable enough and then the updates to the 3.0 version will STOP become publicly available ?

In your example 3.0 minor releases will indeed no longer be available to the community but 3.1 releases will be available until 3.2 is released. The time period between major releases doesn't matter.

"until the next version is stable" So I would assume that as soon as 3.1 is in BETA OR RC, they can call it stable ? or is it only GA or RELEASE version only ? thank you, BR, ~A

Anjan Your question is answered in the FAQ.

SpringSource will make regular source and binary releases of the current major version of Spring available to the community until the next major version is available (defined as a release candidate for that version).

Part of our point of the policy is to be able to focus our resources for the community (rather than for our customers) on the latest development, so we do not anticipate a long gap between an RC and GA release. Rgds Rod

For my 2c, this is now a workable solution, and would seem like it will leave the community intact. Rod, by 'binary releases', will the source be shipped also, to allow for debugging/tracing? Ideally, the latest binaries + source could be put into http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/ for all Spring projects, e.g. spring core, webflow, etc.

Hi Greg, The SpringSource Maintenance Policy FAQ has been updated and incorporates your questions. Adam FitzGerald SpringSource

Hi Greg,

The SpringSource Maintenance Policy FAQ has been updated and incorporates your questions.

Adam FitzGerald
SpringSource

Good news.

http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=50727#269405

Rod, Great move by SpringSource, I had not expected this at all. Thanks for listening to us. I think it takes a lot of guts to admit a mistake and correct it. Thanks again.

Rod, Thanks for listening to the community and showing that you are still willing to engage with Spring open source users in a constructive and positive way. I think that this will really reassure Spring users and be helpful not only for the Spring Framework but for all the many projects which use Spring as a platform for further efforts. Well done. Phil Zoio http://impala.googlecode.com/ - Impala dynamic modules for Spring

This shows that SpringSource takes Open Source, especially the Open Source community very serious. I was shocked about the first license policy and I fell relieved about this update. Mirko :wq

Good,Good，Congratulations. It's very exciting. Thanks a lot.

Thanks for listening! The move is really appreciated. It also elevates the image of SpringSource team.

now i can recommend SpringSource products again ...

sorry but i do not like at all all these "thanks". imho what happened is: 1) first of all, SS tried to make money consciously "in the dishonest way"; 2) after that, they realized that the spring users are not monkeys but people with brain. That's why they decided to roll back from the "impolite way"; just because that decision would hurt SS, not because that decision would hurt the users. Therefore I am not going to pronounce any "thanks" to SS for their roll back. The decision was taken just for thei personal interest Of course i already sent bunches of thanks in the past adopting spring, spreading spring, developing projects based on springs, buying books, ... but that's another story. For me, this is not the right moment to say thanks.

No, first of all Spring stated that they would discontinue providing official maintenance releases to old branches after they had reached a certain age, except to paying customers. That's not about making money as much as it is about focusing your energy in the correct place. Spring continues to grow, and it gets ever more expensive and wasteful to backport bugfixes into older, more divergent codebases. For an open source java library, saying "sorry - use the latest major release" is hardly an uncommon position. Note that a lot of projects would have just stopped maintaining an older branch without warning - you wouldn't know it until you went 6 months without a maintenance release, at which point you'd be told to upgrade to the latest major version. Spring have made the (apparantly oh so shocking) step of announcing publicly what they are going to do before they do it, and you criticise them for what - profiteering? Get a grip. No, after that they got badmouthed incessently by doomsayers who seemed to think (wrongly) they were making you pay to use Spring, or (wrongly) closing the source - or those who seek every opportunity to bash Spring for whatever reason. Now, rather than time-box the end of maintenance to older releases, they have tied it to the release of a new version. So there will *always* be a current version of Spring that is getting maintenance patches. This is in response to the (accurate) criticism that if they stop maintaining one branch after 3 months, but it takes them another year to elease a major version, their user base will stagnate waiting for bugfixes. What they have done is absolutely correct, and entirely sensible. The reaction here and elsewhere has been, frankly, appalling and unprofessional.

No, first of all Spring stated that they would discontinue providing official maintenance releases to old branches after they had reached a certain age, except to paying customers....

False: Rod told that they would have not put tags for releases after 3 months in the public trunk. Are you trying to convince me that putting tags in the svn for the community too is an expensive operation ? Do you really think that it is easier to do it just on the private trunk instead of doing it on a unique trunk ? Everybody can easily understand that this was simply a move (a very bad and unwise move indeed) to pull people toward the "paying" side. I have nothing against the "paying" side: i am a redhat payer for example and "other stuff" payer but i do not want to be pulled on that side: it must be a decision of mine.

The reaction here and elsewhere has been, frankly, appalling and unprofessional.

I think it is clear to everybody where the unprofessional is.

Paolo, I totally agree with your version of facts. I do not know where on Earth Dave Hewitt was, but things went exactly as you stated. However I do not agree on the fact that they do not deserve a "thank you": at the end of the day, the software is theirs and they can do what they want; I again agree with you that the maintenance policy change was like placing a booby trap in the middle of the roads of Spring-based projects. That was, I again agree with you, a deliberate and intentional attempt at spilling money from the existing Spring user base using a rather questionable technique; now that this attempt completely backfired on them, they are forced to pull back. In any case, besides my personal opinion on Spring (it is not so needed anymore), I will still stand clear from Spring, Springsource, and any other VC-funded-seemingly-open-source initiative awaiting their VC partners' new idea to spill money from their products. Ciao.

I was right here, open mouthed at the sheer wrongness and self-righteousness of some of the comments that were made. How is it a booby trap if they continue to offer the latest version for free, and free access to the source of every single version as always? How are you forced to pay anything to anybody? Please explain the sense of entitlement you have that is somehow violated by Spring choosing to focus releases on a single major revision? Who has to pay and why? No hypotheticals - who *actually* has to pay extra *right now* and why? So, you'll be steering clear of MySQL, ActiveMQ, Ubuntu - anyone that's come anywhere near any *evil* venture capitalists, right? And hey, why just the VC-funded ones? Surely the corporate backers are just as bad? After all - they've got lots of money and corporate interests to protect... Why not ditch everything from the Apache foundation - some of those people *get paid* for doing their work. Seeking to run a successful business off your hard work is inherently bad, right?

I was right here, open mouthed at the sheer wrongness and self-righteousness of some of the comments that were made.

Seriously, are you actually that surprised at the self-righteousness of some in the Java community over this? I certainly wasn't. -- Bill Burke JBoss, a division of Red hat http://bill.burkecentral.com

Seriously, are you actually that surprised at the self-righteousness of some in the Java community over this? I certainly wasn't.

So can you give us your version of things?

And so what? If there are no official releases, why would there be tags? What *exactly* are you so worried about? No-one's demanding you pay for anything or breaking your code or closing any source or refusing to release any new versions at all. Completely untrue. It's a move to push as many people as possible onto the latest stable codebase, thus minimising the amount of effort spent maintaining legacy code - something they'd previously done for free but which has become increasingly untenable. This is a *cost-cutting* measure, and a *focusing* of resource on the latest and greatest codebase. Here is a challenge. Give me a list of open source java libraries which have maintainance releases for all of their major versions in parallel, in perpetuity. About the best I can think of off the top of my head is Tomcat, which maintains both 6 and 5.5. The vast majority of projects expect to be able to release a major version, and end of life the previous iteration at roughly the same time. Why is it okay for, say, ActiveMQ or Hibernate to do that, but not Spring? The single genuine criticism was in arbitrarily time-limiting their maintenance offering rather than relating it to the actual release schedule. That's what this announcement addresses, a move which I think was inevitable.

No, first of all Spring stated that they would discontinue providing official maintenance releases to old branches after they had reached a certain age, except to paying customers....

False: Rod told that they would have not put tags for releases after 3 months in the public trunk.
Are you trying to convince me that putting tags in the svn for the community too is an expensive operation ?
Do you really think that it is easier to do it just on the private trunk instead of doing it on a unique trunk ?

Everybody can easily understand that this was simply a move (a very bad and unwise move indeed) to pull people toward the "paying" side.
I have nothing against the "paying" side: i am a redhat payer for example and "other stuff" payer but i do not want to be pulled on that side: it must be a decision of mine.

The reaction here and elsewhere has been, frankly, appalling and unprofessional.

I think it is clear to everybody where the unprofessional is.

+1

Everybody can easily understand that this was simply a move (a very bad and unwise move indeed) to pull people toward the "paying" side.

It surely was a move to pull people towards the paying side, but it was by no means an "evil" move as you screaming complainers seemed to imply. The reaction on theserverside was hysterical and totally disproportionate. And I won't even mention all of the comments by wannabe technologists that declare spring dead because they've found that other IOC containers exist. The feeling one gets from all this story, is that Spring is not that appealing to the kids that need a new technology in order to get excited, and they try to bash it as it represents the "establishment": I guess something positive normally comes from this kind of revolutionary attitude on the long run, but as of now this has only been pointless whimpering.

I think it is clear to everybody where the unprofessional is.

Of course.

Davide, your post cannot pass unnoticed.

move as you screaming complainers

Nobody ever screamed here. You will certainly notice that we - those rejected from your elite and highly intellectual establishment - were concerned about a move that would have introduced a lot of chaos in the "open edition" of Spring and a dangerous precedent for the open source community in general. TheServerSide is not the only website where people is complaining java.dzone.com is another. And, if you let me, why did Rod partially backed off from his initial policy? Just becase two, three whiners were "screamning" on TheServerSide? Or because he felt that the move could be countereffective?

And I won't even mention all of the comments by wannabe technologists that declare spring dead because they've found that other IOC containers exist.

Your Majesty and the Members of the Highly Intellectual Club(tm) of which you surely are one of the founding members forget to recall those who migrated from EJB to Spring because other ways of doing transactionality are now available; also those who moved from Struts to WebFlow, GWT, because "Strut sucks"; are they "wannabies" or simply smart people who move to the next best available technology? Aren't those wannabies (or masses, for you highly intellectual) those who decreeted Spring's success? Oh sorry,

Spring is not that appealing to the kids

- perhaps you may want to disclose us your age before using this "highly intellectual jargon(tm)"?

I avoided to answer you immediately because, before putting the fingers on the keyboard, i needed to take a veeery deep breath. But when i got calm again, i already saw that Alessandro simply used the right words to supply the right answer to your Majesty. cheers Paolo the kid

>1) first of all, SS tried to make money consciously "in the dishonest way";

No, first of all Spring stated that they would discontinue providing official maintenance releases to old branches after they had reached a certain age, except to paying customers.

That's not about making money as much as it is about focusing your energy in the correct place. Spring continues to grow, and it gets ever more expensive and wasteful to backport bugfixes into older, more divergent codebases. For an open source java library, saying "sorry - use the latest major release" is hardly an uncommon position. Note that a lot of projects would have just stopped maintaining an older branch without warning - you wouldn't know it until you went 6 months without a maintenance release, at which point you'd be told to upgrade to the latest major version. Spring have made the (apparantly oh so shocking) step of announcing publicly what they are going to do before they do it, and you criticise them for what - profiteering? Get a grip.


> 2) after that, they realized that the spring users are not monkeys but people with brain.

No, after that they got badmouthed incessently by doomsayers who seemed to think (wrongly) they were making you pay to use Spring, or (wrongly) closing the source - or those who seek every opportunity to bash Spring for whatever reason.

Now, rather than time-box the end of maintenance to older releases, they have tied it to the release of a new version. So there will *always* be a current version of Spring that is getting maintenance patches. This is in response to the (accurate) criticism that if they stop maintaining one branch after 3 months, but it takes them another year to elease a major version, their user base will stagnate waiting for bugfixes.

What they have done is absolutely correct, and entirely sensible. The reaction here and elsewhere has been, frankly, appalling and unprofessional.

+1 I thought the reaction to the first announcment was overblown. It was all about a delayed bug fix. No more. Take a look at GWT-EXT. They moved from LGPL to GPL and started charging. That's it. Spring said "Paying customers get the bug fixes first after three months, but you'll get the fixes in the newest release(of which we drop frequently), so as long as you are willing to stay current, EVERTYHING IS FREE." And that is worth that reaction? And now dozens of people who griped cannot even spare the two minutes to say "Thanks." They even apparently went the extra mile to create extra price points of support for smaller shops.