Thinking of Hudson? Fork it, too!

Discussions

News: Thinking of Hudson? Fork it, too!

  1. Thinking of Hudson? Fork it, too! (12 messages)

    Oracle VP Ted Farrell has told the Hudson community that Oracle owns the Hudson trademark and will act appropriately to defend its rights. That's fine, but it's also time to fork Hudson for its own defense.

    java.net has been migrating lately (doing a general purge of projects in the process). Hudson has been part of that, although the project owner (Kohsuke Kawaguchi) considered doing what many others have done: move off of java.net and over to github.

    The decision had been made and announced; however, the Monday morning prior to the planned move to github, Mr. Farrell sent a message to the mailing list, saying that it had a representative whose purpose was to represent the silent majority of users, users who used Hudson while not voicing concerns or being visibly involved.

    Here're some selected parts from the message (which is worth reading in its entirety):

    For now, however, we are going to stay on the java.net infrastructure.  We believe it is important for hudson to stay connected with the rest of the the java community, as well as take advantage of some of the cool changes we will have coming to java.net.

    ...

    Because it is open source, we can't stop anybody from forking it.  We do however own the trademark to the name so you cannot use the name outside of the core community.  We acquired that as part of Sun.

    An anonymous source from Oracle (not authorized to speak on Oracle's behalf) suggested that Oracle does own the trademark (a question few seem to be asking):

    "It's all but certain. Under Sun, every project went under trademark evaluation and legal approval. I would be shocked if they didn't trademark that."

    This means that Oracle would in fact own the Hudson trademark, and Mr. Farrell's message to the Hudson community says that Oracle will defend its trademark aggressively, the same way it's defending its Java IP aggressively by suing Google over Android using what it says is its intellectual property.

    This is highly disingenuous, if you ask me. Oracle is acting evilly and selfishly, if only by allowing the community to act independently for a while, then stepping in visibly only when people don't play with its toys the way Oracle wants them to. As soon as someone bounces the ball in a direction Oracle doesn't like, Oracle steps in.

    This is yet another in a long string of PR mistakes. Winning the argument over Hudson is Pyrrhic in nature; it's a PR issue that really does nothing except warn future projects to not use Java just in case Oracle might want to get involved.

    OSX JVM? Oracle would have us believe that it knew Apple was going to make an announcement, and that they were ready to step up and deliver an officially-supported JVM for Mac. They just didn't bother to announce it for a few weeks.... riiiiiight. If they had no plan, and were caught offguard, that would be bad - but if they had a plan and still looked like they were caught offguard, that's be just plain stupid. I'm not sure which is worse.

    The JCP and the Java TCK? Gee, when Oracle didn't own Java, they voted to have the TCK opened and made available to Apache and others. Now, of course, they say the opposite. Maybe the vote back then was misinformed, or Oracle just didn't know the issues.

    Hudson's horribly useful, in my opinion; it's well-done, cute where it needs to be, functional and well-supported.

    What Oracle is doing to it is asserting ownership and positioning the sword of Damocles over every project that had anything to do with Java.

    The options for Hudson are simple: give in, or fork it. I would suggest forking it; that, too, is slightly Pyrrhic, in that most users will stick with Oracle's "official" product, but I'm not sure Oracle would understand any communique from the community besides a scorched-earth approach.

    And if you say anything on any thing that quotes Oracle or has anything to do with it? Be ready to attach a disclaimer, saying that what you say is your own and not theirs. Otherwise, they'll claim it.

    Threaded Messages (12)

  2. forking is perfectly viable[ Go to top ]

    Isn't that the whole point of open source. Even though I don't use hudson, seems like the best option is to fork it. There's plenty of room for an official Hudson and a fork. Why does it have to be bi-polar? I see no reason why a fork wouldn't be viable and take a different path.

  3. re: forking is perfectly viable[ Go to top ]

    Probably the fork will be harmful to Oracle in that the mass of valuable Hudson devs will move to the fork (since judging by the article, Oracle is going against their wishes). What value is there in a name, without the people who made it successful?

  4. Thinking of Hudson? Fork it, too![ Go to top ]

    I guess that's one of the risks of Open Source for corporations, your employee can build it on your dime, then make several thousand more dimes on his own time ;)

  5. Come Together[ Go to top ]

    I wish group can find resolution and come together.

  6. fork names[ Go to top ]

    I vote for Higgins or Benson.

  7. fork names[ Go to top ]

    I vote for Higgins or Benson.

     

    My vote is for Mr. Belvedere.

  8. fork names[ Go to top ]

    I like Watson. Too big blue?

  9. fork names[ Go to top ]

    I like Watson. Too big blue?

    Despite my natural affinity for my own surname, I'd vote for 'Hornet' if it's not taken:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Hornet

  10. fork names[ Go to top ]

    I suggest "Coleman" (from the 1983 classic movie, Trading Places). He was a cool butler...and in the end, made millions.

  11. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/03/oracle_doesnt_own_hudson/

    If this is true, what a bunch of bastards. They would have applied BECAUSE people talked about moving - and that would make Mr. Farrell ... I don't think I want to go there.

  12. Joe's soap box, take two[ Go to top ]

    Joe: This is highly disingenuous, if you ask me.

    Joe, you are grand-standing, which is quite different from someone asking you your opinion. Not only are you grand-standing, but you are doing so in a crass, insulting and childish manner:

    Joe: .. what a bunch of bastards.

    I can sense the level of discourse dropping to near-senate levels at this point.

    Joe Wilson: You lie!

    (@see http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/10/congressman-yells-lie-obama-speech/)

    Joe: .. Oracle will defend its trademark aggressively, the same way it's defending its Java IP aggressively by suing Google over Android using what it says is its intellectual property.

    Isn't Hudson a project that was started by Sun? (Since I don't know for sure myself, I'm asking. The story I heard a long time ago was that it was initially developed internally at Sun, and then opened up.) If so, why would it be any different for Oracle to protect the "Hudson" trademark than the "Java" trademark (since Java, like Hudson, is also contributed to by lots of people in the community)?

    Joe: Oracle is acting evilly and selfishly ..

    You are attributing human aspects to a business. Perhaps it would be wiser to describe Oracle's actions in business terms, since that is likely how the decisions are being made. For example, "Oracle is acting to protect its business interests .." would be a reasonable description. You may not agree with the decisions (and I apologize, because I hadn't realized that you were a spokesperson for the Hudson development team), but the Oracle decision shouldn't be surprising from the point of view of managing the various properties from the acquisition that have value (which is a fiduciary responsibility).

    Joe: OSX JVM? Oracle would have us believe that it knew Apple was going to make an announcement, and that they were ready to step up and deliver an officially-supported JVM for Mac. They just didn't bother to announce it for a few weeks.... riiiiiight.

    The talks with Apple about joining OpenJDK were already well underway before Apple's Java-deprecation announcement; the announcement itself caught us completely by surprise. However, we were already planning to work with Apple on OpenJDK, and their decision to join and donate their work did come weeks before the public announcement. I'm sorry that there isn't more of a conspiracy behind it .. at least not the one you're trying to paint.

    Joe: The JCP and the Java TCK? Gee, when Oracle didn't own Java, they voted to have the TCK opened and made available to Apache and others. Now, of course, they say the opposite.

    Yes, Oracle (like every other JCP member) was pushing Sun to license the TCK to Apache, and Oracle (like every other JCP member) was blocking Java 7 until that happened. Yes, when we acquired Sun, we inherited some of the "catch-22" decisions that they were wrestling with as well. Nonetheless, we are actively working to resolve the remaining issues with Apache in a positive and constructive manner.

    Positive and constructive. Novel concepts, eh?

    Peace,

    Cameron Purdy | Oracle Coherence

    http://coherence.oracle.com/

  13. My response[ Go to top ]

    Cameron, I tried to respond on TSS, but it was having a technical issue when I tried.

    I responded on my blog: http://www.enigmastation.com/?p=544

    I'm sorry if you're offended in any way by how I feel about these issues; you're welcome to address them publicly (as you've done in some fashion here.) In fact, more than anything else, that's why I'm trying to be public about it: so you can respond and clear up the air for everyone.

    And no, I'm not a spokesman for Hudson in any way.