You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@geronimo.apache.org by Lajos <la...@galatea.com> on 2004/12/14 20:40:15 UTC
JavaWorld Article and Certification Claims
Hi y'all -
I'm engaged in a bit of argument on my article for JavaWorld on
Geronimo. I said that Geronimo will be (I should have said wants to be)
the first open source J2EE 1.4 certified application server. JBoss has
complained to JavaWorld, saying that they are already the first. In
fact, I don't consider JBoss open source like Geronimo. JBoss being open
source is like Solaris 10 being open source - it is two different
models. I think the distinction is not only important, it is vital. I
don't like the idea of major corporations being able to coopt the term
open source as a marketing ploy. It is dangerous for the open source
community and takes us back to the reason why open source got started in
the first place.
While I won't completely retract my statement in my article (I'll change
"will be" to "hopes to be"), I'd be interested in seeing if anyone else
agrees with my position or even sees the problem I'm pointing out.
Regards,
Lajos
--
Lajos Moczar
----------------------------------------
Open Source Support, Consulting and Training
----------------------------------------
Tomcat Unleashed
(www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0672326361)
Cocoon Developer's Handbook
(www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0672322579)
_ _____
/ \ /
/___\ /
/ \ /____
http://www.galatea.com -- powered by AzSSL
Re: JavaWorld Article and Certification Claims
Posted by toby cabot <to...@caboteria.org>.
Jboss is licensed under the LGPL, and the LGPL is an OSI certified
license[1] as well as a Free Software license[2]. So while the term
"open source" means different things to different people I'd claim
that Jboss is "open source" using a very common definition of the
term.
regards,
Toby
P.S. Does anyone else find this talk about corporations co-opting the
open source process to be ironic? After all, the term "open source"
was invented to water down the idea of Free Software so it would be
more palatable to corporations. And whether you prefer the LGPL or
the Apache License, it's a point of fact that the Apache License is
much more permissable than the LGPL is. Let's say I'm a company and
I'd like to build a product around an open source application server.
Let's say that I'd prefer to take from the community but give nothing
back. I'd be allowed to do that with an Apache-licensed project but
not an LGPL project, so which license protects the community better?
Note that I'm not advocating on behalf of either license, I think that
both are useful. I'm just saying that the Apache license is much more
business-friendly than the LGPL (which is more business-friendly than
the GPL).
[1] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/
[2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
Re: JavaWorld Article and Certification Claims
Posted by Mark McClellan <ma...@gmail.com>.
Lajos,
I'm totally unqualified to answer your question, but here goes....
I think the porblem is summed in your inital email. "I don't consider
JBoss open source like Geronimo". Strickly your opinion. Make the
correction as requested and add a sidebar to the article that explains
the main differences between the lgpl and the apache license.
Mark
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:04:42 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Dec 14, 2004, at 2:40 PM, Lajos wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi y'all -
> >
> > I'm engaged in a bit of argument on my article for JavaWorld on
> > Geronimo. I said that Geronimo will be (I should have said wants to
> > be) the first open source J2EE 1.4 certified application server. JBoss
> > has complained to JavaWorld, saying that they are already the first.
> > In fact, I don't consider JBoss open source like Geronimo. JBoss being
> > open source is like Solaris 10 being open source - it is two different
> > models. I think the distinction is not only important, it is vital. I
> > don't like the idea of major corporations being able to coopt the term
> > open source as a marketing ploy. It is dangerous for the open source
> > community and takes us back to the reason why open source got started
> > in the first place.
> >
> > While I won't completely retract my statement in my article (I'll
> > change "will be" to "hopes to be"), I'd be interested in seeing if
> > anyone else agrees with my position or even sees the problem I'm
> > pointing out.
>
> Lajos,
>
> I think that you are wandering into a minefield that has no upside for
> you. Let it go - JBoss claims that they have a certified J2EE 1.4
> implementation (we'll take their word for it...), and as the LGPL is
> considered an open source license by the OSI, that's that. I
> personally think that the LGPL has problems, and violates #10 of the
> OSI requirements having to do w/ technology, but that's not JBoss'
> fault.
>
> Anyway, if I were you, I wouldn't blemish your otherwise good work with
> this - it might distract from the real message of stability and
> usability of Geronimo.
>
> I'd also drop the mention of the recent exchange about the "JBoss
> letter". We've answered the questions and would like to see the issue
> put behind both communities, as I for one think that it's a net
> negative for open source in general.
>
> Do what you think is best, but again, if I were you, I'd focus on the
> main message of how good and useful Geronimo is. The "market", so to
> speak, will take care of the rest... :)
>
> Nice job.
>
> geir
>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Lajos
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> > Lajos Moczar
> > ----------------------------------------
> > Open Source Support, Consulting and Training
> > ----------------------------------------
> > Tomcat Unleashed
> > (www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0672326361)
> >
> > Cocoon Developer's Handbook
> > (www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0672322579)
> >
> > _ _____
> > / \ /
> > /___\ /
> > / \ /____
> >
> > http://www.galatea.com -- powered by AzSSL
> >
> >
> >
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
>
>
Re: JavaWorld Article and Certification Claims
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Dec 14, 2004, at 2:40 PM, Lajos wrote:
>
> Hi y'all -
>
> I'm engaged in a bit of argument on my article for JavaWorld on
> Geronimo. I said that Geronimo will be (I should have said wants to
> be) the first open source J2EE 1.4 certified application server. JBoss
> has complained to JavaWorld, saying that they are already the first.
> In fact, I don't consider JBoss open source like Geronimo. JBoss being
> open source is like Solaris 10 being open source - it is two different
> models. I think the distinction is not only important, it is vital. I
> don't like the idea of major corporations being able to coopt the term
> open source as a marketing ploy. It is dangerous for the open source
> community and takes us back to the reason why open source got started
> in the first place.
>
> While I won't completely retract my statement in my article (I'll
> change "will be" to "hopes to be"), I'd be interested in seeing if
> anyone else agrees with my position or even sees the problem I'm
> pointing out.
Lajos,
I think that you are wandering into a minefield that has no upside for
you. Let it go - JBoss claims that they have a certified J2EE 1.4
implementation (we'll take their word for it...), and as the LGPL is
considered an open source license by the OSI, that's that. I
personally think that the LGPL has problems, and violates #10 of the
OSI requirements having to do w/ technology, but that's not JBoss'
fault.
Anyway, if I were you, I wouldn't blemish your otherwise good work with
this - it might distract from the real message of stability and
usability of Geronimo.
I'd also drop the mention of the recent exchange about the "JBoss
letter". We've answered the questions and would like to see the issue
put behind both communities, as I for one think that it's a net
negative for open source in general.
Do what you think is best, but again, if I were you, I'd focus on the
main message of how good and useful Geronimo is. The "market", so to
speak, will take care of the rest... :)
Nice job.
geir
>
> Regards,
>
> Lajos
>
> --
>
>
>
> Lajos Moczar
> ----------------------------------------
> Open Source Support, Consulting and Training
> ----------------------------------------
> Tomcat Unleashed
> (www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0672326361)
>
> Cocoon Developer's Handbook
> (www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0672322579)
>
> _ _____
> / \ /
> /___\ /
> / \ /____
>
> http://www.galatea.com -- powered by AzSSL
>
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: JavaWorld Article and Certification Claims
Posted by "Preston L. Bannister" <pr...@bannister.us>.
I think what you wanted to say was:
When released, Geronimo will be the first J2EE-certified
*/unrestricted/* open source server.
The summary line is sufficiently accurate - as both JBoss and GPL try to
apply restrictions of various forms. This I believe is more-or-less the
essence of the issue, and why the Apache License is preferable.
You can elaborate within the body of the article - preferably at the
very end to avoid confusing readers up front sometimes subtle issues.
You might want a short paragraph describing why the Apache License is
preferable for businesses to GPL, LGPL, or the JBoss license (and
trademarks).
As it stands in the article
<http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-12-2004/jw-1213-geronimo.html>
your summary line *is* inaccurate :).
Chris Dodunski wrote:
>Hi Lajos,
>
>Perhaps you could elaborate, and write that Geronimo aims to be the first
>certified J2EE server, and the first genuine open source BSD licensed J2EE
>server (I haven't read your article). JBoss is licensed under the more
>restrictive LGPL license.
>
>It's unfortunate that JBoss has felt the need to attack Geronimo, but
>understandable. On the one hand JBoss has benefited hugely from Apache's
>presence, but on the other hand Geronimo looks set to take the puff out of
>JBoss's sails.
>
>Chris.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lajos [mailto:lajos@galatea.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, 15 December 2004 8:40 a.m.
>To: user@geronimo.apache.org
>Subject: JavaWorld Article and Certification Claims
>
>
>Hi y'all -
>
>I'm engaged in a bit of argument on my article for JavaWorld on
>Geronimo. I said that Geronimo will be (I should have said wants to be)
>the first open source J2EE 1.4 certified application server. JBoss has
>complained to JavaWorld, saying that they are already the first. In
>fact, I don't consider JBoss open source like Geronimo. JBoss being open
>source is like Solaris 10 being open source - it is two different
>models. I think the distinction is not only important, it is vital. I
>don't like the idea of major corporations being able to coopt the term
>open source as a marketing ploy. It is dangerous for the open source
>community and takes us back to the reason why open source got started in
>the first place.
>
>While I won't completely retract my statement in my article (I'll change
>"will be" to "hopes to be"), I'd be interested in seeing if anyone else
>agrees with my position or even sees the problem I'm pointing out.
>
>Regards,
>
>Lajos
>
>
>
--
Preston L. Bannister
preston@bannister.us <ma...@bannister.us>
http://bannister.us/preston.bannister/
pbannister on Yahoo Messenger
Phone: 949.588.0872
RE: JavaWorld Article and Certification Claims
Posted by Chris Dodunski <Ch...@clear.net.nz>.
Hi Lajos,
Perhaps you could elaborate, and write that Geronimo aims to be the first
certified J2EE server, and the first genuine open source BSD licensed J2EE
server (I haven't read your article). JBoss is licensed under the more
restrictive LGPL license.
It's unfortunate that JBoss has felt the need to attack Geronimo, but
understandable. On the one hand JBoss has benefited hugely from Apache's
presence, but on the other hand Geronimo looks set to take the puff out of
JBoss's sails.
Chris.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lajos [mailto:lajos@galatea.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 15 December 2004 8:40 a.m.
To: user@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: JavaWorld Article and Certification Claims
Hi y'all -
I'm engaged in a bit of argument on my article for JavaWorld on
Geronimo. I said that Geronimo will be (I should have said wants to be)
the first open source J2EE 1.4 certified application server. JBoss has
complained to JavaWorld, saying that they are already the first. In
fact, I don't consider JBoss open source like Geronimo. JBoss being open
source is like Solaris 10 being open source - it is two different
models. I think the distinction is not only important, it is vital. I
don't like the idea of major corporations being able to coopt the term
open source as a marketing ploy. It is dangerous for the open source
community and takes us back to the reason why open source got started in
the first place.
While I won't completely retract my statement in my article (I'll change
"will be" to "hopes to be"), I'd be interested in seeing if anyone else
agrees with my position or even sees the problem I'm pointing out.
Regards,
Lajos
--
Lajos Moczar
----------------------------------------
Open Source Support, Consulting and Training
----------------------------------------
Tomcat Unleashed
(www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0672326361)
Cocoon Developer's Handbook
(www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0672322579)
_ _____
/ \ /
/___\ /
/ \ /____
http://www.galatea.com -- powered by AzSSL