it's taking a frustratingly long time to sort out.
Hey, I've been pushing for that change for something like 3 years. Tell me about frustration! I actually spent some time yesterday getting an update about it all and there are some good folks (Managers in the Java group, Apache members who work inside of Sun as well as the Executive Committee and Project Management Office of the JCP) working out the details. I had a call about it again first thing this morning. Progress is being made! First thing that needs to happen is JSR 99 (the changes to the JSPA) need to be completed and ratified. Simultaneously, the terms of the Specification and TCK Licenses that Sun uses must be modified to reflect what's possible now. The 3-person committee that determines whether or not applicants to the support fund should qualify has to be created....I'm probably forgetting something but that's a pretty good list of what's happening.
(a) "Uplevels" is a word I actually use a lot...and I agree with this comment about what it means. Upleveled quality means not just better but quantifiably better. (b)"Productization" means something really specific in corporations, but I have to admit that a marketeer inside of Sun gave me the edit (I think I originally used "ship" which means the same as release). (c) "Pervasively liberated infrastructure code"...thanks for pointing out that translating that to "open source" is imprecise. Folks inside of Sun didn't like it that I used the word "liberated" because it sounded too political (they thought it implied a Free Software bias, when in fact we employ different licensing models as the situation dictates), but I kept it because what draws me personally to Free and Open Source is a desire to see technology move beyond "what's good enough to make us a profit". You're right on about the use of "infrastructure". I didn't mean ALL software, just the stuff everybody should be able to take for granted. I think customized software (which is the bulk of software actually created, and consultant programmers are mighty glad that's the case) will remain proprietary by its very nature. "Pervasively" just means "as widely as possible" to me.
About the language comment...at least you didn't think I sound too legalistic. I actually spend more time with lawyers than marketeers inside of Sun;-)
StarOffice 6.0 = ((OpenOffice.org - open source spell checking, thesarus) + (proprietary binaries for spell checking, thesarus, word perfect filters and some other small stuff + Sun branding)). OpenOffice.org is dually licensed (as recommended by RMS) under the LGPL and SISSL. Both are Free and Open Source licenses. The SISSL behaves like the BSD license as long as you aren't deviating from the standard(s) referenced in the license attachment, which in the case of OpenOffice.org are the XML filter DTDs. StarOffice doesn't deviate from those filters, so is not in violation of the SISSL. All we did was use the API to dynamically link in the same proprietary libraries we shipped with StarOffice 5.x. It is true that we plan to charge for StarOffice 6.0 (but NOT for software at OpenOffice.org). This is because we offer support for StarOffice 6.0, and because some corporations who want to use StarOffice have told us that they need to pay for software they use. It is allowable under Free and Open Source licenses to charge a fee for services and convenience distribution. This is what made it possible for Cygnus to charge for a CD of GNU tools that were available for free elsewhere. OpenOffice.org costs money to run. It seems reasonable to me that we be allowed to do essentially the same thing that RedHat does.
I promise to look into NeWS. I've actually heard nostalgia and desire to see it published expressed inside Sun as well, so there might be a chance.
Meanwhile, on the subject of EOL code in general. I didn't believe how expensive it could be to toss a dead project, either. We know that there will be questions from the world (even if we make it clear that we don't intend to answer them). We get "I know you're not taking questions, but I have this little teeny one", only hundreds of those. And then some Sun employee who remembers the project has to figure out the answer. People tend to think corporations have limitless resources, and that releasing dead code should be like recycling. Electonically scanning a codebase of, say, 8 million lines throws about 20K possible instances of 3rd party code...each of which needs to be researched by a lawyer or removed by an engineer. This is what happens when the pockets get deep. You get very cautious because you're required to by law (there are shareholders). And due diligence takes resources. And resources cost money. And money doesn't grow on trees...But hey, what if recycling code was "required by law" (as recycling CPUs is about to be). This could actually work, IMHO. Until then, traditional corporations will seldom altruistically liberate code, that was my point. You and I may agree they should, but I'm trying to explain what I see happening. Your best bet (this is a hint) is to organize so you can lobby effectively and promise to pick up maintenance of the code. Sun has done several EOL technology transfers on that basis.
Actually I *wasn't* talking about Richard. I had him come speak at Sun last year and he was great. He's commmitted to freedom and human decency. He's original, I'll grant you that. By some measures I'm too original for conservatives. My best friend's husband and I had to agree not to talk about politics because I upset him! The sentence you've exerpted is a reference to members of the Free and Open Source communities who flame or personally attack anything that moves in the guise of supporting the movement (boy, I can feel those flames heading towards me already). On literally every project I've worked on at Sun somebody asks the question, "Why are there so many unpleasant comments made?" The people those comments are directed at are people too. What I like about Open Source is that it has the potential to push technology ahead in the service of people, not corporations (or governments, or political parties, or races...). I know from my talks with RMS that we share that belief. I work for a large, for profit corporation and that makes me an easy target but I'd like to see the Free and Open Source Communities harness some of the vehemence with which they react to anything that smells of establishment towards building bridges.
Okay, let the flames begin!
Danese
On StarOffice scheduler, there have been extensive discussions about this at OpenOffice.org (see whiteboard) and I think they've about decided to use an Open Source project instead to try to replace that functionality. If I remember correctly that part of StarOffice wasn't written to be easy to maintain and we felt that there were better alternatives.
On large company versions of OpenOffice.org...what do you think the Compaq port to A64 is? How do we feel about it? Great (as long as they submit their bug fixes and changes to OpenOffice.org like any other porting project). If it broadens the ubiquity of the XML file formats and helps people get work done without paying outrageous money then its good. How do you feel about it?
Danese
There has been a fair amount of talk at Sun about this topic as well. That rant I did in one of the answers about the cost to prepare EOL code probably applies here. Might be surmountable if there was somebody willing and qualified (meaning, already understood the codebase, etc.) waiting to take over maintenance, because I generally try to keep Sun from just dumping code over a wall. No promises on outcome, but I would be willing to look into it.
Danese
Well, I admit I didn't catch the licensing change, thanks for pointing it out. I'm agreeing with you that JBoss should be certified. The issue about JBoss being open source is that proprietary implementations are done by SCSL licensees (and that license prohibits unfettered redistribution of incompatible code which can only be done for research purposes and only to other SCSL licensees). SCSL licensees can only make productive use of the code in compatible ways. I'm an Open Source advocate, and have said for a long time that Open Source implementations should be allowed. The JCP changes are finally going to do that.
Danese
On the point about Marketspeak...I'm definitely NOT a Marketeer. Marketeers wince when they hear me talk (especially if I'm pissed off about something). Writing for a forum this broad on behalf of a huge company may have had me using my $5 wordlist instead of the small change I usually throw around (and if I was hard to understand because of it, that wasn't the intention). Some of those word choices were shall we say influenced by what corporations like to call "the stakeholders" it is true. No harm meant, I promise.
On StarOffice...why do you think it's proprietary?
Danese
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I'm here. Its about what I expected. Did you want me to take note of anything in particular? Danese
it's taking a frustratingly long time to sort out. Hey, I've been pushing for that change for something like 3 years. Tell me about frustration! I actually spent some time yesterday getting an update about it all and there are some good folks (Managers in the Java group, Apache members who work inside of Sun as well as the Executive Committee and Project Management Office of the JCP) working out the details. I had a call about it again first thing this morning. Progress is being made! First thing that needs to happen is JSR 99 (the changes to the JSPA) need to be completed and ratified. Simultaneously, the terms of the Specification and TCK Licenses that Sun uses must be modified to reflect what's possible now. The 3-person committee that determines whether or not applicants to the support fund should qualify has to be created....I'm probably forgetting something but that's a pretty good list of what's happening.
(a) "Uplevels" is a word I actually use a lot...and I agree with this comment about what it means. Upleveled quality means not just better but quantifiably better. (b)"Productization" means something really specific in corporations, but I have to admit that a marketeer inside of Sun gave me the edit (I think I originally used "ship" which means the same as release). (c) "Pervasively liberated infrastructure code"...thanks for pointing out that translating that to "open source" is imprecise. Folks inside of Sun didn't like it that I used the word "liberated" because it sounded too political (they thought it implied a Free Software bias, when in fact we employ different licensing models as the situation dictates), but I kept it because what draws me personally to Free and Open Source is a desire to see technology move beyond "what's good enough to make us a profit". You're right on about the use of "infrastructure". I didn't mean ALL software, just the stuff everybody should be able to take for granted. I think customized software (which is the bulk of software actually created, and consultant programmers are mighty glad that's the case) will remain proprietary by its very nature. "Pervasively" just means "as widely as possible" to me.
About the language comment...at least you didn't think I sound too legalistic. I actually spend more time with lawyers than marketeers inside of Sun ;-)
StarOffice 6.0 = ((OpenOffice.org - open source spell checking, thesarus) + (proprietary binaries for spell checking, thesarus, word perfect filters and some other small stuff + Sun branding)). OpenOffice.org is dually licensed (as recommended by RMS) under the LGPL and SISSL. Both are Free and Open Source licenses. The SISSL behaves like the BSD license as long as you aren't deviating from the standard(s) referenced in the license attachment, which in the case of OpenOffice.org are the XML filter DTDs. StarOffice doesn't deviate from those filters, so is not in violation of the SISSL. All we did was use the API to dynamically link in the same proprietary libraries we shipped with StarOffice 5.x. It is true that we plan to charge for StarOffice 6.0 (but NOT for software at OpenOffice.org). This is because we offer support for StarOffice 6.0, and because some corporations who want to use StarOffice have told us that they need to pay for software they use. It is allowable under Free and Open Source licenses to charge a fee for services and convenience distribution. This is what made it possible for Cygnus to charge for a CD of GNU tools that were available for free elsewhere. OpenOffice.org costs money to run. It seems reasonable to me that we be allowed to do essentially the same thing that RedHat does.
I promise to look into NeWS. I've actually heard nostalgia and desire to see it published expressed inside Sun as well, so there might be a chance. Meanwhile, on the subject of EOL code in general. I didn't believe how expensive it could be to toss a dead project, either. We know that there will be questions from the world (even if we make it clear that we don't intend to answer them). We get "I know you're not taking questions, but I have this little teeny one", only hundreds of those. And then some Sun employee who remembers the project has to figure out the answer. People tend to think corporations have limitless resources, and that releasing dead code should be like recycling. Electonically scanning a codebase of, say, 8 million lines throws about 20K possible instances of 3rd party code...each of which needs to be researched by a lawyer or removed by an engineer. This is what happens when the pockets get deep. You get very cautious because you're required to by law (there are shareholders). And due diligence takes resources. And resources cost money. And money doesn't grow on trees...But hey, what if recycling code was "required by law" (as recycling CPUs is about to be). This could actually work, IMHO. Until then, traditional corporations will seldom altruistically liberate code, that was my point. You and I may agree they should, but I'm trying to explain what I see happening. Your best bet (this is a hint) is to organize so you can lobby effectively and promise to pick up maintenance of the code. Sun has done several EOL technology transfers on that basis.
Geez, you throw in a little irony its missed entirely. Danese
Actually I *wasn't* talking about Richard. I had him come speak at Sun last year and he was great. He's commmitted to freedom and human decency. He's original, I'll grant you that. By some measures I'm too original for conservatives. My best friend's husband and I had to agree not to talk about politics because I upset him! The sentence you've exerpted is a reference to members of the Free and Open Source communities who flame or personally attack anything that moves in the guise of supporting the movement (boy, I can feel those flames heading towards me already). On literally every project I've worked on at Sun somebody asks the question, "Why are there so many unpleasant comments made?" The people those comments are directed at are people too. What I like about Open Source is that it has the potential to push technology ahead in the service of people, not corporations (or governments, or political parties, or races...). I know from my talks with RMS that we share that belief. I work for a large, for profit corporation and that makes me an easy target but I'd like to see the Free and Open Source Communities harness some of the vehemence with which they react to anything that smells of establishment towards building bridges. Okay, let the flames begin! Danese
On StarOffice scheduler, there have been extensive discussions about this at OpenOffice.org (see whiteboard) and I think they've about decided to use an Open Source project instead to try to replace that functionality. If I remember correctly that part of StarOffice wasn't written to be easy to maintain and we felt that there were better alternatives. On large company versions of OpenOffice.org...what do you think the Compaq port to A64 is? How do we feel about it? Great (as long as they submit their bug fixes and changes to OpenOffice.org like any other porting project). If it broadens the ubiquity of the XML file formats and helps people get work done without paying outrageous money then its good. How do you feel about it? Danese
There has been a fair amount of talk at Sun about this topic as well. That rant I did in one of the answers about the cost to prepare EOL code probably applies here. Might be surmountable if there was somebody willing and qualified (meaning, already understood the codebase, etc.) waiting to take over maintenance, because I generally try to keep Sun from just dumping code over a wall. No promises on outcome, but I would be willing to look into it. Danese
Well, I admit I didn't catch the licensing change, thanks for pointing it out. I'm agreeing with you that JBoss should be certified. The issue about JBoss being open source is that proprietary implementations are done by SCSL licensees (and that license prohibits unfettered redistribution of incompatible code which can only be done for research purposes and only to other SCSL licensees). SCSL licensees can only make productive use of the code in compatible ways. I'm an Open Source advocate, and have said for a long time that Open Source implementations should be allowed. The JCP changes are finally going to do that. Danese
On the point about Marketspeak...I'm definitely NOT a Marketeer. Marketeers wince when they hear me talk (especially if I'm pissed off about something). Writing for a forum this broad on behalf of a huge company may have had me using my $5 wordlist instead of the small change I usually throw around (and if I was hard to understand because of it, that wasn't the intention). Some of those word choices were shall we say influenced by what corporations like to call "the stakeholders" it is true. No harm meant, I promise. On StarOffice...why do you think it's proprietary? Danese