ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <>
Subject Re: Updated design docs
Date Mon, 15 Jan 2001 03:49:05 GMT
At 07:30  14/1/01 -0800, James Duncan Davidson wrote:
>However, also along the way, I've done a lot of thinking about what it means
>to take code open source -- what it means, and why people should do it. If,
>as you and others have said or implied, when somebody open sources code they
>should just walk away from it and never care about it again -- then what's
>the motive? 

you did walk away - what was your motive? Then you came back and asked
everyone else who had made ant what it is to walk away. So what would be
the motive of anyone ever working with you again? 

If your primary motive is ego feeding then then you will fail. Look through
history and you will see that these people generally induce forks and
eventually end up with people treating as the jokes they are. I get the
impression that a lot of Apache people came from BSD background ?? if so
look at their history and why these projects were initially created. The
original guy wanted authoritative control - he got it and lost the
community. If thats what you want then good luck - you are going to need it.

>Why should anybody do that? How on earth can we talk
>corporations into open sourcing their code if we plan on shutting them
>completely out? 

corporations are not motivated by ego - they are in the game to make money.
Buisnesses primarily opensource to reduce costs or to increase income in
some form. There are exceptions - especially with the "opensource
revolution" going on but buisnesses are not motivated by same things people

>It's this attitude or perception that, in major part, has *kept* people that
>can make decisions about making technologies that people want to see open
>sourced from making that decision. Tell me, why should Sun open source Java
>if the open source community is going to flip them the finger? 

err - so not bowing down and worshipping suns every motive and actually
thinking for oneself is equivelent to flipping the finger ? Interesting
thought process.

Sun will opensource the product if it is made to appear more lucrative to
do so. They are a company pure and simple. 

Would there be forks? undoubtably. 
Will they get free research? sure.
Will they get free maintanence? yep.
Will they get new tools to dominate the market? perhaps. I guess this is
major sticking point - currently the JCP is more productive than an
opensource process could be. With a few exceptions opensource thrives in
the case
* good ideas
* bad code
* open participation and extensible

So should java be opensource'd according to the above? Not really - no. 

Howevere there are other good reasons for opensourcing under a free license
(MIT/BSD/APL and possibly MPL). 
* market penetration
* advertising
* etc

To do this they would have to make sure they established their revenue
stream - which is I guess what there doing with their -
* pay us mega $$ to get verified approach
* pay us mega $$ to use trademark
* sell services etc

and they have to make sure that the majority of community won't fork (which
is almost a reality now).

>Let me put this a different way: Many people, myself included, disagree
>quite a bit with Linus for his views on how threads should be (or shouldn't
>be) in Linux. I don't agree with what he's done there. I've said so -- and
>that's about as far as it goes. If he doesn't agree with me fine. So be it.
>If I care strongly enough, then I guess I should go see if there is a
>different kernel to use that'll do what I want it to do.

right. But if the small core of developers all disagreed with Linus then
how long do you think he would still be head maintainer?

>What do I want? An Ant that is simple, straightforward, and solves a few
>problems along the way. I want that core simple idea that obviously so many
>people liked to be fully solidified. This doesn't mean that other ideas
>aren't valid or good, but an aggregation of ideas isn't necessarily any
>better than just a good implementation of the original idea. What should we
>do then? 

Simple - use case. Who uses it, would use it and how. We identify and
prioritize use cases and then design accordingly.

>And why shouldn't I be able to argue for what I want?

argue all you want (withing reason). But gee - you were caught lieing on a
public mailing list whilst attacking another proposal - how the hell do you
expect for people to take you seriously. You still develope your ideas off
apache and for intents and purposes ignore the input of ant-dev. How can
people not be suspicious?



| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
|              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |

View raw message