cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <stef...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Infozone
Date Wed, 07 Jun 2000 19:32:39 GMT
Falko Braeutigam wrote:
> 
> I Cc: this to the Infozone list.
> 
> On Tue, 06 Jun 2000, you wrote:
> > Falko Braeutigam wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Neeme and all,
> > >
> > > from time to time the ozoneXML/Infozone/Prowler thing was mentioned here in
the
> > > Cocoon list. Now I would like to announce the official release of the Infozone
> > > site at http://infozone-group.org.
> > >
> > > The Infozone project is an open initiative for the creation of an open source,
> > > Java and XML based framework of components that allows programmers to create
> > > complex Enterprise Information Portal applications.
> > >
> > > Check it out. All help is welcome ;)
> >
> > Falko,
> >
> > while I love that something like this happened, I'm a little concerned
> > about the license you guys developped. It's a hybrid between GPL and
> > BSD, contains both the BSD adversiting clause and GPL virality.
> >
> > The ASF board of members recently ruled that no GPL/LGPL code can be
> > distributed with any of the Apache projects. Sure, we are allowed (and
> > suggested) to collaborate to other OSS communities that have different
> > licenses, but the users will have to download the other packages
> > themselves and connect the two.
> >
> > I'm thinking of using Prowler as CMS under Cocoon, of course.
> >
> > It would be awesome to be able to distribute such a thing together with
> > Cocoon or Jetspeed, creating a sort of full-blown distribution.... but
> > the license restrictions will force us to follow other ways.
> I know. Although I like simple BSD style licenses I explicitely decided to use
> (L)GPL. The combination of LGPL for API packages and GPL for core packages
> is meant to allow people to use Infozone without the need to put their code
> under any special license *and* forces developers, especially companies, to
> contribute their enhancements. Many companies are interested in the
> Infozone thing. The most of them will just use it but the more they become
> familiar with it the more they are able to modify/enhance it to meet their
> needs. I don't see a reason why we shouldn't force them to contribute their
> code. Is there any?

No, but there are better ways to enforce this, IMO.

Companies that are interested in OSS don't do this because it's cheaper
than buying software. In fact, many times it's not. But because the
development process is more scalable then anything they can afford to
do. New features they add are debugged and maintained by others.

RMS wrote invented the GPL in a time when companies didn't know this and
there was a good chance of companies selling bits as their own, thus
"stealing" them from the original authors.

But this doesn't include ISP that _use_ modified GPL software without
giving anything back. Why is this acceptable? The GPL would hurt Apache
on the ISP/ASP market.

Instead of forcing companies to release their code, we force them to
give back credits to who deserves it.

This is _far_ more effective.

Sure, a company could take Cocoon and sell it, add stuff and not giving
them away.... but they have to maintain that code forever, while
donating it back would lower their expenses and benefit themselves too:
the service business is far more profitable than selling packaged
software.

IBM makes money on services and hardware, not software. Software is a
commodity for them. Same for Sun.... but you won't see Oracle or
Microsoft in the open source business for a long time, and for sure,
they'll do nothing with GNU.

The ASF would _love_ if Microsoft took Apache and created IIS 6.0 over
it. We would simply love it. Why? because they would have to admit they
can't do any better. They will simply state "Apache rules". They could
create win2k guis and all a bunch of DCOM stuff on top and frontpage
extentions and sell that. And they might even get a market for this, but
it's good.

Everybody else benefits because Apache wold have 90% of the market and
there will always be one and only one HTTP protocol.

The same would be said for XML and Java: when you want something to
become standard, you have to make it open sourced. That's the rule. But
you have to allow _everyone_ to be able to do whatever they want to it.

What happens is that it's very likely they will contribute back because
if they don't:

1) the community will ignore them.
2) their expenses will grow.
3) they have to sell something that is freely available.
4) they expenses will exponentially grow to keep up with the OSS
scalability.

So, if I had to choose between GPL and BSD, I'd choose BSD because, no
matter what, you have your name on your code and if the sell your bits,
they are advertising you. But also because companies will contribute
back because it's more politically resonable to do, because they can
always back off if they don't like it anymore (which makes managers more
confortable with their decisions).

GPL ignores companies, considers them evil and tries to protect
individuals from them.

BSD treats everybody equal, both companies and individuals and protects
credits as the currency of open development.

As a side note, the most effective (per market share) open source
software available is not GPL-ed (Apache, Sendmail, Bind, Perl, PHP).

> > Also, I would like to ask you (note: just personal curiosity!) why you
> > felt the need to create yet another open source group instead of merging
> > efforts with us or the FSF.
> 
> The are to many GNU projects. They all share the same license but that's all
> about it.

Right.
 
> Just personal curiosity: do you think there is a chance to get Infozone under
> the Apache umbrella? 

Technologically? sure. Legally? no, the ASF ruled out submission of
(l)GPL-ed code to avoid possible GPL infection.

> I was assuming that there is no such chance...

Why?

In fact, I recently received a proposal for submission of a lightweight
memory-only XML search engine that is blazingly fast (6ms/query on
250000 1k files) that I'll propose for adoption to the PMC.

I was the one that asked James Tauber to donate FOP to us.

And I was thinking to propose the adoption of JetSpeed in xml.apache.org
since the ASF decided to slowly shut-down java.apache.org (because of
copyright issues on the "java" trademark)

It would make _perfect_ sense to have an XML database/content management
system under the Apache XML umbrella. I would love this and would
trigger much innovation since it could speed up integration with other
apache projects by orders of magnitude.

For example, integrating Tomcat and Slide (the webdav servlet) with such
a thing would be totally cool, also be able to present the content using
Cocoon or having JetSpeed use it as repository instead of relational
databases. Totally cool.

It is unfortunate we didn't express this sooner... but maybe it's not
too late to change your minds on the licensing issues :-) 

Besides, the Apache brand would protect you no matter what.

If you'd like to explore possibilities further, you just have to tell
me.

-- 
Stefano Mazzocchi      One must still have chaos in oneself to be
                          able to give birth to a dancing star.
<stefano@apache.org>                             Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 Missed us in Orlando? Make it up with ApacheCON Europe in London!
------------------------- http://ApacheCon.Com ---------------------


Mime
View raw message