db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <de...@segel.com>
Subject RE: How Open Source Works (was Re: Spawning Data on Multiple Directories)
Date Fri, 05 May 2006 13:20:04 GMT
Jean,

In IBM speak, what is your value add proposition?

Clearly, you admit that you've overstated your position on how Open Source
works and even when the topic is limited scope, to deal specifically with
Apache's Open Source world, you still fail to grasp the significance of Sun
and IBM's involvement. You seem to focus on the mechanics of posting rather
than the topic itself. It's very disappointing. 

Yet I digress.

Let's be clear.
As posted earlier in this thread, Commercial and Open Source are *not*
mutually exclusive concepts. One concept deals with making money, the other
concept deals with the control of intellectual property rights.

Thus, due to IBM and Sun's reselling of support services, and their
commitment to maintain a single code stream, Derby has become a "commercial"
product.

Under Apache, there are no IP rights withheld from the public. Once
published, Apache code has a very liberal use and re-license policy. So much
so, in an effort to shield Apache from potential litigation, all
contributors agree to indemnify Apache. (I won't bore you with contractual
issues surrounding software development... )

Thus, any involvement of IBM and Sun are going to be limited in scope in
order to avoid the potential of "leakage" of patented and/or licensed IP. It
appears that their scope is limited to "bug fixes" only.

You are correct that this is the user thread. Sort of a "catch all" for all
the questions that users of Derby may have. Yet when a topic questions IBM
or Sun's involvement in Derby, you seem to jump in and try to act as a gate
keeper. (Seems ironic that Stanley's WWD is not off topic in your eyes...
;-)

Yet, when user's constantly ask for features that are not currently
implemented in Derby, they are all pointed to creating a Jira entry. It is
only when someone points out that there needs to be a redesign of Derby to
allow for a systematic approach or to discuss the ramifications of these
requested mods that you step in and try to "control" the discussion.

The simple fact is that because this topic of discussion is at a high level,
it is not appropriate to occur on the developer's list. This discussion is
more conceptual in nature along with the politics of Apache and the
commercialization of Derby.

Thus, it is appropriate to have some level of discussion as to the pros and
cons regarding "feature requests" that many users have repeatedly asked for.



Keeping on topic in both the older thread and this new "thread"...

Sun and IBM both have the resources along with a potential economic gain in
advancing Derby. Therefore it is appropriate to ask them to "step up to the
plate" and donate resources to an effort to restructure Derby's framework.
The amount of work, exceeds that of a simple patch or fix and then
regression testing. (Which they already do...)


So, why won't they step up? 

To a couple of posters... While there is "modular", this is different from
the term "modular" when used in context of "plug n play". Also if you take
the approach of enhancing Derby that all you want is a "quick fix" to solve
an immediate issue, the odds are that within 1 - 2 generations, Derby will
become a kludge.

The sad truth is that Open Source development must also follow the same
process of code development in commercial products. 

While Rodrigo asked for what he thought was a simple enhancement, there is
much more to this issue. Even though this is open source, you can not become
myopic and lose the overall perspective....


But hey! What do I know? ;-)

-Gumby

PS.

Jean,
I know your employment agreement with IBM. Had you been offered a retention
package, you would have had to sign an even more restrictive agreement.
While portions of said agreement would be unenforceable under Californian
law, the IP portion would be. (And this is true of any other IBM employee)

Therefore, as IBM employees, you are limited in your Open Source
involvement. Any IP that you may create for Derby in the form of an
enhancement would need to be vetted by IBM for two reasons. 1) To ensure
that it does not conflict with existing IP. 2) To ensure that the IP could
not be retained, giving IBM competitive advantage.
(Hint: Why do you think I never took a development role within IBM? ;-)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean T. Anderson [mailto:jta@bristowhill.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 3:48 PM
> To: Derby Discussion
> Subject: Re: How Open Source Works (was Re: Spawning Data on Multiple
> Directories)
> 
> derby@segel.com wrote:
> > Jean,
> >
> > Your subject line is a tad dangerous.
> 
> A better subject would have been "How Open Source Works at Apache". In
> fact, the Derby web site uses "How Development Works at Apache":
> 
> http://db.apache.org/derby/derby_comm.html#Understand+How+Development+Work
> s+at+Apache
> 
> In any event, it's important to change the subject to move the off topic
> discussion out of the original thread. See that tip for mail list
> participation and more at:
> 
> http://www.apache.org/dev/contrib-email-tips.html
> 
> The derby-user list is for users to obtain (and exchange) help using the
> product -- it isn't the right place for discussions about product
> restructuring. Feel free to raise development-related proposals on
> derby-dev@db.apache.org -- that's where the development discussions and
> decisions get made by *all* development participants in the Derby
> community.
> 
> regards,
> 
>  -jean
> 
> <snip>



Mime
View raw message