velocity-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jon Stevens <>
Subject Re: Velocity, WebMacro, and the future
Date Sat, 26 Aug 2000 08:14:06 GMT
Wow Justin, I just keep repeating the same things over and over and over to
you and you continue not to listen. Here is yet another go around of the
repeat for one last time...

on 8/25/2000 11:00 PM, "Justin Wells" <> wrote:

> I looked at Velocity and I see that you've got it up to about where WM
> was at version 0.30, prior to the first release. Not bad for three weeks
> of work, you've obviously got some competent people working on it. You
> have a long way to go with it though, and all of that work will be
> repeating things I've done with WebMacro.

Yes. All that hard work is repeating things you have done with WebMacro. The
point is to come up with a clone that is available under a non-restrictive
license and isn't encumbered with the baggage that WebMacro carries (which
includes you at this point).

I would also like to go on to say that while you may be ahead in performance
for a short time (mainly because you have caching), you are not ahead in the
parser. There are several things that the Velocity parser is light years
ahead of WebMacro's parser on.

> You should all know that I've worked very hard over the last six months
> to create an open source license that I believed would be better than
> both the MPL and the Apache license, but very much in the same spirit.
> It was intended to be a better license for Java programs than the MPL,
> and one that was simple and easy for average developers to read.

I'm sorry, there isn't anything better than the Apache License as far as I'm
concerned other than maybe the Artistic one (or not one at all). Note that
I'm not counting the warranty disclaimer stuff which you pointed out has
issues in Canada.

> The ASF and Jon have had many concerns with this license over time, but
> I've worked quite hard to remove everything from it that was a concern.
> So far as I know, all of those concerns have been addressed. It was my
> intention to fix any concerns that remained.

The fact that you don't give credit to the rest of the people who also
worked hard to improve your license really bothers me. Also, some of the
stuff that we had to remove from your license was seriously misconstrued and
clearly states your intentions of trying to control the source code. That in
itself scares me because I really don't trust that your license is trying to
do something nasty that might be hidden within it. A lot of what your
license does is very confusing from the point of view that it locks things
down and then opens things up later. That creates a lot of questionable
situations and is exactly one of the problems that the GPL is filled with.

Lastly, I will continue to repeat to you that the ASF is not interested in
the SPL at all and will not dedicate the resources necessary to approve your
license. This is not my decision, this came from the head of the ASF, Roy.
There really is no benefit in approving the SPL given that your software was
so easy to clone.

> However, I'm an extremely busy person and I guess I was too slow in
> seeing this process pushed through to completion.

WRONG! Again, the problem was the fact that you gave me a completely absurd
requirement. Let me quote your private email since you don't seem to be
listening to me at all.

Justin said:
> OK, here's a challenge for you. I will put it under a Canadian-ized version
> of one of those licenses if you (hopefully with the help of other apache and
> collab people) convince to use WebMacro. That's not
> as far fetched as it sounds, they've been evaluating it. Having
> Altavista use WM would be worth a lot to me.

I responded:
> I would love to spend a few hours either emailing or talking with the people
> at and do my best to try to convince them that WebMacro is a
> good solution for them. Feel free to introduce them to me.
> However, I will NOT agree towards making the license MPL a condition that they
> choose or do not choose to use WM especially since their final decision is out
> of both of our control. That just is not a fair condition.
> You either change the license it on your own or you don't change it at all.
> Period.

Justin responded:
> I would compromise and MPL it if doing so got WM onto some site
> like AltaVista, otherwise I want to continue to act according to
> my beliefs.

That is the most damaging thing of our entire 5 months of conversations and
I'm going to call you on it.

> I still believe in
> the SPL, but in the meantime it's obvious I should have provided you
> all with an alternative until the SPL is ready for prime time.
> I apologize for that.

No, what you should apologize for is your absurd requirement that I help you
get Altavista to use your software in return for an MPL license.

I will repeat to you again that no matter how much effort you put into your
SPL, the ASF is not going to accept it. Roy already told you this and for
some reason you seem to continue to completely ignore that fact.
> There's no doubt that my slowness has resulted in this fork in WM. I
> want to say that it was honestly because I've been busy. If I'd known
> you were so intent on forking, I would have MPL'd it for you prior to
> now. I didn't realize how pressing your needs were I guess, and I'm
> sorry for that too.

Bullshit. The reason for the fork had nothing to do with the SPL, it had to
do with your stupid requirement for Up until you started
playing stupid games with me, I was willing to work with you towards making
things happen with your license. As you can see above, I even gave you the
chance to really define what you meant by getting to use your
software. You had your chance and you decided to screw it up by playing
games. Not cool.

> I admit this all pissed me off at first. But I'm not really capable of
> holding grudges so I'm not pissed off anymore. Instead I am interested
> in doing whatever it takes to mend the fences and bring everyone back
> under a common source tree.

Whatever it takes? Ok. I will vote +1 to include you as a developer for
Velocity so that you can kill WebMacro. Sounds perfect to me? How about the
rest of you?

> There's no way that we could bring Velocity up to where WebMacro is
> in short order. It's got too far to go, and I have pressing deadlines
> with respect to WM. We're rolling WM out on one of the largest sites
> on the net soon, and I just can't throw that all away to go and work
> on Velocity--it's a good start, but only a fraction of the way to
> where WebMacro is now.

I don't agree with that at all. Velocity is working just fine and is quite
functional as is.

> Later this evening I am going to release a snapshot of WebMacro that
> has a huge performance gain over the previous snapshot. My feeling
> these days is that WM has a theoretical performance advantage over
> JSP, and if it isn't already faster than JSP, it will be soon. I
> intend to make WebMacro the highest performance page generation
> system that there is--so that it can work under great tools like
> Turbine to give us all an edge over the non-Java world.
> The snapshot will come out under the MPL.

You are encouraging the fork of the code base by doing so because you are
now forcing your users to choose based on different criteria other than
licenses. You refused to do this before there was competition and now you
are suddenly changing your mind.

That is the most absurd reason I have heard for changing a license. I
thought that you had all these beliefs about software and now you are just
throwing that away suddenly? Give me a break!

Let me quote you once again:
> I don't like  the MPL's handling of some things.

I find that totally silly that you have now decided to MPL WebMacro given
that you don't even like the license. Make up your mind!

Also, the fact that you are putting your code under the MPL vs. the APL
still shows to me that you just don't get it. While the MPL is an acceptable
license, there is an even less restrictive license, the APL which is what I
will continue to prefer (as do plenty of other people). So, putting things
under the MPL still doesn't magically solve the license issues.

Call me a license bigot, but at least I'm open, consistent and clear with my

> I know there are a lot of egos involved here, and some of you have put
> good long hours into Velocity so far. But if we don't mend the fences
> and move forward together it's going to cost us all.
> You guys have a difficult choice to make now. I'm putting WebMacro
> under a license you can work with. It's way ahead of where you are. It
> would be bad for us all to fork. We all know that, deep down.
> Are we going to bury the hatchet and move the world forward? Or are
> we going to split resources between moving WebMacro foward and you
> reimplementing what I've already done?

It isn't a difficult choice at all. Your MPL of WM doesn't solve any of the
technical issues in WM's parser that Velocity has already solved.

If you decide to MPL (or even APL) WM, that simply means that we can now
pillage your code as needed to increase the functionality of Velocity more
quickly. It isn't nearly as much work to simply use your code to continue to
create a better product. Of course you could do the same with Velocity code.
But I don't care because that isn't an issue for me.

I vote to split resources (you can come work with us if you want though) and
I am continue to work on Velocity with whomever wants to.

I'm totally tired of playing your games.

> I may be difficult to deal with sometimes, mostly owing to how busy I've
> been over the last while. I could really use your help, and I don't
> hold grudges. 

I don't hold grudges at all. The issue here is that you had your chance and
you gave it up. End of story. You pushed things this far. The damage is
already done, regardless of grudges. You can't take that back.



Scarab -
      Java Servlet Based - Open Source
         Bug/Issue Tracking System

View raw message