For non-proliferation's sake, Sun asks OSI to retire older open source license

TalkBack 1 of 6:

Next »

• Thread View
• Flat View

Houston, Do We Have A Problem?

Is there more to this story than Sun is letting onto? What kind of an impact does this license change hold for OpenOffice.org, IBM's WorkPlace, and perhaps the real target of this change, the secretly brewing Google WorkPlace?

Regarding IBM's WorkPlace, that horse has already left the barn is now on the race track. So maybe Sun is trying to put Google in check mate? Inquiring minds want to know. But how the hell are we supposed to sort these things out?

OpenOffice.org was open sourced under a dual LGPL-SiSSL license. The way that works is that licensees have the option of choosing which license they wish to work under, and almost everyone has chosen the LGPL. So now that SiSSL is no more, one would think this no big deal. But au contraire!

The skinny is that the LGPL allows for commercial distribution without
affecting derived products in the same way as the GPL. But like the GPL, the LGPL requires that distributed modifications must be publicly disclosed (or, in open source parlance, ?returned to the community?). This is contrary to the SISSL, which did not require all changes to the source to be published and returned to the community.

This isn't a big deal for users, but one has to wonder about how it will impact developers and cvs contributors? Specifically, how does this impact http://www.zdnet.com/5208-11202-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=12631&messageID=252176&start=-43?>IBM's WorkPlace, which is comprised primarily of OpenOffice.org 1.1 components? IBM's innovative effort is also a made to order blueprint for Google WorkPlace.

IBM has done some magical work here, arranging and reconfiguring those components to architect an entirely new kind of application, the Activity Manager. When people hear nebulous discussions about the Age of Collaborative Computing, and they wonder what the hell is that, all they need do is spend some time with WorkPlace and things will be clear. Crystal clear.

What i'm wondering about though is how the new licensing situation affects WorkPlace, and all the expected WorkPlace knockoffs? IBM has never returned to the OOo community any of the changes or modifications they made. Which is fine since the SiSSL license they chose to work under was intended to allow for undisclosed modifications. The original idea being to not just allow for WorkPlaces, but even to encourage such efforts. Indeed, WorkPlace is a poster child for the LGPL-SiSSL dual licensing model.

Given the collaborative computing wonders of WorkPlace, these changes are beyond magnificent. And perhaps that's why it's so painful to see them outside the reach of the community? But there's more.

As Sun waves good-bye to Joerge Heilig, and braces themselves for a pillaging of their StarOffice workforce by Google, there's little doubt left that a Google WorkPlace is brewing. So maybe this license change is a preemptive strike at Google? A strike that also serves the purpose of trapping IBM if and when they decide to come back into the OOo 2.0 CVS. (Which they would be crazy not to do!)

These prospects are more than enough to have Sun thinking about GPL'ing the whole thing and get done with it.

At the recent LinuxWorld, we had a chance to go through some of these issues with the IBM WorkPlace crew. They clearly desire to participate with Sun and the OOo community as good open source citizens, but don't seem to know how to get beyond our troubled past. The current situation isn't good for the OOo community. It isn't good for IBM and Adobe. Sun has been blind sided, and looks to be reeling from a sucker punch. And it's not good for the rapidly evolving community of OpenDocument XML interests. Yet here we all are, poised to challenge Microsoft's desktop productivity dominance. Poised to bring desktops, devices, and server realms to the Open Internet in ways unimagined. Poised to move beyond, taking the world into the age of collaborative computing.

For the community, the modifications IBM made are revolutionary. Forget about waiting a year or so for the MS Office 12 integrated stack model of collaborative computing - (rumor has it that there will be a MS Office 12 Server added to the current required suite of servers that includes Exchange, SharePoint, Server 2003, and Collaboration Server). WorkPlace delivers it today, and delivers in spades.

So yes, the OOo community would like the chance to work on a loosely coupled version of WorkPlace - (IBM's version is also an integrated stack model, with hard wired accelerations to WebSphere, Lotus Notes Servers, DB2, and Oracle).

On the flip side of the mutually benefit coin, because IBM broke from the main CVS tree with OOo 1.1, they missed the extraordinary implementations of XForms, SVG, and SMiL that can be seen in current OOo 2.0 beta release candidates. Modifications are a two way street.

Here's the thing: As of today, the code will be licensed only under the LGPL, which means that all modifications to the source must be published. While the LGPL is great in that it allows for commercial distribution without affecting derived products in the same way as the GPL, there is this thing about fully disclosing modifications!

This is in sharp contrast to the SISSL, which did not require all changes to the source to be published and disclosed. IBM's WorkPlace is licensed under SiSSL.

I have a hard time seeing this recent change by Sun as a slap at IBM. Not that i blame Sun. They have been a magnificent benefactor, and who wouldn't be pissed given all the work Sun has put into developing and deploying the UNO component model for OOo? Without that beautifully conceived and executed componentization of OOo productivity services, i doubt that IBM would have ever been able to pull off WorkPlace.

When Sun purchased StarOffice it was one of those application suites in the grand traditions of Windows bloatware. Rather than having open interfaces for every discreet and well formed component, as is consistent with the traditions of UNiX command line piping, interoperability in the Windows model has always meant building out the application suite with everything but the kitchen sink. Need a text editor? Build it in because there is no easy way to interoperate with the one users already have.

StarOffice was unique amongst Windows styled bloatware in that they included the kitchen sink.

So Sun does all this work on the UNO component architecture, while IBM is busy taking those components to create an entirely new kind of Open Internet application. One that sublimely connects local productivity resources with realms of Open Internet services through the artifice of a highly interactive collaborative work space. The empowering that WorkPlace shifts to the end points is extraordinary. But you can't look at WorkPlace and not see everywhere the herculean effort of Sun engineers.

Having watched WorkPlace evolve over the past year and a half, i have to say that IBM's attitude towards Sun has definitely changed. It's not the pax romana the OOo community was hoping for, but clearly things have changed. So i'm a bit surprised at the bite in Simon's comments about IBM. If ever there was the right person to seek rapprochement with IBM or anyone else for that matter, it would be Simon Phipps. So to me the bite in his comments is cause for concern.

All these issues became further complicated when, at the recent LinuxWorld, Sun did not offer to host an OOo booth as they so faithfully had done in the past. Last year Sun put the OOo booth between StarOffice, the Java Desktop, and right next to the star of the show, the incredible Looking Glass demonstration. If ever there was a prime time location, that was the spot. Because of the line to see Looking Glass, i personally got to speak with more than 30 Windows developers looking to replace OutLook, Access, and Exchange, and complete the OOo-Mozilla sweep of the Windows desktop.

This year Sun cut OOo loose, and did so in a way that precluded the community from being able to hook up with what turned out to be any number of willing sponsors. On the OOo marketing list, where these issues are normally resolved, requests for information about Sun hosting the booth were met with either a stony silence or a we'll look into it dodge.

I don't think Sun realizes that the community understands the full scope of things. We're not happy about IBM forking off WorkPlace, although in retrospect, this actually will end up hurting IBM more than it helps. (One only has to look at OOo 2.0 to see how this works out). The community also has an emotional attachment to Sun that i think they underestimate. When push comes to shove, we will stand with our benefactor.

Besides, when it comes to faithfully supporting Open Standards and Open Interfaces, there is no other corporation that can compare to Sun. They have a near 25 year history of building a company based on faithfully and reliably executing in accordance with those two principles. And then there's that thing, ?the Open Internet is the computer?

Sun needs to also understand that when the community looks at such things as IBM's WorkPlace, Novell Office, the Debian ? Ximian CVS, the KDE KOffice implementation of OpenDoc XML, the work Adobe is doing to extend the OpenDoc XML metadata and XForms model, and so much more, we are coming to see our role in all this as less of a co-competitor, and more of an open source community at the hub of a rapidly expanding ecosystem.

As OOo components and OpenDoc XML implementations continue to show up in new ways that are redefining how information is worked, how information systems are interfaced, and how the Open Internet is being engaged and used, the role of the OOo community is also changing. Maybe we need some advice from the Apache community as to what we need to do to become a successful ecosystem hub? Somehow though we will make this transition. And as we do, we want to be of service to all those WorkPlace developers and users that will in the near future be making one of the most extraordinary transitions to the Open Internet yet seen. And of course, there are all those users, trainers, and solution providers in Massachusetts and the EU who need be welcomed into the OpenDoc XML family, and shown just what it is that Open XML technologies like XForms can do.

Instead of changing the license model, i would have preferred that Simon first meet with IBM and made every effort possible to get WorkPlace back into either the main CVS, or the Debian-Ximian CVS. Knowing Simon, i'm sure he already tried that. He's probably even met with the Google WorkPlace group. Especially since he already knows everyone And no one is as charming, innovative, and disarming an ambassador than Simon.

So, given that it is Simon who is pulling the trigger on this license change, and that there is so much for so many at stake, let me ask again, ?Houston, do we have a problem??

~ge~

Note to Sir Timothy: Put an end to the madness. GPL XML.

OASIS OpenDocument XML Technical Committee member, representing the OpenOffice.org community.

Posted by: garyedwards@...   Posted on: 09/02/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Dynamic Virtual Clients Intel Intel IT plans to put virtualization on their client PCs - Dynamic Virtual ... Download Now
• Achieving Cost and Resource Savings with UC white paper Microsoft Read how UC can help your company save by reducing out-of-pocket expenses, consolidating communications infrastructure, and leveraging human capital. Download Now
• Live Webcast: The Power of Centralization in Distributed Development CollabNet Distributed teams are common in software development today. However ... Download Now