[NETBEANS] [EVALUATION] - E12 - The NetBeans Open Source Lie

I

Ilias Lazaridis

[Followup-To: comp.lang.java.softwaretools]

to the community:

this *crosspost* will happen only *once* as an introduction, thus this
critical topic gets the necessary visibility [after the censorship on
the NetBeans forum].
I will use c.l.j.sotwaretools for further posts regarding NetBeans.
Please answer within c.l.j.sotwaretools, as this will be the only group
that I will monitor.

-
-
-

The NetBeans Open Source Lie

The Product "NetBeans IDE" is *not* Open Source, as by the
de-facto-standard definition of the open-source-initiative.

Several _integral_ modules of the "NetBeans IDE" are not covered by the
[OSI compliant, open-source] SPL but by the [non OSI compliant,
non-open-source, proprietary, binary] BCL (Binary Code License).

Thus NetBeans/Sun Microsystems lie publically about the NetBeans IDE
licensing status.

-
-
-

I've evaluated NetBeans for around 6 weeks.

[EVALUATION] - E10 - Summary: NetBeans is NOT open source, Sun is...
http://www.netbeans.org/servlets/ReadMsg?msgId=867428&listName=nbusers

-

As an last try, I've notified Sun's Microsystems Board of Directors
about the many problems of the NetBeans System, which are seemingly
ignored by leaders and executives.

[EVALUATION] - E11 - Sun Microsystems Board of Directors
http://www.netbeans.org/servlets/ReadMsg?msgId=871387&listName=nbusers

-

nntp newsgroup access:
news://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.ide.netbeans.user

-

Within the above thread, an intresting discussion about "The NetBeans
Open Source Lie" has started.

My main suggestion to Sun Microsystems was:

"
[...]
Suggestion 2:

Responsible Sun Microsystems Executives:

* Please respect the user-base, your share-holders and yourself.
* Please stop cheating people.
* Please Open-Source the modules in question.

After that, you can start saying

"The Full-Featured NetBeans Open Source IDE"

_without_ feeling ashamed.
[...]
"
source:
http://www.netbeans.org/servlets/ReadMsg?msgId=871828&listName=nbusers

-
-
-

Find below my answer to Tim Boudreau (Sun Microsystems) who is a
NetBeans Board Member (appointed by Sun Microsystems).

Tim Boudreau has *personally* *censored* my answer [on the public
NetBeans nbuser forum] which I publicize for further discussion here.

[note: please focus on the Open Source Lie. The weak liberal qualities
of the NetBeans project are another topic.]

-
-
-

Tim Boudreau wrote:
[moved into context]

[...] - {The Open-Source Language-Runtime Question}.
But how do the above mentioned
libraries differ from rt.jar except in that they are bundled with
IDE itself?

As you've said, they are "bundled with IDE itself".

They are _integral_ part of the Product (and its main functionality)
[NetBeans IDE] which is declared as Open Source.
But you cannot alter e.g. the "XML" or the "J2EE Editor" behaviour
in the Open Source way.

Well, there definitely is something in what you're saying. And this
is an interesting discussion.

Let's start with XML. As far as I know, JAXP is an integral part of
J2SE 1.4 and higher, so there shouldn't be any need to include it in
NB, since these are the only platforms supported by NB. Regarding the
parser implementation... Please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but
I think NB only uses Apache Xerces parser?.. (which is distributed
under the Apache open-source license) At least, I can see it packaged
in netbeans/ide4/modules/autoload/ext/xerces-2.6.2.jar. And the
interesting thing is that I can also see it under the
com.sun.org.apache.xerces.internal package inside of rt.jar that
comes with JDK 1.5! And (correct me if I'm wrong) it seems to me that
J2SE 1.4 includes a XML parser implementation, too.

Please someone explain the whole thing: why do legal documents state
that NB includes BCL'ed XML parser, if in reality it doesn't. Or,
alternatively, why does it include both Xerces and that mistorical
BCL'ed parser? And why does it include these parsers at all, if the
functionality is already present in JDK? The same questions apply to
JAXP.

-------

So. We probably shouldn't complain about JAXP, as it's part of the
J2SE platform. We shouldn't complain about the XML parser, if in
reality NB only uses Xerces.
Re the JAXP license, I suspect it's just there because at some point
(circa JDK 1.3) we were shipping it, and at the time it was covered by
the BCL; perhaps some module from that period has not been updated or
something such - anyway, there are no nefarious plots here :)

possibly "no nefarious plots" [here, XML], but for sure some sloppiness.
I'll look into it and find out why that's there and let the list know.

You should hurry, thus the 4.0 final release gets the correction.
Re the J2EE editor stuff, which specific piece/license are you
looking at?

The context is _very_ clear:

_Every_ J2EE "editor stuff" which is contained in NetBeans IDE and is
licenced under the (non-open-source) BCL - thus making the NetBeans IDE
a _non_-open-source product.

I'm intrested in those clarifications, too.
Note that we have been known to make binaries for NetBeans available
*before* something's been open sourced - there's a major legal process
a Sun developer has to go through to open source something, to satisfy
the lawyers that Sun isn't violating anybody's copyright and giving
away something it does not actually own - proving that they indeed
wrote all the code that's being open sourced, etc. The easiest
workaround is, of course, to develop all the code in NetBeans CVS in
the first place, but it can't always be done that way.

I doubt the validity of the statements [or more precise:
justifications], but I'll not go into this, to simplify things.

=> {Sun has a slow closed-to-open-source-transformation processes}
=> {Sun can't always develope in an Open Source CVS}
Sun of course can also make binary-only stuff available for NetBeans,
either for free or for sale - as can any company that wants to. In
the long run, a model we're considering is to sell "module kits" for
specific technologies - after all, all of the IDEs Sun ships are
NetBeans anyway - having one technology and three names for it doesn't
make a huge amount of sense.

=> {Sun can make binary-only stuff available (free or for sale)}
=> {Sun considers to sell "module kits" for specific technologies}

-

You have just given some justifications and some off-context comments.

Basically you confirm, that the Product "NetBeans IDE 4.0" (which
includes the J2EE Editor "Stuff") is not Open Source.

Thus my title "The NetBeans Open Source Lie" is perfectly valid.

Isn't it?

[note to readers:
NbUsers is now apparently on "silent censorship mode":

NbUsers is now on full moderation
http://www.netbeans.org/servlets/ReadMsg?msgId=872266&listName=nbusers

I don't think that this is true, as I don't think that a Sun
Microsystems employee would violate the most essential rules of the
open-source netbeans system in a manner which comes close to an insult.
]

-
-
-

..
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,733
Messages
2,569,440
Members
44,832
Latest member
GlennSmall

Latest Threads

Top