To Alex Turner, guy complaining about this being a slap in the face: OF COURSE it's a marketing decision. Duh! What other reason could there be? A sudden conversion to the church of Stallman? That doesn't actually happen here in the real world - not by companies, at any rate.
Regardless of the reason, companies open sourcing their products, even if they only open source part of it, is good for all of us. Part of the formula that decides if a company is going to do it is that the open source community can be a great friend to have. Unfortunately, another part ends up on the other side of the line, and that is that the open source community contains more than its fair share of whiny, entitled brats like you. That part of the formula is kind of ruining it for the rest of us. So, please, for the sake of not just me, but for everyone, stick a sock in it, and get some perspective. Thanks, on behalf of the entire open source community. NB: There are legit reasons to become aggressive as a community. For example, it makes sense to aggress against a company pawning off something as 'open source' when it in fact is not. Community aggression is one of the only ways to fight that sort of thing, as the term "open source" has not been trademarked, so you have no legal standing to claim that what they are doing isn't open source, unless you want to try a truth-in-advertising route, and, well, good luck with that. Thus, community aggression. Same thing for companies not obeying the licenses. You CAN fight them in court, sometimes successfully, but its hard and takes a heck of a lot of dosh. How do you get there? Well, community aggression is a much simpler way to increase the pain for companies thinking about flaunting the license, and in your crusade you may pick up enough steam to start raising cash for a court case. And many other thousands of reasons to grab a pitchfork. But some company open sourcing some, but not at all, of their offerings? Not even remotely close. They opened the source to a substantial chunk of IntelliJ, you can clone the repository right now, and if you build that repo, you get a nice tool that has plenty of legitimate uses all by yourself. On Oct 16, 4:56 pm, Mark Fortner <phidia...@gmail.com> wrote: > I seem to recall that Oracle was the spec lead on that JSR. Maybe > they'll start it up again. > > Mark > > On Oct 16, 2009, at 6:39 AM, Patrick Wright <pdoubl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > IMO this is great news; I know several developers at work who will now > > take IDEA for a spin (and I will help them where they can). In our > > case we have a dedicated team that does frontend work, and they can > > continue to use Eclipse. Those of us who work on the backends/services > > can work comfortably within the community edition, I think. > > > The sad thing, though, is how the plugin issue is so divisive. I'm > > sure there are plugins close to the editor and compiler infrastructure > > which would be hard to port between IDEs. But there are useful plugins > > that have ports to all three IDEs, last time I looked. One would hope > > that we could aim, as a community, for more of that. There was a > > movement years ago for a cross-IDE plugin compatibility API, but they > > couldn't come to an agreement. If anything, rather than "us vs. them" > > in the IDE wars, we should encourage plugin developers to work towards > > cross-IDE portability. > > > Patrick --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
