[NETBEANS] [EVALUATION] - E12 - The NetBeans Open Source Lie
Ilias Lazaridis
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]
> Kirill K. wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 15:04 +0200, Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
>>
>>> ok, I'll try to elaborate.
>>>
>>>> JRE, including rt.jar, is obviously not open source, and
>>>> still NB relies on it hardly. Is it also a reason not to call NB
>>>> open source? I guess your answer is negative.
[...] - {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.
>> But what about the J2EE Editor module? I have given this thing a
>> thought and I can't but agree with Ilias: if everything is the way it
>> sounds, J2EE Editor module is a functional part of the IDE. And if it
>> is really distributed under the BCL, I agree that the fact it is
>> included with the open source IDE doesn't look right. As well as the
>> fact that in order to use free open-source IDE, one must sign under
>> terms and conditions of some proprietary thing which can't even be
>> replaced by an open-source alternative.
>> Again, I am asking for explanations/clarifications on this issue.
> 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?
> -Tim
[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.
]
-
-
-
.
Ilias Lazaridis
> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:41:28 +0200, Ilias Lazaridis
> <il...@lazaridis.com> wrote:
>
>>I will use c.l.j.sotwaretools for further posts regarding NetBeans.
>
> please don't.
plea rejected.
>>Thus NetBeans/Sun Microsystems lie publically about the NetBeans IDE
>>licensing status.
>
> Ok, then. Don't use it. Use something else. Don't be such a moaning
> minny.
Of course I will not use it.
And of course I'll publicize this unethical behaviour, thus others do
not fall in the same trap.
[btw: thank you for assisting me, whilst providing feedback]
>>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.
>
> SUN and NetBeans are two different entities.
NetBeans is essentially Sun Microsystems.
That's why a Sun Employee ca at free will apply censorship there.
but this is another topic:
>>* Please respect the user-base, your share-holders and yourself.
>>* Please stop cheating people.
>
> How are they cheating you? NetBeans is free. You didn't pay a cent
> for it. Therefore, you can not claim you have been cheated.
Because NetBeans [IDE] is free, you cannot claim whatever you like about it.
The Product "NetBeans IDE" is _not_ open-source.
Sun Microsystems / NetBeans says it is.
Thus Sun Microsystems / Netbeans cheats people.
[see the further arguments (which you have successfully ignored) within
my original post]
>>* Please Open-Source the modules in question.
>
> That is their choice, and it won't change because of you.
Of course.
I've provided an alternative procedure, where Sun does not have to
open-source the modules.
Please read the documents more carefully.
>>After that, you can start saying
>>
>>"The Full-Featured NetBeans Open Source IDE"
>
> Or they can just carry on as is, with many contented NetBeans users.
Yes, they can.
But then I could call them them e.g. "Unethical Cheating Liars".
>>_without_ feeling ashamed.
>
> If anyone should be ashamed, it should be you, for your pointless
> bleating on the subject. You are heading rapidly in the direction of
> kookdom.
Of course, Mr. "Noel no....@thank.you"
-
[don't know what "kookdom" is, but I go now out for a _coffee_. Cheers.]
.
Ilias Lazaridis
> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:49:57 +0200, Ilias Lazaridis
> <il...@lazaridis.com> wrote:
>
>>>If it is your usual 'NetBeans is not true open-source' rant, then
>>>please don't.
>>
>>plea rejected.
>
"obsessed cretin"
>>>>Thus NetBeans/Sun Microsystems lie publically about the NetBeans IDE
>>>>licensing status.
>>>
>>>Ok, then. Don't use it. Use something else. Don't be such a moaning
>>>minny.
>>
>>Of course I will not use it.
>
> Then STFU already.
"STFU"
>>And of course I'll publicize this unethical behaviour, thus others do
>>not fall in the same trap.
>
> There is NOTHING unethical about it. The nature of the license for
> the NetBean platform and the fact that some parts of it are not
> covered by open-source licensing is more than adequately documented on
> their site, presuming you have the necessary grey-matter to find it.
see below
>>>How are they cheating you? NetBeans is free. You didn't pay a cent
>>>for it. Therefore, you can not claim you have been cheated.
>>
>>Because NetBeans [IDE] is free, you cannot claim whatever you like about it.
>
> They made the nature of the licensing clear. You obviously didn't
> read that part.
see below.
>>The Product "NetBeans IDE" is _not_ open-source.
>
> Go back and read the NetBeans site.
_Documenting_ that some parts of a product were _not_ open-source does
not result in the right to claim that this product _is_ open-source.
-
But they still claim it is.
Which is a lie.
-
I've provided already the analysis and 2 suggestion to Sun Microsystems.
http://www.netbeans.org/servlets/ReadMsg?msgId=871828&listName=nbusers
-
As stated again, please read the threads more carefully.
[you understand that I cannot elaborate again on things which I've
already written clearly down, especially as you ingnore any context and
original writings.]
.
Ilias Lazaridis
> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 22:34:15 +0200, Ilias Lazaridis
> <il...@lazaridis.com> wrote:
>
>>>Surprise, surprise. I expected nothing more of an obsessed cretin.
>>
>>"obsessed cretin"
>
> know.
reflection.
>>>>Of course I will not use it.
>>>
>>>Then STFU already.
>>
>>"STFU"
>
> If you don't know what it means, then please feel free to ask.
I know it.
>>>>The Product "NetBeans IDE" is _not_ open-source.
>>>
>>>Go back and read the NetBeans site.
>>
>>_Documenting_ that some parts of a product were _not_ open-source does
>>not result in the right to claim that this product _is_ open-source.
>
> Under whose rules, precisely? Yours?
no.
The Rules of Common Sense.
[please abstract the sentence down to general validity]
[hint to Sun Microsystems opportunists and justifiers: the
(non-abstracted) sentence contains an escape-path from
The-NetBeans-Open-Source-Lie accusation]
>>But they still claim it is.
>>
>>Which is a lie.
[REQUOTE}
>> I've provided already the analysis and 2 suggestion to Sun Microsystems.
>>
>> http://www.netbeans.org/servlets/ReadMsg?msgId=871828&listName=nbusers
>>
>> -
>>
>> As stated again, please read the threads more carefully.
>>
>> [you understand that I cannot elaborate again on things which I've already written clearly down, especially as you ingnore any context and original writings.]
[/REQUOTE]
>
> If it is documented, then it is not a lie, and your claim that it is a
> lie is libelous.
repetition [conversation abort condition]
please focus on the given argumentation lines.
.
Ilias Lazaridis
> Hi Illias,
>
> I have been noticing all your threads on nbusers, and came across to
> this group to see what noise are you creating here.
Not much.
> Coming to the point:
>
> Are you looking for sympathy by publicising your posts and making so
> much of noise about your views?
No, I am incubating a process:
http://lazaridis.com/core/index.html
> You seem to be highlighting other's
> messages to benefit your cause rather than think from their perspective
> too.
This is false.
Other perspectives are very important for my process definition.
Thoughts and psychology of people are very important, too.
But I've a limited processing capacity.
And limited time.
Thus at some point I have to ignore other perspectives which ignore
given argumentation-lines.
> Don't even bother to reply cos, i don't think i am going to bother
> either.
This thread here is about "The NetBeans Open Source Lie".
The give argumentation-line is untouchable.
That's why everyone (including you) talk mostly off-topic.
.
Rogue
I have been noticing all your threads on nbusers, and came across to
this group to see what noise are you creating here.
Coming to the point:
Are you looking for sympathy by publicising your posts and making so
much of noise about your views? You seem to be highlighting other's
messages to benefit your cause rather than think from their perspective
too.
Don't even bother to reply cos, i don't think i am going to bother
either.
Ilias Lazaridis
[...]
> 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.
The link to the several censored messages:
[NETBEANS] [CENSORSHIP] [Fwd: Returned post for nbu...@netbeans.org]
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.java.softwaretools/browse_frm/thread/93b90d984c64ae76/6ae81d9ae5fac267
-
Followup-Thread:
[NETBEANS] [EVALUATION] - E13 - "SPL + BCL = Open Source"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.java.softwaretools/browse_thread/thread/53f37b548c026b5b/d283ea13287d3508
-
Related thread on javalobby.org (look at the thread-overview
subject-lines to find intresting insights):
JavaLobby Forum Allows Silent Censorship by Design.
http://javalobby.org/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=16335&messageID=91821368&tstart=0
.