An important announcement to the Vert.x community

[Tim Fox]

Dear Vert.x Community,

As many of you already know I left VMware at the end of December and started at Red Hat last week.

In the spirit of open source and as a commitment to the Vert.x community I had expected (perhaps naively) that VMware would continue to let me continue to administer the Vert.x project after I had left their employment.

On the 28th December I received a letter from VMware lawyers (delivered to my door in person, no less!) that I must immediately give up and transfer to VMware all administrative rights over the following things: The Vert.x github project, the Vert.x google group, the domain vertx.io and the Vert.x blog.

In response I proposed that VMware give me permission (i.e. grant a license) for me to continue to use the Vert.x trademark and domain after I left their employment. This proposal was refused.

There were further talks between VMW and RHT which failed to come to a better solution.

I am legally obliged to respect VMware's IP. Therefore to avoid litigation I have done the following:

1. Transfer ownership of the vertx domain to VMware

2. Transfer ownership of the Vert.x blog to VMware

3. Transfer ownership of the vert-x organisation in github to VMware

4. Transfer ownership of the vert.x Google Group to Vmware

This means I am no longer administrator of any of the above, although I am still able to "manage" the google group and commit to the projects under the vert-x umbrella.

I am very concerned about this turn of events, as I understand it creates uncertainty in the Vert.x community.

For now, I will continue leading the Vert.x community the best I can under these restrictions, but we, as a community need to consider what this means for the future of Vert.x and what is the best way to take the project forward.

I don't have the answers to that right now, but there are several options. I would like to make sure we have some kind of concensus in the community before jumping to a conclusion.

I am deeply committed to you as a community, and I would love to continue leading Vert.x, in one form or another, to the next generation. The 1.x series of Vert.x has stoked a huge amount of interest, and the future looks incredibly bright for 2.0. I am hugely excited about the opportunities there, and I believe that you share this excitement. 2013 is potentially a huge year for Vert.x, and I want to share that journey with you.

-Tim

[castarco]

Sad news :( ,

then... maybe a fork? I think it won't be too traumatic .

[Russell Hart]

It's not just a fork though, it would be a new domain, new Maven artefacts, new Google group..........

Is anyone from VMware being assigned to vert.x if they are now in charge of administering it?

[Fabrice Matrat]

Hudson vs Jenkins.
At the end I use Jenkins and have no idea how Hudson did evolved.

[Jettro Coenradie]

Will someone else from vmware be responsible for the project. Someone that you can work with to maintain the community and the project? Legal stuff and Open source are not always friends. I hope you can work it out and keep the same energy for the project.

good luck and congrats with the new job

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 2:25 PM, castarco <cast...@bananity.com> wrote:

Sad news :( ,

then... maybe a fork? I think it won't be too traumatic .

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vert.x" group.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vertx/-/rxwFedFHNM4J.

To post to this group, send an email to ve...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vertx+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vertx?hl=en-GB.

--
Jettro Coenradie
http://www.gridshore.nl

[赵普明]

在 2013年1月8日星期二UTC+8下午9时12分23秒，Tim Fox写道：

Dear Vert.x Community,

As many of you already know I left VMware at the end of December and started at Red Hat last week.

In the spirit of open source and as a commitment to the Vert.x community I had expected (perhaps naively) that VMware would continue to let me continue to administer the Vert.x project after I had left their employment.

On the 28th December I received a letter from VMware lawyers (delivered to my door in person, no less!) that I must immediately give up and transfer to VMware all administrative rights over the following things: The Vert.x github project, the Vert.x google group, the domain vertx.io and the Vert.x blog.

In response I proposed that VMware give me permission (i.e. grant a license) for me to continue to use the Vert.x trademark and domain after I left their employment. This proposal was refused.

There were further talks between VMW and RHT which failed to come to a better solution.

I am legally obliged to respect VMware's IP. Therefore to avoid litigation I have done the following:

1. Transfer ownership of the vertx domain to VMware

2. Transfer ownership of the Vert.x blog to VMware

3. Transfer ownership of the vert-x organisation in github to VMware

4. Transfer ownership of the vert.x Google Group to Vmware

This means I am no longer administrator of any of the above, although I am still able to "manage" the google group and commit to the projects under the vert-x umbrella.

I am very concerned about this turn of events, as I understand it creates uncertainty in the Vert.x community.

For now, I will continue leading the Vert.x community the best I can under these restrictions, but we, as a community need to consider what this means for the future of Vert.x and what is the best way to take the project forward.

I don't have the answers to that right now, but there are several options. I would like to make sure we have some kind of concensus in the community before jumping to a conclusion.

Could you list the options in your mind? 

Just found that you are starting version 2.0, is that a big change compared to 1.x? 

If so, maybe you could re-brand vert.x 2.0 into something new, with a name that starts with 'R' -  V for VMware, R for Redhat :-) 

Our company has already invested in vert.x (our new service is running using vert.x 1.2.3.final), so I'm a little concerned.

[Daryl Teo]

I sincerely doubt the userbase of Vert.x reaches to that extent where a fork would be disasterous. Personally speaking anyway. Not when noone was really depending on VMWare for commercial support in the first place.

I am fully committed to this project, forked or not =) You have my support if you wish it.

Daryl

[Tim Fox]

On Tuesday, 8 January 2013 13:44:41 UTC, 赵普明 wrote:

在 2013年1月8日星期二UTC+8下午9时12分23秒，Tim Fox写道：

Dear Vert.x Community,

As many of you already know I left VMware at the end of December and started at Red Hat last week.

In the spirit of open source and as a commitment to the Vert.x community I had expected (perhaps naively) that VMware would continue to let me continue to administer the Vert.x project after I had left their employment.

On the 28th December I received a letter from VMware lawyers (delivered to my door in person, no less!) that I must immediately give up and transfer to VMware all administrative rights over the following things: The Vert.x github project, the Vert.x google group, the domain vertx.io and the Vert.x blog.

In response I proposed that VMware give me permission (i.e. grant a license) for me to continue to use the Vert.x trademark and domain after I left their employment. This proposal was refused.

There were further talks between VMW and RHT which failed to come to a better solution.

I am legally obliged to respect VMware's IP. Therefore to avoid litigation I have done the following:

1. Transfer ownership of the vertx domain to VMware

2. Transfer ownership of the Vert.x blog to VMware

3. Transfer ownership of the vert-x organisation in github to VMware

4. Transfer ownership of the vert.x Google Group to Vmware

This means I am no longer administrator of any of the above, although I am still able to "manage" the google group and commit to the projects under the vert-x umbrella.

I am very concerned about this turn of events, as I understand it creates uncertainty in the Vert.x community.

For now, I will continue leading the Vert.x community the best I can under these restrictions, but we, as a community need to consider what this means for the future of Vert.x and what is the best way to take the project forward.

I don't have the answers to that right now, but there are several options. I would like to make sure we have some kind of concensus in the community before jumping to a conclusion.

Could you list the options in your mind? 

The most obvious two options would be:

1) Fork

2) Find a neutral organisation (neither controlled by VMW or RHT) to host the organisation.

I think we need to explore both those options.

 

Just found that you are starting version 2.0, is that a big change compared to 1.x? 

If so, maybe you could re-brand vert.x 2.0 into something new, with a name that starts with 'R' -  V for VMware, R for Redhat :-) 

Our company has already invested in vert.x (our new service is running using vert.x 1.2.3.final), so I'm a little concerned.

I wouldn't be too concerned. Vert.x is not going to disappear altogether.

However the project vehicle or governance model might change.

[Tim Fox]

On Tuesday, 8 January 2013 14:57:52 UTC, Tim Fox wrote:

 to host the organisation.

fat finger:

to host the *project*

[vishvish]

Hey Tim,

That's annoying, and heavy-handed. But good on you for your commitment.

A fork would be a great plan.

[Chen Wang]

I've always been a quiet observer of the project but thanks for detailing the situation Tim. I personally would prefer an independent, open source friendly organisation such as Apache Software Foundation to be the host of the project but I understand that being accepted by ASF would require time and effort. I think keeping things as it is (co-managing it with VMware) is not mutually exclusive to finding an organisation to host it, or even hosting the fork instead of the original if there are legal hurdles, i.e. you should be able to start the search right now but keep the normal project development going until the picture is clearer. 

Chen

[Gray Herter]

+1 Fork it.

[Tom Carchrae]

[obvious/redundant consolatory statement] - Ouch. As much as I am
grateful that VMware have paid you to work on vert.x this throws that
community good will in the dust. I'm not asking you to comment on
what kind of confused person does not 'get it', but I'm glad to hear
you will keep working on vert.x (or 'the project formerly known as
vert.x'). And I'm still appreciative of the time/money VMware spent
to date, but if VMware are simply kicking you out of the project, then
they are acting childish - it might be different if they had an actual
plan, but AFAIK, you are the team, so they are essentially trying to
put a bullet in it. I don't blame them for being disappointed at
losing a developer like you, but really, how does this help matters.
Anyway, f*ckin suits..

[perhaps useful suggestion] Might I respectfully suggest that you
contact the lead on some other open source projects and get some
guidance on this. Perhaps you've already done this. I think you're
right, the game is nowhere near up. Worst case, you re-brand it and
move on. If you do re-brand, please don't put a period in the name!
;)

As a matter of immediate importance, I suggest you set up an alternate
google group to discuss the future, so that the community can
subscribe to it, should whatever misguided persons that are now in
control decide to shut the current forum down.

Tom

[Nate McCall]

Agreed. We (Apigee) have made an investment in vert.x already as well.
IMO, a fork which is a package name/maven coordinate change is not
terribly traumatic and worth the effort to given the heavy handed
tactics of VMware.

Protecting investment is one thing, but doing so in a distasteful and
alienating way the community is another.

With the size/activity level of the community here, fast-tracking into
the Apache Software Foundation's incubator would be easy. Happy to
help on this if needed.

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Gray Herter <gray....@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 Fork it.
>
>

[Tupshin Harper]

+1

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vert.x" group.

[Daryl Teo]

Before we start going around pointing fingers and assigning boogiemen, would there be any official statement available from VMWare, as there should be in these kinds of situations?

Daryl

[Oliver Rolle]

+1 fork till a the project has a neutral new home.

[Andy Piper]

Yes.

[Anatoly Geyfman]

+1 fork.

As another commenter mentioned, sounds like a similar situation as Hudson/Jenkins. We ended up going with Jenkins as well, no issues there, other than a little bit of headache upgrading servers. Sounds like it's a convenient for the project to go through this change, before the big 2.0 release to create a stable, scalable foundation for this project to continue without a corporate overlord potentially using it without consideration for its users. 

Codehaus is a nice place as well, of course there is the Apache foundation. 

I am interested in what VMWare thinks of all of this. VMWare is now the owner of several super-high profile java frameworks/tools (Spring, Grails, Groovy), and this type of action is discouraging.

[Stephane Maldini]

Hudson/Jenkins was another beast its nothing similar :(

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vert.x" group.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vertx/-/DBLxydyfVOoJ.

To post to this group, send an email to ve...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vertx+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vertx?hl=en-GB.

--

Stéphane

--

[Asher Tarnopolski]

tim, good luck @ rht!

were you the only one in vmw working on vertx?

if this is the case, then it doesn't really matter what vmw's plans are. new folks will bring a different vision, different philosophy and different priorities. 

[Agustín Ramos Fonseca]

+1 fork

I think an independently managed project is a much healthier choice.

If necessary, crowdfunding should work.

Tim, thank you very much for your commitment to this project.

[Simon P. Lucy]

If there's a determination by the community to fork (if VMWare decide not to provide alternative administration), then I'd recommend talking with the Apache Incubator group at gen...@incubator.apache.org

[castarco]

El martes, 8 de enero de 2013 18:51:17 UTC+1, Simon P. Lucy escribió:

If there's a determination by the community to fork (if VMWare decide not to provide alternative administration), then I'd recommend talking with the Apache Incubator group at gen...@incubator.apache.org

Which are the benefits of include a fork of Vert.x in the Apache Incubator? I like the idea of a fork, but I haven't a well formed opinion about project host options...

[Steve Morin]

Unless VMware provides a clear commitment to support the Vert.x community I would fork

[Steve Morin]

Is Redhat committing to supporting Vert.x?

On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 5:12:23 AM UTC-8, Tim Fox wrote:

[Simon P. Lucy]

Its the entry path into the Apache Software Foundation and is more than a hosting option it provides complete organizational, legal and financial support which is why it needs something like the Incubator process to validate projects.  One of those validations is that it has a viable community.

http://incubator.apache.org is where you can find out more.

S

[bytor99999]

Not to defend VMWare. But any company would do this. And if you work for any company you will probably see in your contract or employee handbook that any projects/ideas/inventions that you create while working for that company, during company hours is the property of the company and not the person.

I don't know if vert.x started up before Tim joined VMWare, but if it was started while Tim was at VMWare and VMWare paid Tim specifially for this project, then unfortunately, it does belong to VMWare.

Now with all that note.

I am totally +1 on a fork. I still think it should be hosted on GitHub with a simple Apache license. No need to be an official Apache or Codehaus project.

If there is a fork, it is really, extremely important to us that it is done very quickly. I am very worried as we staked a big part of our company on vert.x and if there isn't a resolution really soon, we might be forced to have to not use vert.x Even though I hope more than anything we don't have to do something as drastic as changing.

Thanks Tim and the rest of the community for all your hard work on vert.x it is greatly appreciated.

Mark

[Tim Fox]

On Tuesday, 8 January 2013 18:16:27 UTC, bytor99999 wrote:

Not to defend VMWare. But any company would do this. And if you work for any company you will probably see in your contract or employee handbook that any projects/ideas/inventions that you create while working for that company, during company hours is the property of the company and not the person.

IANAL, but some things are very clearly VMMware's IP as per my employment contract (domain, blog, vert.x trademark, my code contributions). Other claims are most likely frivolous (claim to the github project *itself*, or the google group *itself* (i.e. not the contents)).

HOWEVER I complied with all demands since I have no appetite for litigation with them. My complying with their demands does not imply that I think they were all valid though.

As to "any company would do this": That's not really true. A good example of a company that _did not_ take search a path in a similar situation is Red Hat, when the project lead of Netty left RHT to join another company. Instead RHT chose to let him continue to use the name and domain after he had left the company. Now that project is a great success and has full time employees working on it from both RHT and the other company.

 

I don't know if vert.x started up before Tim joined VMWare, but if it was started while Tim was at VMWare and VMWare paid Tim specifially for this project, then unfortunately, it does belong to VMWare.

Now with all that note.

I am totally +1 on a fork. I still think it should be hosted on GitHub with a simple Apache license. No need to be an official Apache or Codehaus project.

If there is a fork, it is really, extremely important to us that it is done very quickly. I am very worried as we staked a big part of our company on vert.x and if there isn't a resolution really soon, we might be forced to have to not use vert.x Even though I hope more than anything we don't have to do something as drastic as changing.

A fork is an option, but we should review all possibilities first. A neutral org does have some positive points, and VMW does seem to be amenable to such a solution. We shouldn't jump to any conclusions yet.

Thanks Tim and the rest of the community for all your hard work on vert.x it is greatly appreciated.

And thanks Mark for your contributions - I hope they will continue :) 

Mark

[boon kiat han]

OSS once again prevails over commercial interests in the sense that the development of this awesome platform need not fear code lock up.

momentum-wise::

VMWare needs to send a very strong signal to the community very, very soon if it wants to 'step up to the plate' and help make this a kick-ass open source JVM realtime async service titan

...

or attempt to bend it into another portfolio products (i.e.: the infamous Hudson/Jenkins scenario which frankly wound up with Hudson being discarded to OSS anyways)

Any feet-dragging or wish-washy statement imho will KILL this project.

[Norman Maurer]

Am Dienstag, 8. Januar 2013 15:57:52 UTC+1 schrieb Tim Fox:

On Tuesday, 8 January 2013 13:44:41 UTC, 赵普明 wrote:

在 2013年1月8日星期二UTC+8下午9时12分23秒，Tim Fox写道：

Dear Vert.x Community,

As many of you already know I left VMware at the end of December and started at Red Hat last week.

In the spirit of open source and as a commitment to the Vert.x community I had expected (perhaps naively) that VMware would continue to let me continue to administer the Vert.x project after I had left their employment.

On the 28th December I received a letter from VMware lawyers (delivered to my door in person, no less!) that I must immediately give up and transfer to VMware all administrative rights over the following things: The Vert.x github project, the Vert.x google group, the domain vertx.io and the Vert.x blog.

In response I proposed that VMware give me permission (i.e. grant a license) for me to continue to use the Vert.x trademark and domain after I left their employment. This proposal was refused.

There were further talks between VMW and RHT which failed to come to a better solution.

I am legally obliged to respect VMware's IP. Therefore to avoid litigation I have done the following:

1. Transfer ownership of the vertx domain to VMware

2. Transfer ownership of the Vert.x blog to VMware

3. Transfer ownership of the vert-x organisation in github to VMware

4. Transfer ownership of the vert.x Google Group to Vmware

This means I am no longer administrator of any of the above, although I am still able to "manage" the google group and commit to the projects under the vert-x umbrella.

I am very concerned about this turn of events, as I understand it creates uncertainty in the Vert.x community.

For now, I will continue leading the Vert.x community the best I can under these restrictions, but we, as a community need to consider what this means for the future of Vert.x and what is the best way to take the project forward.

I don't have the answers to that right now, but there are several options. I would like to make sure we have some kind of concensus in the community before jumping to a conclusion.

Could you list the options in your mind? 

The most obvious two options would be:

1) Fork

2) Find a neutral organisation (neither controlled by VMW or RHT) to host the organisation.

I think we need to explore both those options.

Not sure you really need to find a neutral org. We don't have any for Netty and it works out quite well. Just have a org on github with the project under it worked out without any problem.

 

 

Just found that you are starting version 2.0, is that a big change compared to 1.x? 

If so, maybe you could re-brand vert.x 2.0 into something new, with a name that starts with 'R' -  V for VMware, R for Redhat :-) 

Our company has already invested in vert.x (our new service is running using vert.x 1.2.3.final), so I'm a little concerned.

I wouldn't be too concerned. Vert.x is not going to disappear altogether.

However the project vehicle or governance model might change.

If you want I can share the Netty CLA with you that we set up in the past..

 

 

I am deeply committed to you as a community, and I would love to continue leading Vert.x, in one form or another, to the next generation. The 1.x series of Vert.x has stoked a huge amount of interest, and the future looks incredibly bright for 2.0. I am hugely excited about the opportunities there, and I believe that you share this excitement. 2013 is potentially a huge year for Vert.x, and I want to share that journey with you.

-Tim

-- Norman