EPL Growth: The Symbian Foundation Goes Fully Open
It’s not too surprising that the Eclipse Foundation thinks that the Eclipse Public License is a darn fine open source license. It is arguably the most commercially-friendly of the copyleft licenses, and one which is particularly well suited for fostering a community building a software platform.
So in June of 2008 we were thrilled with the announcement concerning the formation of the Symbian Foundation and their selection of the EPL as their community’s license. It was a huge endorsement of the EPL which immediately shattered a couple of misconceptions about it. (I’m thinking of things like “the EPL is a Java license”, “the EPL is only for Eclipse projects” and the like.) But of course migrating a large and mature code base to open source takes a lot of work to do, so the original announcement was basically a promise of good things to come.
Today is the day that promise becomes a reality. The Symbian Foundation is releasing its entire code base under the EPL to the world. This is a major accomplishment for that community, and one which they accomplished months earlier than originally planned. Please join me in congratulating the Symbian Foundation in achieving an important milestone in their voyage to becoming a truly open source and open development community.
2010 Elections: Candidates Posted
The candidates for the 2010 Eclipse Foundation Board of Directors are now posted. There are five nominees for Committer Rep and five nominees for Sustaining Member Rep, each group competing for three available seats.
We will have the candidates full bios and positions up by February 8th. Voting opens on February 22nd. You can find a full description of all of the key dates here.
I hope to see lots of community members getting involved in the discussions!
The Two Solitudes
I don’t think you can go to school in Canada and not read Hugh MacLennan’s the Two Solitudes. So for me it was an obvious metaphor for a phenomenon that has become apparent to me over the past year or so. That is: Europeans and Americans (particularly Californians) view the practice of software development in materially different ways.
I travel a lot to both Europe and California and I talk to a lot of people about what they are building and how they are building it. In my personal and completely unscientific experience the difference between the two regions is stark. I thought it might be interesting to explain what I am observing and see if others see things in a similar way. I freely admit that my experiences could be completely coloured by sample bias (e.g. maybe I’m just talking to completely different crowds in the different regions).
BTW, some of these ideas are distantly related to Michael Cusumano’s book The Business of Software, where he points out that the US is somewhat unique in looking at software as a business. Certainly there are not that many European independent software vendors relative to the US.
It seems that most of the Europeans I talk to are focused on large systems engineering problems. As a result, they largely view software as part of a supply chain, where what they are working on is going to either be part of or in support of a systems engineering product such as an automobile or an airplane. The next largest group that I talk to are fairly typical application developers working in large banks, insurance companies and the like. But here are the interesting bits:
- Both of these groups are deeply concerned about software complexity and both are looking to modeling and model-driven development as part of the solution. They view modeling as absolutely strategic to their future ability to develop the software their customers or businesses will need.
- I also see a lot more interest in desktop applications as opposed to web applications. Just recently I had two different conversations with groups that are migrating existing web applications to Eclipse RCP desktop applications. This is not to say that Europeans don’t build websites or use RIAs! But in my experience there is a very noticeable difference in the relative interest in desktop applications in Europe.
Now if you’re still reading this, you’ve likely guessed where its going next. My experiences in the US generally and even more so in California is that the Web is king and that anything which doesn’t run in the browser is uninteresting. I also uniformly get incredulous reactions if you ask someone in the US if they’re using modeling or model-driven development practices. They’re all hacking code with small, fast, super-smart teams. It’s just a completely different world in my personal experience.
Do others have similar observations?
The challenge for Eclipse in this context, of course, is to be relevant in both contexts. I actually think that we are doing a good — but not yet great — job of doing so. Projects like e4 are leading the way to making the Eclipse platform more relevant in the Web 2.0 world. But it certainly has a ways to go. The Modeling project has a virtual alphabet soup of technologies in it, but at the moment falls short of a providing a cohesive modeling platform. Something I hope to see the community begin to address shortly.
One Big Step for EclipseRT
The future of Java technology in the enterprise rests with its rapidly evolving ability to regain its original promise of lightweight, flexible and dynamic application development and deployment. In other words, the faster Java gets to the stackless stack, the brighter its future will be. As James Governor said in his seminal article, “component-based development is a common idea, but component-based production is a whole different ballgame.” That has been the vision of the EclipseRT project since its inception: the ability to support deployed runtimes which use only those components actually required by the applications at hand. This is an inherently service-based approach, and one which has seen rapid adoption by enterprise Java and Enterprise Service Bus vendors.
SpringSource has long been one of the most visible and vocal leaders of lightweight, componentized Java runtimes. Today, they bring that leadership to Eclipse. The Virgo project proposal brings to EclipseRT project a key component (no pun intended) required to provide a complete offering of OSGi-based runtimes from the Eclipse Foundation: a complete module-based Java application server designed to run enterprise Java applications. Based on SpringSource’s dm Server, we believe this project will increase the momentum of the enterprise Java developer community under the Eclipse umbrella.
The past couple of years, “establish Eclipse runtime technology as the leading open source runtime platform” has been on the top of the list of the strategic goals of the Eclipse Foundation. The recently announced Gemini project — and now Virgo — go a long way towards realizing that vision.
You can read more about Virgo on Adrian Colyer’s blog post.
[Revised to fix broken link to Adrian’s post.]
It’s a Dessert Topping and a Floor Wax
Last week we saw probably more conversation than any of us wanted about the notion that Eclipse is a trade association and therefore not an open source community. I believe that perspective to be misguided as it implies those two states are somehow mutually exclusive. They are not. And it is our community’s embrace of both that makes Eclipse unique.
The Eclipse Foundation is and always will be a trade association. It is also and always will be an open source community. This duality is built into our bylaws, our organization and, I would assert, our DNA. Consider the following sentence from the first paragraph of our Bylaws:
The purpose of Eclipse Foundation Inc., (the “Eclipse Foundation”), is to advance the creation, evolution, promotion, and support of the Eclipse Platform and to cultivate both an open source community and an ecosystem of complementary products, capabilities, and services.
That sentence captures the very essence of the Eclipse Foundation. Our mission is to both move the technology and community forward and to work on its commercialization. The “trade association” of member companies financially support the operations of the Eclipse Foundation. Over 70 of them also provide committers who work on projects. There are relatively few obligations that an Eclipse member company undertakes when they sign the membership agreement, but one of the most important is to create a commercial offering based on Eclipse technologies. It is that obligation which completes the loop from open source to commercialization to trade association and back. Those trade association members are not strangers: they are companies that are intimately involved in and committed to the success of the entire Eclipse community.
There is no doubt that the focus on commercialization places added burdens on Eclipse projects. Our development and IP processes require real work to comply with. But there is value in that labour, and the value is in the added use, adoption, commercialization and plain old respect that the Eclipse brand brings to a project. Not every Eclipse-based open source project needs to be hosted at the Foundation. For some projects, our processes may be too heavyweight. But those projects are still a valuable part of the broader Eclipse ecosystem.
The Eclipse community is also an open development community. I strongly believe that our development process has all of the attributes of openness, transparency and meritocracy that open development requires. Our unique approach to open source development is what enables things like the annual release train, which is arguably the best run, most predictable feat of software engineering on the planet. And let’s not forget that although many projects at Eclipse are supported by developers working at member companies, there are many also projects with active participants who are here as individuals.
But there is also no denying that we have our challenges. Every project would love to have more resources and more community involvement. We need to make it easier for newcomers to contribute. There are projects who frankly don’t do a great job of welcoming contributions. We have to attract more resources committed to evolving the core platform. We have a major new release of the platform coming next year. The staff and the Board of the Eclipse Foundation recognize all of these challenges and are working very hard to address them.
The balance between a trade association and an open source community makes Eclipse unique in the software industry. We have always been both, and that has always been an important part of our success. We are different, and in my mind that is a very good thing. I believe that we should all be very proud of the organization that we have created.