The above systems can cause terrible pain to your productive environments when they crash. You want to have extremely skilled fire fighters ready when your system goes down. Some of the above systems have been said to be deliberately complex in order to be able to pursue this particular business model.
Commercial software or dual-licensed software
… is the best business model for companies selling very simple, easy to use software where customers do not rely on skilled personnel in the event of a crash. This is particularly true for
The above software are so easy to handle and to maintain, their vendors would hardly make any money with support. Granted, support is always included in the license fees. That’s just part of the service quality.
This event seems to have a big impact on the whole Java ecosystem as many of the above people are key players and influencers in our community, and they neither agree nor know what this step by Oracle means for the future of JEE.
The most interesting point of view among all of the above, in my opinion, is tomitribe’s, looking at things from a mere business point of view with respect to Open Source. They’re saying:
What this says to me is that we as an industry still do not fully understand Open Source.
We most certainly do not understand Open Source. I’m an Open Source software vendor myself. I believe that Open Source is:
An excellent marketing tool
People look at Open Source as something “generally good”. When I talked about jOOQ at conferences and when it was an all-Open-Source piece of software (not yet dual-licensed), I got lots of opportunity to do free advertising. This has rapidly changed, now that I am offering an alternative commercial license.
The same here. As I’m now a “commercial” software vendor, some tools are no longer accessible to me.
The truth is: Open Source is a business strategy
It really is. And it seemed to have worked well for RedHat or Pivotal in the past. Has it worked for anyone else? We don’t know yet, as most other larger companies have such huge amounts of revenue in “classic” fields that they can simply “afford” Open Source. In fact, they’re so good at investing manpower and innovation into Open Source, it keeps the commercial competition in check, as it is hard to write a better and more complete JEE implementation than Weblogic or Websphere.
No matter what the impact of the commercial unsupport of GlassFish on JEE will be, we’re only at the beginning of fully understanding what kind of impact this large scale “freemium” model will have on our world. This isn’t just about the software industry. The whole Internet has brought us “free” stuff. We get:
“Free” standards (compare W3C, IETF standards to ISO standards!)
“Free” Facebook and Twitter and GMail accounts
“Free” music and films
“Free” commodity services for all sorts of work
“Free” work force as we can offshore anything to low-wage countries
This has been picked up recently by Tim Kreider, the author of “We Learn Nothing”, where he depicts how writing “free stuff” for the New York Times helps building “exposure”, and how that’s just nonsense as all this hard journalist work doesn’t pay anymore.
Does building “exposure” ring a bell?
Yes, I can build “exposure” by writing free Open Source on GitHub, and by answering complex questions for free on Stack Overflow. I personally use both tools to advertise jOOQ, no doubt. So I get a service (advertising) for a service (content). My deal appears fair to me. But loads of GitHub and Stack Overflow users contribute … just for the sake of contributing. To whom? To GitHub and Stack Overflow. And why? I don’t know.
So, should you contribute to GlassFish, if Oracle starts decreasing support and loosening interest as they have before with MySQL, Hudson, and other products inherited from Sun?
Let’s remember that Karl Marx has already taught us that our idea of capitalism will inevitably lead us to (citing from Wikipedia):
Absolutely! There’s no way that productivity can get any better than by having loads of software developers world wide produce better and better tools (growth, progress) for nothing more than … for free!
So, don’t be a pawn of others’ Open Source strategies
So, instead of contemplating what Oracle’s move away from supporting the Open Source reference implementation of JEE means, become active yourself! Don’t just blindly consume Open Source, make it an option like any other option by consciously deciding in favour of Open Source or commercial software, depending on your specific needs.
Stop advertising their cool products for free at conferences, unless you pull out your own advantage from such an advertisement. Open Source is just yet another business model.
At Data Geekery, Open Source is also very important, just as commercial licensing has become, since recently. The change towards dual-licensing has been received rather positively on the jOOQ user group, even if it led to open questions about the continued Open Source strategy. But what’s the real difference between Open Source and commercial software? At Adobe, Dr. Roy Fielding is often cited saying that there is essentially no difference between Open Source and commercial software, and he’s quite an authority for both worlds. Both are absolutely viable business models with their pros and cons respectively (unfortunately, I cannot back this up with an actual citation).
One significant difference, however, is that low-quality open source software can heavily outlive low-quality commercial software, as it just never really dies, as no one is “losing money” on low OSS “sales”. I’ve recently blogged about how to recognise such low-quality Open Source software.
Open Source is foremost a business and marketing strategy, just as much as it is a mission. This business strategy can be a good or a bad choice for any software vendor.
Four years ago, the Java database middleware market was dominated by a variety of ORMs implementing JPA. This paradigm was hardly challenged by alternatives. There was a gap for an API making SQL a first-class citizen in the Java language ecosystem and jOOQ had come to fill this gap. With jOOQ, developers who engage heavily in writing SQL finally had a tool that helped them express SQL almost natively in the Java language, leveraging the Java 6+ compiler’s features to validate their SQL statement’s syntax and type correctness. In the last four years, jOOQ had become increasingly popular and mature. jOOQ is used by many demanding customers operating on large and complex databases. The feedback that we have had from those customers was unanimously positive, although there was one thing missing. That one missing thing was professional support, warranties, and thus commercial licensing. With the new jOOQ 3.2, apart from introducing great new features, we are changing quite a few things on how we operate.
At Data Geekery GmbH, we believe in Open Source. But we also believe in the creative power enabled by commercial software. This is why we have chosen to implement the following dual-licensing strategy:
Users using jOOQ with commercial databases will be able to profit from our competitive commercial jOOQ subscription licenses, which include support for commercial databases, as well as professional support in English, German, and French, early access to releases and bugfixes, warranties, custom engineering and much more.
Of course, customers using jOOQ with an Open Source database can also purchase a commercial license subscription, if they wish to profit from our professional support and services. In the following FAQ, we’ll answer to some questions you may have:
Why offering a workstation license?
We believe that the main added value of jOOQ is added to our customer’s development lifecycles. jOOQ helps developers write SQL code in 10% of the time they needed if they had used JDBC or other String-based approaches directly. At the same time, jOOQ and its powerful source code generator help prevent coding mistakes early in the development lifecycle, preventing 90% of the usual SQL mistakes. jOOQ is thus a development tool, as opposed to a database, which is a storage tool adding most value at runtime. This is why jOOQ offers a workstation license, as opposed to most databases offering server licenses.
Why not just offering support for an all-Open-Source library?
We’re aware of vendors that sell all-Open-Source software, making money only with expensive support subscriptions. This is a viable model for vendors offering server software, such as databases, where 24/7 support is very crucial. It is also a viable model for vendors offering very complex software, which needs a lot of additional, costly consulting efforts. jOOQ is none of the aforementioned. It is middleware, which is very easy to use and will not generate any consulting business as it adds almost no complexity on top of SQL itself. We have challenged our decision with a variety of existing users and customers, and we firmly believe that we can add most value with a dual-licensing model that builds upon dependent database licensing models. After all, spending a bit of money on a jOOQ license will save our customers an incredible amount of money on their development lifecycle with powerful databases like DB2, Oracle, SQL Server, or Sybase.
Why stick with the Apache License?
The Apache License has served us well in the past four years. It is very liberal while at the same time, protecting our trademarks. It is a license that has enabled us to grow and get lots of high quality community feedback and contributions. We do not want to follow suit with other dual-licensing companies who go down the *GPL path, as we believe that dual-licensing *GPL software is not true to the spirit of Open Source Software in the long run. By staying with the Apache License, we want to express our deep commitment to Open Source.
What about contributor copyrights?
We take copyrights seriously. This is why we had our major contributors sign an agreement to transfer all copyrights to us. While we need to settle copyrights, we still want to publicly attribute authorship to those contributors who have shared code or documentation with us. Of course, we also welcome all future contributions by our community! Should you as a contributor feel that your copyrights are challenged or infringed by our dual-licensing, please do contact us directly.
What happened to the jOOQ Console?
While the jOOQ Console 3.1 will continue to be available to jOOQ 3.2 users from Maven Central, the jOOQ Console development has been stopped in its current form. It will make room for a new, commercial profiler software that Data Geekery will develop in the near future, stay tuned.
Why do this at all?
Because we want to show our commitment to jOOQ, which is much more than a library. It is a vision of a better Java and SQL integration. It is innovation in various fields of the Java ecosystem. We want to:
Support those who love both Java and SQL and who were denied appropriate tooling, in the past.
Further develop the integration of internal domain-specific languages in Java, by formalising language aspects of software like jOOQ. Not just for jOOQ.
Expand our high-quality SQL integration into the Scala ecosystem by offering a native Scala API – and possibly core.
Further improve the jOOQ Console to provide more high-quality development tooling.
Make our SQL knowledge available to our customers through our blog and source code.
In order to implement the above plans, we need to create a business from jOOQ. And we believe that this business will be extremely interesting both to us and to our customers. Together, as the jOOQ ecosystem, we’ll create a better Java/SQL world! Let us start with jOOQ 3.2!