Re: Open source WO (was: Apple, Microsoft, Java and the Web?)

Hello,

>... let's say Apple did release the source of WebObjects, what would
>     we do with it, and could we do whatever it is without the source?

I will let others more qualified speak below and just summarize:

# 1: Better WO Marketability (without Apple consumer brand image attached)

# 2: Community bug fixes, which in return helps Apple.

# 3: Thriving WO Community instead of Shrinking Community. Provides
better Resources and Human Capital for Apple in the future.

# 4: Faster adaptability and release turnout in response to trends
(eg. recent ones such as AJAX)

The mail quoted below is an excerpt from 2002, but still - even more
IMO because WO is not longer a product - very valid today.  [1]

>     I think this is a more productive approach than constantly asking
>     for something that simply isn't going to happen.

Why not in the future ?  The environment is changing fast and Apple
should take a look and re-evaluate...

- Major application server vendors are showing Open source is
successful : IBM with Apache Geronimo/Gluecode, JBoss, Sun with
GlassFish, ObjectWeb/RedHat with Jonas....the list goes on and on.

- WO is not a product for Apple any longer, ie no direct money
streams. (More on this point when the WWDC 2006 news are public)

- Sun is open-sourcing Java in the coming months and 2007 (
http://news.com.com/2100-7252_3-6105601.html ). Many people also
thought this will never happen...

Or to sum it up in a counter question: What are the reasons *not* to
open source WO in the near future ?

[1]  Mail: Why Open Source WO makes sense for Apple and the Community:

> -------Reader's Digest Version-----------------
>
> Four reasons why Apple should open source WO/EOF:
>
> REASON #1: WO/EOF cannot be legitimate extensions of the Apple brand,
> its value to the marketplace is only achieved through independence from
> the Apple brand proper. Placing WO/EOF under an open source license
> allows Apple to retain control. It also allows legitimacy to and
> adoption by those who would not normally accept or adopt an Apple
> product in this space.
>
> REASON #2: Because debugging is highly parallelizable, an open source
> WO/EOF will increase the number of debuggers and therefor increase the
> stability of the product over the long run by applying the skills of
> many more engineers than Apple could ever hope to support as employees.
> With a large enough user/co-developer community, all bugs can be
> quickly quantified and understood allowing a fix to become obvious to
> at least one member of the community.
>
> REASON #3: If Apple will treat the WO/EOF user community as if we were
> their most valuable resource in terms of current and future development
> of the product, we will become their most valuable resource. Trusting
> us enough to share the source in an open source fashion, will benefit
> Apple (and the application server market) in ways they cannot even
> begin to imagine.
>
> REASON #4: Because there is no accounting for taste. That was the first
> lesson of applied microeconomics my college professor taught me, and it
> holds true today. Apple, as smart and cutting edge as it may be, cannot
> anticipate the ways in which WO/EOF will be utilized or improved upon
> by people in the field. Open source allows for faster innovation and
> the ability to capture truly useful and novel ideas.
>

Source: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-java-user/200205.mbox/%[email protected]%3E

PS: I think Reason #3 (quoted in that mail) is even more valid today
since Apple has since added / expanded high-profile inhouse
applications: iTMS, .Mac and Apple Store...
How to find and train applicants in the future if the community base
is shrinking ?

Marc