New Spring maintenance policy??

[leopinho]

It seems that we'll now need to _buy commercial support_ if we want maintenance releases after 3 months from the major new release

I think I will start to learn JBoss Seam...

TheServerSide discussion thread: http://www.theserverside.com/news/th...hread_id=50727

http://www.springsource.com/node/558

SAN MATEO, Calif.—September 17, 2008 – SpringSource, the company behind Spring, the de facto standard in enterprise Java, today announced that it has implemented a new maintenance policy for Spring. The policy provides Spring production users with a long-term, stable application platform to build, run and manage their Spring-powered applications.

Customers who are using SpringSource Enterprise, available under a subscription, will receive maintenance releases for three years from the general availability of a major new version. These customers receive ongoing, rapid patches as well as regular maintenance releases to address bugs, security vulnerabilities and usability issues, making SpringSource Enterprise the best option for production systems.

After a new major version of Spring is released, community maintenance updates will be issued for three months to address initial stability issues. Subsequent maintenance releases will be available to SpringSource Enterprise customers. Bug fixes will be folded into the open source development trunk and will be made available in the next major community release of the software . . .

[McCloud]

This is worrying me as well. I would really like someone from SpringSource to clarify this statement.

After a new major version of Spring is released, community maintenance updates will be issued for three months to address initial stability issues. Subsequent maintenance releases will be available to SpringSource Enterprise customers. Bug fixes will be folded into the open source development trunk and will be made available in the next major community release of the software.

Does this imply that if I'm on Spring 3.0, bugfixes will not be available to the community three months after the 3.0 release and that I have to wait for Spring 3.1 to get these fixes?

If that's the case, I think SpringSource is treating its community with a lot of disrespect. Not only is the community responsible for a lot of bug-reports (which obviously improve the framework), some of us also have donated (a lot of) code (e.g. bug-fixes, new features). If this maintenance policy actually means that we won't see any bug-fixes (remember, some of which we reported and even fixed) three months after a major release, I think a lot of us will abandon the Spring project and move on.

[Rod Johnson]

Originally Posted by McCloud

This is worrying me as well. I would really like someone from SpringSource to clarify this statement.

Does this imply that if I'm on Spring 3.0, bugfixes will not be available to the community three months after the 3.0 release and that I have to wait for Spring 3.1 to get these fixes?

If that's the case, I think SpringSource is treating its community with a lot of disrespect. Not only is the community responsible for a lot of bug-reports (which obviously improve the framework), some of us also have donated (a lot of) code (e.g. bug-fixes, new features). If this maintenance policy actually means that we won't see any bug-fixes (remember, some of which we reported and even fixed) three months after a major release, I think a lot of us will abandon the Spring project and move on.

The source code will be available to the open source community, so those with the ability and willingness to contribute will be able to compile the latest source on the appropriate branch.

Community contributions will always be welcome.

[dr_pompeii]

Dear Rod

The source code will be available to the open source community

like always, ok, here we fine

so those with the ability and willingness to contribute will be able to compile the latest source on the appropriate branch.

but what about this?
are we missing really the support from the same SpringSource after the first 3 months?

if the answer is

yes: (only depends of community updates) we would have 2 branch of Spring stable versions? (official by SpringSource and not official by the community?)
no: then, user under a subscription will receive maintenance releases for three years from the general availability of a major new version , how much would be the cost ot the subscription?, we how users without subscription , are we doom?

regards

[kantorn]

Read the discussion on this both here and elsewhere. Can't help feeling a bit sad about it, people feel disappointed and there are a lot of strong reactions.
Problem seems to be there aren't any clear answers whether the fixes will be available to the community in it code form or not after the infamous three months. Seems to me if it is, then everybody is able to assemble their own fixpack. Problematic, no defined releases and all that, but we will survive. If it isn't... well, then Spring can hardly qualify as an open source project any more. End Of Line.

Cannot blame Spring Source for their strive to make money, that what's companies are all about, but the psychological effect on the community of this, especially if the message is somewhat unclear, could be devastating.

The 'free market' will tell if Spring will survive or not, so to all you people out there; check alternatives up. This will certainly make investors/sponsors less willing to trust the future of Spring as foundation for new development projects. It's a pity and the possible real loss in all this; Spring makes Java EE what it should have been from the start...

[chudak]

I find it particularly interesting that those from the community that have committed their time and effort directly to the code base will be unable to get maintenance releases and bug fixes past 90 days unless they have an Enterprise license (highly unlikely in most cases). Sure we can all build it from source but who wants to have their project rely on a non-official, hand compiled version of a library dependency unless it's absolutely necessary?

That's pretty much a slap in the face to those that have helped to make Spring what it is for free so that SpringSource can now charge for it. This sure seems like deja vous vis a vis jboss.

Yup, seems like more and more, open source is for suckers--and I'm saying this as an ardent open source advocate and occasional contributer.

[Rod Johnson]

Originally Posted by kantorn

Read the discussion on this both here and elsewhere. Can't help feeling a bit sad about it, people feel disappointed and there are a lot of strong reactions.
Problem seems to be there aren't any clear answers whether the fixes will be available to the community in it code form or not after the infamous three months. Seems to me if it is, then everybody is able to assemble their own fixpack. Problematic, no defined releases and all that, but we will survive. If it isn't... well, then Spring can hardly qualify as an open source project any more. End Of Line.

There are clear answers on this--from me in this very thread, and from me and Mark Brewer on the TSS thread. The code will be available. I think it's sad that so many people are jumping to conclusions.

[PascalAlberty]

They are many many reactions on TTS post (and on other posts around the net).

Yes, the new policy is clear and we know what we'll get if we paid (all official releases) or not (official releases during 3 months, code in public trunk after, then you have to build your own releases by yourself).

Spring starts with you Rod, thanks for that. Spring growths by and for the community (and of course by all the SpringSource contributors you hire from this community) and now you say "thanks guy, but you have to pay now if you want to follow us". That's how many many people feel today !

The new policy is great to earn money and to bring credibility among big companies. The new policy is great against who toke advantage of the situation without doing anything. But for me, that's part (I insist "part of") of the Open Source philosophy.

I contribute on very very few issue, I try to contribute as much as I can help in the forum. Now, if I really want a solid framework, I'll have to pay !! Leave the community build its own release will bring anarchy and undermine Spring in the eyes of the community.

That's my opinion.

[joenmoreno]

There is nothing wrong with SpringSource trying to make a buck as that is what a company is for. However, I'm still sad this is happening with Spring.

I downloaded a white paper last week, Friday, September 19 and a couple of hours later, a very helpful salesperson (I'm assuming he's a sales guy) from SpringSource gave me a follow-up call. He asked me if my current application that is using Spring is in production or not. He then told me about the new maintenance policy. IMHO, it felt like he was trying to scare me into buying SpringSource license or something. But I digress.

He explained to me how the new policy works. Here's the gist of what he said is the new policy:

If for example Spring 3.0 is released today, September 22, 2008, SpringSource will be releasing bug fixes, patches, etc. until December 22, 2008 (or whenever 90 days is). After that, the community will not get any official releases until the next MAJOR release which is 3.5 (not 3.1 as a previous poster asked). I asked him what a MAJOR release means and he answered that as for now, SpringSource uses .5 (dot five) release number as major. He then said that that definition of MAJOR could change too.

If anybody can tell me that my understanding is incorrect, inaccurate, or just plain hogwash, then please let me know. This conversation with the salesperson really turned me off which is sad because I like Spring, the Spring Projects, and DI in general. In fact, I am one of the biggest proponent of Spring in this company right now. This major development makes me pause and reconsider that stand now.

[Rod Johnson]

Originally Posted by joenmoreno

I asked him what a MAJOR release means and he answered that as for now, SpringSource uses .5 (dot five) release number as major. He then said that that definition of MAJOR could change too.

A major release would be 3.0, 3.1, 3.5 or 4.0. It's any change of the first or second decimal point.

The last major release was a .5. Perhaps that's where the confusion stemmed from. I'll speak to sales to make sure that they understand this clearly.