By just skimming through the forums, you can find that there are many questions that go unanswered. If the questions are answered, it is often not by SpringSource experts involved in the issues, but by people who have encountered the same issues but just logged into the forum because they have issues of their own.

I understand that you have to support your enterprise customers to keep SpringSource viable but greater support and help to the (free) Spring forums would be greatly appreciated.

On one hand SpringSource must have an income, so that they can invest in new development and keep the owners / investors happy.

On the other hand, SpringSource must not harm the godwill they have amongst the people, who choose technologies like Spring for their projects. I have not done any development on the Spring code – but I like to think, that I have contributed by "spreading the word" (I'm one of those people listen to, when they choose which technologies to use). Having an open source product provides a company with a lot of very effective "free marketing". If Spring had been a commercial product, it would never have gotten much attention (I guess).

Thus SpringSource must strike a balance between earning money and at the same time:
* must not offend the people that help spread Spring (and people don't want to help what the see as greedy companies)
* must not "force" the open source purists to do a fork of the Spring code
* must ensure developers/companies can try out / learn how to us Spring for free in small projects before they decide to use Spring in large projects

I think SpringSource has to be very careful not to harm their image. Spring is not that unique anymore, EJB has gotten a lot better and Seam might be challenger as well. Actually I think it is a lot easier to get started using EJB 3 than it is to get started using Spring (which wasn't the case with EJB 2.x).

I'm sorry if I offended anyone. I didn't mean to. I certainly didn't mean to classify "every single developer who has ever downloaded a Spring binary release without contributing code" as a "freeloader", and apologize if any of my posts gave that impression. (Btw, I'm pretty sure I didn't use the term "freeloader".) I agree that an army of developers contributes to the spread of open source and helps it to succeed–and that's great. I was thinking more of large *companies* and their relationship with the software they use. I believe that that is a very real issue and it's important to raise it.

If I am one of the voices of open source (thanks for the compliment, btw), I think that talking about the sustainability of open source–where it comes from and how it can be depended on in the long term–is an important contribution. It's an issue I've felt strongly about for years. I realize that my position does offend those who believe that open source is "free software": I just don't believe the data is on their side, and there's not much point being a "voice of open source" and not honestly expressing my opinions. I don't believe that open source can escape economics, and I think it's dangerously short-sighted to think that it can.

The end result is that we have a policy that is fair for developers (taking nothing away from them, and offering the potential for more features, faster, through concentration of effort), but which incents large enterprises to pay. I think that's a perfect solution.

Rgds
Rod

A big "thank you" for listening to the concerns of Spring adopters/supporters; well done. If only other software houses were so attentive to their users …

Now, some constructive criticism. When Rod Johnson speaks, like it or not, the whole open-source world is listening. Your initial announcement of the maintenance policy change was confusing and you know that. However the *real* damage you have done to SI and Spring in general was caused by your initial attempts at clarifying the situation.

You managed to classify every single developer who has ever downloaded a Spring binary release without contributing code to the project as a free-loader whose opinion and business you do not value.
I don't think that was what you meant to do, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. I think you're aware of the fact that your Enterprise sales come from the initial adoption and evangelizing by developers. These same developers don't have the time to contribute to OSS projects but do drive OSS adoption in their companies from the trenches of software development.

Your comments, especially in the TSS forums, infuriated a good many of them, several of whom I manage. Insulting the very people evangelizing the use of your software stack in a large corporation doesn't make much sense. I know from experience that there was an initial rush to Guice and Tapestry just after your first attempts at clarification.

You're no longer "Rod Johnson, developer" or even "Rod Johnson, consultant". You are now "Rod Johnson, CEO of SI and voice of open source". Be very, very careful about what you say and how you say it.

Locally, I have put out this fire but there's now a level of distrust of Spring and of *you* that is not going to go away any time soon.

However, I do have some concern over the open source business model that you wish you could implement. It's a meme that I've seen a few times now, which I think is a little contrary to the spirit of open source. I've blog about this here: http://blogs.webtide.com/gregw/entry/open_source_is_free_software