OpenDS 1.0.0 Build 008 Now Available

Radio Receiver Icon

Through Ludo:

• OpenDS 1.0.0 Build 008 Now Available.
• Also check out the Build Page.


Speaking of openDS, any comments to this open letter from Neil? I would like to see a statement of direction for the project.

Concerned Greetings

Posted by Bernd Eckenfels on December 02, 2007 at 04:40 PM PST #

The OpenDS project remains a key project for Sun and the future of the Directory Server Enterprise Edition product line.
There are still 15 engineers with a strong background in LDAP and Directory Services developing the project and more than a handful of engineers dedicated to the tests development and qualification.
But despite our large contribution, we would be more than happy to have a greater external participation.


Posted by Ludo on December 02, 2007 at 07:52 PM PST #

Hi Bernd - As Ludo says, OpenDS is a key project for Sun. I'd reemphasize that Sun is committed to a transparent, participative Open Source project.

There were two different actions; one was the personnel changes, the other was reverting the governance document to a version prior to 4/28/07 (see ludo[1] and my[2] posts, for example).


Posted by Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart on December 02, 2007 at 10:44 PM PST #

Why would anyone participate on such unequal footing? I'm definitely going to look into the competing Apache project (ApacheDS) after our 1.0 release. While I don't always like the Apache model, it is far preferable to the defacto and now de jure "at whim" model of Sun. "external participation" isn't free, you have to give to're not giving. OpenDS is being run as "shared source". A license is insufficient to make a project Open Source.

Posted by Andy on December 03, 2007 at 02:16 PM PST #

Andy, the governance for OpenDS - as that for GlassFish and mostly all of Sun's middleware communities - is _not_ finalized. You might want to wait until the governance finalizes before making a final decision.

Last time I counted there were over 40 external (not Sun, not Oracle) serious contributors to the GlassFish community. There must be something they like there, and the (interim) governance for GlassFish is pretty much identical to the (interim) governance for OpenDS.

- eduard/o

Posted by Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart on December 03, 2007 at 02:39 PM PST #

Eduardo, so long as Sun behaves in this manner, the only definitive action that Sun leaves is to vote with your feet.

Eduardo, until something contentious happens you can't tell what the actual governance model is. On its face, Pakistan is a democratic republic, china has a constitution and etc etc. Sun makes decisions for ITS projects, those that are happy under that model will stay. It certainly has that right. Those that want open source, are best looking else where.

It isn't personal, I just prefer open source software and where there are alternatives I prefer to use open source software. I do kind of resent that Sun is misrepresenting these projects as such. Not half as much as I dislike the PR job that is being done though.

Posted by Andy on December 04, 2007 at 12:31 AM PST #

BTW I am unsubscribing from the list since I'm now in the post-to-yourself sandbox. I can take a hint.

Posted by Andy on December 04, 2007 at 12:32 AM PST #

re; Andy - What do you mean by "post-to-yourself"? - eduard/o

Posted by Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart on December 04, 2007 at 12:43 AM PST #

Andy - re: something contentious happening. Well, part of the key problem here is that we have different versions of what happened, including, for example, how much autonomy had been transfered from Sun to the early OpenDS community. Some of the differences are not necessarily inconsistent with each other, btw. Unfortunately, early conversations and follow-ups are complicated by Employee Law restrictions.

Obviously, you are totally entitled to your own opinion. Perhaps we can change it over time; perhaps not.

Posted by Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart on December 04, 2007 at 12:49 AM PST #

Lookie here: my last post isn't there. Only I received it.

I'm not sure there is that much of a different version so much as you guys want everyone to think it is okay. I read the talking points and the stories are getting straight as if an email went out explaining exactly what 4 points to emphasize in every email communication in every forum. ;-) You guys want absolute control over your project. I get that, it is your software, you have that right. I just wish you didn't have to go around calling it open source...because isn't. It is open source licensed but other shared source stuff is too.

Posted by Andy on December 04, 2007 at 03:17 AM PST #

re: "post to yourself" -- I think your email went through fine; I got it too, dated 6:43apm 12/3/07.

I suspect the archive machinery has stopped working. I got two other emails this morning sent to the alias and neither is archived. Every now and then the CollabNet machinery falls very behind, sometimes even stopping altogether.

I'll check out what's happening and will report back here and in the alias.

Regarding the general topic, it seems we are not making much forward progress in our conversation, so maybe we should just park that thread until there is more data for us to build on?

I'll get back to you with the archive issue as soon as it gets resolved. We used to have a tool that would track the mail delay, but it seems down right now. That may, or not, be related to the archiving problem.

- eduard/o

Posted by Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart on December 04, 2007 at 04:20 AM PST #

Andy - I can confirm the archival problem and it seems generalized; the last email archived for the USERS@GlassFish alias, which gets high volume, is dated Dec 1st, 12:55 PT.

I'll contact the Java.Net office to be sure they are working on this.

- eduard/o

Posted by Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart on December 04, 2007 at 04:37 AM PST #

You guys stop going around the internet repeating talking points, I'll stop going around the internet refuting them and mentioning that you're repeating talking points. Otherwise, I'll post "clarifications" where you do. Obviously I'll make sure to link to all coverage on the issue (and you might have noticed that I'm not too bad at making sure things are well covered ;-) ). Call source activism. On the other hand if you stop misrepresenting the project as open source then noisy guys like me will mostly leave you alone...well other than being duped.

Posted by Andy on December 04, 2007 at 11:07 PM PST #

BTW we cant have a conversation because the premise is "how can I fix your perception to be that 'everything we do/have done is right'" and because I don't think you have full range to speak freely nor do I think the words you et al keep repeating are from yourselves (it is uncommon for software developers to be so uniformly "on message")

Posted by Andy on December 04, 2007 at 11:09 PM PST #

Sorry, but even our interpretation of this conversation is different. I am not trying to convince you that "everything we have done is right"; I had been trying to convince to you that you might have partial data. I know I did, and that's why I've been careful in what I've said.

Other examples of partial data:

- We did not blacklist you. We had a Java.Net archival failure over the weekend that affected all projects.

- We are not repeating corporate speak. We are having additional internal discussions as we are trying to understand what happened and our comments reflect that - or at least that part that we feel we are at liberty to describe in public.

- eduard/o

Posted by Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart on December 04, 2007 at 11:54 PM PST #

Right... "we didn't approve" ..."all the details are secret" know.. open source... So basically you guys go into the proverbial smoky room and act as the "deciders" privately.

I'm just trying to convince you that there is ENOUGH public information to see that your project is NOT open and also warn others so they don't get duped.

As for the archival failure, I believe that despite the convenient timing just because it isn't the first time something like that has happened on (sincerely). However, I prefer to work with open source software where there are alternatives. I don't see any reason to participate in the community or contribute my patches because I can work myself in as a peer in other projects. In Sun's shared source project I can work my way up to servant and have decisions made in the proverbial smoky room. You call this "governance", I call it "shared source". And so far you guys appear to be handling it as a "PR issue". Your (pl) actions are convincing me more than your words, that is the problem. I just want to make sure the data that we have (not the extra special secret data that you have) is well distributed :-)

I don't know why Sun has to misappropriate "open source" when it really means "shared source". You want to share source just with your customers and decide in a market fashion not as co-developers with the community. There is nothing wrong with that, just be honest about it.

Posted by Andy on December 05, 2007 at 10:12 PM PST #

re: Open Source terminology - Right now there is no standardized taxonomy of governances. The term Open Source is applied to communities that range from MySQL, through GlassFish, to Apache's meritocracy. We are not trying to "dupe" anybody; there is no short, easy label that one can use except by pointing to the governance docs. Besides, today's governance will likely not be the final one.

I respect your choice of what communities to participate in. I'd prefer if you waited to see how this one will evolve, but ultimately it is your choice.

- eduard/o

Posted by Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart on December 06, 2007 at 12:27 AM PST #

That's lame. People misuse open source so its okay if we do. This is like when the marketing dept for a company that I worked for asked me to create a surreptitious database for a form that said "we will not XYZ and we will use the database for T purpose" and they wanted to XYZ and I said "nope" because it says you will not do that, so I won't have any part of it. Sure "others" do it but that doesn't make it okay. I do not know how decisions are made in mysql's project. I do know how they are made in Apache. Apache is not the be all end all of open source. However, most of the software/community decisions at Apache (those not polluted by Sun's NDA and Field of Use licensing) tend to be done openly with the developers making decisions. The board is elected by members who are generally from the same body of developers. The worst decisions (as is a statistical norm) have been executive, but there is at least a representative process and a predominantly open one although Sun has increasingly succeeded in closing sections of Apache and fragmenting communities with NDAs and special spec committees that make design decisions not open to public scrutiny until after the fact thus creating two classes of developers. It seems like you are advocating that "anything under the sun" that someone calls open source -- is -- open source.

The problem is that the process for "evolve"ing it is again in a proverbial smoky room. Oddly Microsoft has made moves to open and legitimize its efforts while you're trying to sell me on its okay to say "open source" when you mean "shared source".

Rectify and OWN UP to the mistake you made before appealing to "we'll evolve in our smoky room". Stop going around trying to excuse it. Stop handling this as a PR issue instead of an openness and honesty issue.

Posted by Andy on December 06, 2007 at 04:13 AM PST #

Post a Comment:
Comments are closed for this entry.