[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[DotGNU]Re: My Favorite soapbox : XML linkage

From: Peter Saint-Andre
Subject: [DotGNU]Re: My Favorite soapbox : XML linkage
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 16:06:34 -0500 (CDT)

Seth Johnson wrote:

> This is an implication of the application server framework,
> not so much XML/etc.  For instance the REST people are very
> dedicated to the end-to-end principle along with XML (though
> this is not to say that the end-to-end principle substitutes
> for a dependable strategy to assure freedom).  People who
> access remote web services only get data, not applications. 
> So they end up in a position of saying, what do I need code
> for, anyway?  The application server model is very well
> designed to make people into *consumers* of "information
> services," not to encourage people to build and maintain
> their own servers.  It also leads people to the standpoint
> of not even loading applications on their local machines.

This was (and is) true of HTTP/HTML too, no? The web is open but not free 
and there is no viral aspect to sending a receiving all sorts of data
using Internet protocols (HTTP, SMTP, etc). I don't see this as a
function of using XML.

> This is actually why the proprietary camp sees so much going
> for them in the web services arena, why Yahoo, etc. are
> moving to block interoperation the way they are.

Well, part of the point of the Jabber project (movement?) is to keep
real-time messaging open by developing an open protocol that no
proprietary interests can control. The purpose here is obviously different
from primarily creating free or open code. This is one reason that we in
the Jabber community struggle with some issues that purely source-based
projects don't (e.g., working with the IETF or other standards bodies, or
creating our own mini standards organization in the Jabber Software
Foundation -- see our "JEP" process at I'm
not saying this is better or worse, just that it's different.

And James Michael DuPont wrote:

> > Please dont be offended, but
> > I have to say that it is a little strange that there
> > are so many commercial jabber implementation and very
> > few good GPLed.

Don't worry, I'm not easily offended. However, the facts lead me to a
different conclusion. The main server implementation of the Jabber
protocol is the open and free jabberd code (dual-licensed under JOSL and
GPL). The main libraries for Jabber are all GPL or LGPL, with one or two
covered under JOSL. The two or three main clients (WinJab, Gabber, and
Exodus) are all covered under the GPL. By "main" here I mean most popular
and most widely deployed. Thus I must question your assertion and point
out that the percentage of commercial code in the Jabber ecosystem is
quite low compared to open and free code. However, the protocol is in the
public domain in a non-viral fashion, so people definitely can write
proprietary code that implements the Jabber protocol. Whether such
proprietary code will win the greatest mindshare and marketshare in the
end is quite open to doubt. Or so it seems to me.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]