Comments on: Apache Software License, Hippo, and BlueNog http://www.contenthere.net/2009/07/apache-software-license-hippo-and-bluenog.html Enter Content Here Fri, 12 Mar 2010 02:28:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Mark Woodward http://www.contenthere.net/2009/07/apache-software-license-hippo-and-bluenog.html/comment-page-1#comment-1389 Mark Woodward Tue, 04 Aug 2009 14:49:37 +0000 http://www.contenthere.net/?p=1175#comment-1389 Is Bluenog’s Use of Open Source Sustainable? http://ccsblog.burtongroup.com/collaboration_and_content/2009/07/is-bluenogs-use-of-open-source-sustainable.html Is Bluenog’s Use of Open Source Sustainable?

http://ccsblog.burtongroup.com/collaboration_and_content/2009/07/is-bluenogs-use-of-open-source-sustainable.html

]]> By: Links 18/07/2009: GNU/Linux Benchmarks, Mandriva 2009.1 USB Release | Boycott Novell http://www.contenthere.net/2009/07/apache-software-license-hippo-and-bluenog.html/comment-page-1#comment-1316 Links 18/07/2009: GNU/Linux Benchmarks, Mandriva 2009.1 USB Release | Boycott Novell Sat, 18 Jul 2009 08:23:51 +0000 http://www.contenthere.net/?p=1175#comment-1316 [...] Apache Software License, Hippo, and BlueNog The Apache Software License, which Hippo CMS uses, is very permissive and only requires that redistributions of the software contain a notice file giving credit to the original developers. Bluenog isn’t even doing this. And, as you would probably expect they are not contributing back to Hippo either. [...] [...] Apache Software License, Hippo, and BlueNog The Apache Software License, which Hippo CMS uses, is very permissive and only requires that redistributions of the software contain a notice file giving credit to the original developers. Bluenog isn’t even doing this. And, as you would probably expect they are not contributing back to Hippo either. [...]

]]> By: Arje Cahn, CTO of Hippo http://www.contenthere.net/2009/07/apache-software-license-hippo-and-bluenog.html/comment-page-1#comment-1295 Arje Cahn, CTO of Hippo Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:42:09 +0000 http://www.contenthere.net/?p=1175#comment-1295 [..] Distributing our product without retaining the required notices does not only go against the spirit of the open source community, it also hampers our efforts to build the larger community of which Bluenog and its customers are a part [..] http://blogs.hippo.nl/arje/2009/07/bragging_rights.html [..] Distributing our product without retaining the required notices does not only go against the spirit of the open source community, it also hampers our efforts to build the larger community of which Bluenog and its customers are a part [..]
http://blogs.hippo.nl/arje/2009/07/bragging_rights.html

]]> By: Boris http://www.contenthere.net/2009/07/apache-software-license-hippo-and-bluenog.html/comment-page-1#comment-1293 Boris Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:02:19 +0000 http://www.contenthere.net/?p=1175#comment-1293 There is a difference between taking infrastructure components and build a product out of them and taking products and rebrand them as your own. Vendor-driven open-source products like Hippo, Open-CMS or (our own) Magnolia CMS live off the product they built and related services. Starting a company to wrap an existing solution into your own - even if you add value - is the wrong way to go. If you really have value to add, do so within the original space the vendor provides - a VAR is a good example, or build modules that add value and sell these. Another option is to invest directly in the original company - if they let you - and such make the long-term outlook for your business and your customers much more stable. There is a difference between taking infrastructure components and build a product out of them and taking products and rebrand them as your own. Vendor-driven open-source products like Hippo, Open-CMS or (our own) Magnolia CMS live off the product they built and related services. Starting a company to wrap an existing solution into your own – even if you add value – is the wrong way to go. If you really have value to add, do so within the original space the vendor provides – a VAR is a good example, or build modules that add value and sell these. Another option is to invest directly in the original company – if they let you – and such make the long-term outlook for your business and your customers much more stable.

]]> By: Simplify This http://www.contenthere.net/2009/07/apache-software-license-hippo-and-bluenog.html/comment-page-1#comment-1290 Simplify This Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:28:21 +0000 http://www.contenthere.net/?p=1175#comment-1290 Packaging OSS and wrapping it in commercial services is no crime and often does good things for the OSS efforts. Obfuscating the fact that you've built your business on someone else's work will get you burned, just like this. The Bluenog credibility test is simple: Let's see clarity in communications and real contributions to the Jetspeed and Hippo projects. Packaging OSS and wrapping it in commercial services is no crime and often does good things for the OSS efforts. Obfuscating the fact that you’ve built your business on someone else’s work will get you burned, just like this.

The Bluenog credibility test is simple: Let’s see clarity in communications and real contributions to the Jetspeed and Hippo projects.

]]> By: HippoJetSpeedBluenog http://www.contenthere.net/2009/07/apache-software-license-hippo-and-bluenog.html/comment-page-1#comment-1287 HippoJetSpeedBluenog Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:10:58 +0000 http://www.contenthere.net/?p=1175#comment-1287 I bet my house that this statement from "Scott" at Bluenog was written by Bluenog's PR firm. It is interesting that Bluenog has a PR firm cranking out press releases but don't have the time/money to edit their EULA. "We remain steadfast in our commitment to add value to all the projects we draw upon and contribute this value back to the community in the form of new features, improvements, how-to’s, bug fixes and more. Our recent announcement (http://www.cmswire.com/cms/enterprise-20/bluenog-contributes-back-makes-open-source-easy-004906.php) on 6/24/2009 was intended to formalize our efforts in this area. Contributing back is a critical part of our relationship with the open source community and we promise to focus on doing this more intently in the future. We encourage continued constructive feedback from both our customers and the larger open source community." My Experience When I first saw Bluenog, I was under the impression that it was a new product. Based on these posts and my futher research I now know that Bluenog is not a new product. Their marketing is frankly misleading at best. Why Bluenog Obfuscates Open Source Bluenog obfuscates open source projects because: 1) If their existing/prospective clients (like me) found out that Bluenog was just a bunch of open source components being marketed as Bluenog ICE they (Bluenog) would not be able to sell much product in the short run. Would I want to buy Bluenog knowng that they are a venture backed start-up?No. or that ICE it is mostly (95%+) just mostly Hippo+JetSpeed? No. 2) If their existing/prospective investors found out that Bluenog was mostly just marketing vs owning any intellectual property they would likely not invest in Bluenog. My Analysis: Bluenog is just a start-up marketing company. Their hope is that their marketing creates enough of an install base to enable them to build enough value add in the future (this is much like a Ponzi scheme). (You need revenue to build software. Develpers are not cheap ;)) Right now they are just burning through their venture capital. I wonder what their burn rate is. I wonder what their revenue is. How long will that venture capital last? Outcomes: Although we got excited when we saw Bluenog's marketing initially, we have decided to pass on this solution for our organization due to some of the technical/business factors outlined above. I bet my house that this statement from “Scott” at Bluenog was written by Bluenog’s PR firm. It is interesting that Bluenog has a PR firm cranking out press releases but don’t have the time/money to edit their EULA.
“We remain steadfast in our commitment to add value to all the projects we draw upon and contribute this value back to the community in the form of new features, improvements, how-to’s, bug fixes and more. Our recent announcement (http://www.cmswire.com/cms/enterprise-20/bluenog-contributes-back-makes-open-source-easy-004906.php) on 6/24/2009 was intended to formalize our efforts in this area. Contributing back is a critical part of our relationship with the open source community and we promise to focus on doing this more intently in the future. We encourage continued constructive feedback from both our customers and the larger open source community.”

My Experience
When I first saw Bluenog, I was under the impression that it was a new product. Based on these posts and my futher research I now know that Bluenog is not a new product. Their marketing is frankly misleading at best.

Why Bluenog Obfuscates Open Source
Bluenog obfuscates open source projects because:

1) If their existing/prospective clients (like me) found out that Bluenog was just a bunch of open source components being marketed as Bluenog ICE they (Bluenog) would not be able to sell much product in the short run. Would I want to buy Bluenog knowng that they are a venture backed start-up?No. or that ICE it is mostly (95%+) just mostly Hippo+JetSpeed? No.
2) If their existing/prospective investors found out that Bluenog was mostly just marketing vs owning any intellectual property they would likely not invest in Bluenog.

My Analysis:
Bluenog is just a start-up marketing company. Their hope is that their marketing creates enough of an install base to enable them to build enough value add in the future (this is much like a Ponzi scheme). (You need revenue to build software. Develpers are not cheap ;) ) Right now they are just burning through their venture capital. I wonder what their burn rate is. I wonder what their revenue is. How long will that venture capital last?

Outcomes:
Although we got excited when we saw Bluenog’s marketing initially, we have decided to pass on this solution for our organization due to some of the technical/business factors outlined above.

]]> By: Bluenog replies to “Bluenog angers Hippo” post | CMS Critic http://www.contenthere.net/2009/07/apache-software-license-hippo-and-bluenog.html/comment-page-1#comment-1286 Bluenog replies to “Bluenog angers Hippo” post | CMS Critic Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:56:56 +0000 http://www.contenthere.net/?p=1175#comment-1286 [...] appreciate the comments from Adriaan and Chris Maresca (http://www.contenthere.net/2009/07/apache-software-license-hippo-and-bluenog.html) regarding our licensing attribution. As stated in our response to the blog, we inadvertently left [...] [...] appreciate the comments from Adriaan and Chris Maresca (http://www.contenthere.net/2009/07/apache-software-license-hippo-and-bluenog.html) regarding our licensing attribution. As stated in our response to the blog, we inadvertently left [...]

]]> By: Scott Barnett http://www.contenthere.net/2009/07/apache-software-license-hippo-and-bluenog.html/comment-page-1#comment-1282 Scott Barnett Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:17:28 +0000 http://www.contenthere.net/?p=1175#comment-1282 We would like to thank Chris Maresca for raising a valid point in his July 10th comment. Chris is correct that Bluenog in its SLA does not make attributions to the open source projects it draws from. We do agree that attributions should be made and we have done that in all of the source distributions that our customers receive. All of the notices and copyrights are indeed preserved in our source repository. However, the attributions were inadvertently missed in the binary distribution. We have rectified this in our download and we have also added more information on the Open Source Projects section of our website (http://bluenog.com/site/products/content/website/products/opensource) to indicate the open source licenses used in our products. We stand 100 percent behind our products and none of them are licensed to our customers under any of the open source license terms. All of our ICE customers are covered by Bluenog’s SLA. We remain steadfast in our commitment to add value to all the projects we draw upon and contribute this value back to the community in the form of new features, improvements, how-to’s, bug fixes and more. Our recent announcement (http://www.cmswire.com/cms/enterprise-20/bluenog-contributes-back-makes-open-source-easy-004906.php) on 6/24/2009 was intended to formalize our efforts in this area. Contributing back is a critical part of our relationship with the open source community and we promise to focus on doing this more intently in the future. We encourage continued constructive feedback from both our customers and the larger open source community. We would like to thank Chris Maresca for raising a valid point in his July 10th comment. Chris is correct that Bluenog in its SLA does not make attributions to the open source projects it draws from. We do agree that attributions should be made and we have done that in all of the source distributions that our customers receive. All of the notices and copyrights are indeed preserved in our source repository. However, the attributions were inadvertently missed in the binary distribution. We have rectified this in our download and we have also added more information on the Open Source Projects section of our website (http://bluenog.com/site/products/content/website/products/opensource) to indicate the open source licenses used in our products. We stand 100 percent behind our products and none of them are licensed to our customers under any of the open source license terms. All of our ICE customers are covered by Bluenog’s SLA.

We remain steadfast in our commitment to add value to all the projects we draw upon and contribute this value back to the community in the form of new features, improvements, how-to’s, bug fixes and more. Our recent announcement (http://www.cmswire.com/cms/enterprise-20/bluenog-contributes-back-makes-open-source-easy-004906.php) on 6/24/2009 was intended to formalize our efforts in this area. Contributing back is a critical part of our relationship with the open source community and we promise to focus on doing this more intently in the future. We encourage continued constructive feedback from both our customers and the larger open source community.

]]> By: CMS Watch: Bluenog angers Hippo | CMS Critic http://www.contenthere.net/2009/07/apache-software-license-hippo-and-bluenog.html/comment-page-1#comment-1277 CMS Watch: Bluenog angers Hippo | CMS Critic Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:50:16 +0000 http://www.contenthere.net/?p=1175#comment-1277 [...] 07/14/09 – Further reading on the topic: http://www.contenthere.net/2009/07/apache-software-license-hippo-and-bluenog.html var addthis_pub = ''; var addthis_language = 'en';var addthis_options = 'email, favorites, digg, [...] [...] 07/14/09 – Further reading on the topic: http://www.contenthere.net/2009/07/apache-software-license-hippo-and-bluenog.html var addthis_pub = ''; var addthis_language = 'en';var addthis_options = 'email, favorites, digg, [...]

]]> By: The Cheap Computer Geek » Blog Archive » Bluenog angers Hippo http://www.contenthere.net/2009/07/apache-software-license-hippo-and-bluenog.html/comment-page-1#comment-1271 The Cheap Computer Geek » Blog Archive » Bluenog angers Hippo Mon, 13 Jul 2009 23:25:12 +0000 http://www.contenthere.net/?p=1175#comment-1271 [...] a solutions buyer, I still don’t think you should be overly worried about licensing and Seth Gottlieb seems to agree on that. But like I said in my previous post, there is an exception: if you’re a software [...] [...] a solutions buyer, I still don’t think you should be overly worried about licensing and Seth Gottlieb seems to agree on that. But like I said in my previous post, there is an exception: if you’re a software [...]

]]>