"We are going for ownership of the code bases," said Fleury in an interview with ZDNet UK.
JBoss makes its money from support and services for its eponymous application server, which it distributes for free under an open-source licence. Recently the company has been hiring key developers on specific open-source projects: last October the company hired Gavin King, the mind behind the Hibernate project, a 'persistence engine' which stores Java objects in relational databases. At that time the company had already snapped up Remy Maucherat, the lead developer of Tomcat 5, Julien Viet who developed the Nukes content management system and Bela Ban, creator of JavaGroups.
JBoss calls its business model "Professional Open Source" -- a trademarked term which basically means paying open-source developers to work on their projects, and charging customers for support. "Profession Open Source allows JBoss to grow and recruit the top talent from successful open-source efforts," said Fleury. "It enables developers to work fulltime and become professionals on their own projects."
"We consider something open source when we control x amount of the code base," said Fleury, but declined put a figure on "x". "We control 95 percent of the Hibernate code base," said Fleury, "and 45 percent of Tomcat."
JBoss general manager Sacha Labourey added that the company is not out to hijack open-source projects. "We look at a project, then talk to the lead developers. A side effect is that we aid the project because the developers are then paid by JBoss to push the project."
The model makes a lot of sense for companies looking to use open-source applications in a production environment, say analysts. "It cuts a swathe through the whole support issue around open source," said Ovum senior analyst Bola Rotibi. "The key problem for open source has always been support and how a company can raise issues with the relevant people. How do you escalate a problem with open-source applications? Where do you come in the pecking order? It may depend on how many people raise that particular problem, but what if your problem is specific?"
To date most of the hires have been to work on Java, but Fleury said the company is also considering recruiting developers who work on open-source projects based on Microsoft's .Net architecture. "We will get quite ambitious," said Fleury. "We are big Microsoft fans, and we're very interested in .Net."
In particular, said Fleury, JBoss is becoming increasingly interested in aspect-oriented programming. Aspect-oriented software development is meant to help programmers easily make changes to complex projects with a more modular approach to development. Aspect-oriented tools more clearly separate different functions, allowing developers to make changes that affect one function and then are reflected in other parts of an application.
For example, a Web developer could build an application to fetch data from a packaged application database when a request comes from a corporate portal. As part of that function and others, software engineers could write additional code to log events for auditing purposes. With an aspect-oriented tool, one developer could enhance the logging function, or "aspect", in a single place without having to modify the code that does the database lookup. These changes could be reflected in other places in an application's code where logging was required.
Fleury sees aspect-oriented programming as having a natural affinity with Microsoft's .Net. "In J2EE it is fairly complex," he said. "But Microsoft says middleware should not be intrusive. Aspect-oriented programming can work well with that."






Talkback
This whole JBoss thing stinks of one thing only M$ scumm yet another attack on the freedom of OpenSource software yet another Little dickhead trying to rule the world crap on em all i say from a large height..
Pete .
JBoss Rocks!! Keep going guys, this is great. We need someone to lead the way to show the world what really can be achieved with OSS, in the commercial sense as well.
Good luck and keep it up.
Microsoft fans ?...
Good to know, I will stay clear of JBoss.... I will hope others may do the same. Let this proprietary project lose it's $10mil and go away for good. Don't use this.
The last thing the industry needs is some outfit claiming to "own" or "control" open source. It sends all sorts of wrong messages to everyone.
The real players in the industry who understand open source and support it with real resource and money do so without any claims of ownership or control. You can say what you like about IBM, for example (and I often have), but their behaviour shows they understand it and respect it.
The JBoss people only show they don't get it, which makes you wonder about the path they will take; they can't be committed to it if they don't understand it.
Then to say nice things about the "M" company's technology - they'll be supporting their morality next.
...Free, Free everything is Free! You people need to grow up! Don't fool yourself to think big business is throwing money at Open Source because of some altruistic view of software. Ain't nothin' free Gents! So when you starve in your little Linux dungeons I'll be on my Boat in the Gulf of Mexico laughing because all of my Microsoft applications have 100% uptime and their stock is making me money.
Don’t be a Playa-hater because you haven’t figured it out… Good Day to you!
Microsoft fans ?...
JBoss is far less of a proprietary
company than Suse, Mandrake, Redhat,
IBM, or Novell. As a matter of fact,
all code by JBoss is released completely
(afaik) under the LGPL. The use of
the word 'own' in this article should
be clear to any person whose native
tongue is English.
I suspect Mark Fluery's only regret so
far is that he didn't go straight GPL
all the way.
Calling JBoss proprietary software is
simply not true -- I don't think the
poster meant to lie. He is most
likely a careless reader who responds
in xenophobic fashion to anything
non-linux.
If you want to focus on someone who is
taking the Linux experience
proprietary, have a look at RedHat.
Better yet have a look at how they
attempt to lock-in customers via
'timing out' of versions, and
proprietary add-ons to enhance the
linux experience.
Do a 'google' for:
fluery red white blue
Read the position papers. Then you'll
understand how wrong you are about
this fine company.
Question: Do you despise Gnome because Miguel de Icaza admires Microsoft?
Barney