Re: Spring

> I agree with Erik that this policy change should not be underestimated.
>
> I think a lot of people (including myself) are trying to bring Grails under
> the attention of their managers and/or are starting their first commercial
> projects with Grails.
>
> But now with Spring's change in policy people will be more careful and think
> twice. Also for management the risk to need expensive subscriptions could be
> a blocker in this. Especially for small to medium (startup) projects.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Marcel
>
>
>
>
>
> Erik Pragt wrote:
>>
>>
>> Graeme Rocher-2 wrote:
>>> We have a good relationship with the guys at SpringSource and don't
>>> have any immediate concerns no. I think there is a slight overreaction
>>> to the policy in that thread
>>>
>> Sorry Graeme, but I think your taking things a bit to lightly here.
>>
>> This change in policy is a huge risk for any Spring related project, but
>> also for any project which relies on Spring. I don't think that having 'a
>> good relationship' will result in: Instead of charging $25.000 for it, we
>> give it for free. If that was the case, people would just download Grails
>> to get the latest Spring version from it.
>>
>> Since I think the future of Spring as a framework (especially with the new
>> money focusses approach) is a bit uncertain, I also fear a little bit for
>> Grails, since it so strongly depends on Spring. I'm not about to start a
>> panic here, but I think I need to be a little be more convinced about the
>> future of Grails + Spring before I'm at not concerned about the future of
>> Grails anymore.
>>
>> So: any idea on how this relationship could help Grails?
>>
>> Erik
>>
>> PS: This is not theoretical at all: Grails Remoting needs Spring 2.5.5.
>> Whith this policy in effect, Spring 2.5.5 would never have been released
>> to the public, I wouldn't have been able to use Grails in combination with
>> Grails Remoting, and I would have to find a different solution. Just some
>> context for my worries.
>>
>