Was Jess a CLIPS Spin-Off?

Here we go again - same article in 2006 I said that Jess was a CLIPS spin-off. It wasn't and isn't and wont' be. I suppose that I "ass-u-me"ed that it was derived from CLIPS because CLIPS came first and Jess uses the same defrule, deftemplate, etc., syntax that is used by CLIPS. It even uses the same file name extension that is used by CLIPS. And, sometimes, if it isn't too complex or too tool-specific, you can import a Jess file straight into CLIPS or a CLIPS file into Jess. (Or so I've been told.)

OK, I should have checked with the authors of the tools before I said that. BUT, in my own defense, if I saw a tool that used ILOG JRules code with the same file name extensions and the same syntax, I would HAVE to "assume" that it was a JRules spinoff. The same thing goes for Drools or any other tool.

So, just to set the record straight, Jess is NOT a CLIPS spinoff and is NOT derived from CLIPS!! Got it? Got it!! Can we close this case now? Two years later? Please?

SDG
jco

Open Source - Myths and Legends

What is "Open Source" software? Wikipedia gives this definition:

"Open source is a development methodology,[1] which offers practical accessibility to a product's source (goods and knowledge). Some consider open source as one of various possible design approaches, while others consider it a critical strategic element of their operations. Before open source became widely adopted, developers and producers used a variety of phrases to describe the concept; the term open source gained popularity with the rise of the Internet, which provided access to diverse production models, communication paths, and interactive communities.

The open source model of operation and decision making allows concurrent input of different agendas, approaches and priorities, and differs from the more closed, centralized models of development.[2] The principles and practices are commonly applied to the development of source code for software that is made available for public collaboration, and it is usually released as open-source software."

Lots of words but not what some have defined as Open Source. Some have defined Open Source according to the Free Software Foundation, aka, Richard Stallman. Others have used the Apache License as the defining criteria. Others, such as my editor with InfoWorld, maintains that if the software is free, the source code is free (or available for a nominal fee), and others are allowed to contribute to the core code, then the blinking stuff is, for all practical purposes, OPEN SOURCE!

Several have taken me to task for this definition: Jason Morris, Dr. Ernest Friedman-Hill (he of Jess fame), Mark Proctor (the Drools guy), and one or two others. They feel that Drools is Open Source while Jess and CLIPS are not. (Gary Riley has not weighed in on this one - not yet.) While I respect their opinion (and indeed I have to respect their opinion since they wrote this stuff) I do feel that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, has a bill like a duck and webbed feet like a duck, then a swan it ain't. Now we can have Mallard ducks, Brown ducks, Mottled ducks, Green ducks, but they are all ducks.

Quite some time ago, about November of 2006, InfoWorld ran an article on Rulebase Open Source Software in which I called Jess an Open Source product. It seems that this stirred up a hornet's nest and both Dr. Friedman-Hill and Mark Proctor let me know about it the following week at the BR 2006 Forum in D.C. Their complaint (and they both agreed) was that Jess was not true Open Source. Well, again, who is the official Open Source committee members? Richard Stallman wrote an article on this (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html) in which he argues that the GNU General Public License should be the controlling factor.

Bruce Peren et al have come up with the following "Open Source" definition and (I think - don't know for sure) that they also copyrighted this slogan. (How can you copyright something that is not yours?):

Quote:
"Under the Open Source Definition, licenses must meet ten conditions in order to be considered open source licenses. Below is a copy of the definition, with unauthorized explanatory additions. There is a link to the original unmodified text below. It was taken under fair use.

1. Free Redistribution: the software can be freely given away or sold. (This was intended to expand sharing and use of the software on a legal basis.)
2. Source Code: the source code must either be included or freely obtainable. (Without source code, making changes or modifications can be impossible.)
3. Derived Works: redistribution of modifications must be allowed. (To allow legal sharing and to permit new features or repairs.)
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code: licenses may require that modifications are redistributed only as patches.
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups: no one can be locked out.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor: commercial users cannot be excluded.
7. Distribution of License: The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product: the program cannot be licensed only as part of a larger distribution.
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software: the license cannot insist that any other software it is distributed with must also be open source.
10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral: no click-wrap licenses or other medium-specific ways of accepting the license must be required."
/Quote

Under that definition, Jess is NOT Open Source. However, CLIPS probably gets in just under the wire. As do many other free, Open Source projects.

All of that being said to say this: My deepest and most humble apologies to anyone who has been offended by my suggestion that Jess is Open Source. But I'm still right - I'm just apologizing for offending. :-) In other words, I didn't do it and I promise never to do it again.

SDG
jco

Weekly Blogs

It's been said by those who have lots to say that if you have a blog then you shold blog daily. Some do it several times a day. I can't do that. But, I shall try (note the word "try") to do this weekly. And this blog technically counts as this weeks blog. :-)

Benchmarks: So, what has happened this week in the wonderful of Rulebased System benchmarks? Well, for one thing, the past week has been one of rapid-fire comments about benchmarks from Ming Lin (Traveloicity), Mark Proctor (Drools), Peter Lin (Independent Consultant), and Daniel Selman (ILOG). Not many other weighing in so I will see if I can get some time to run some of those benchmarks as well as fire up the old Telecom bencmarks. That should stoke the fires considerably.

New Things out and about rulebased systems: Versata has a new release 6.3.0. Visual Rules now runs with Eclipse. Paul Haley is still MIA - meaning we can not seem to find out where he finally settled down outside of Haley Systems. Mark Proctor et cie are at a Drools conference. Willie Hall (formerly Neuron Data, formerly Blaze Software, formerly Mind Box) has followed Johnathan Halprin and Marty Saulenas in the Mind Box exodus to Fair Isaac's green pastures. James Taylor (formerly at Fair Isaac) is now promoting Open Source - after a fashion. Jess has a new verison,7.0p2, out now. Have not heard much from ILOG on the official front recently except for news blurbs where they got this deal or signed that contract.

Open Source: Lots of different definitions here but, personally, I think that the Apache license is probably the most open of all and the one to which I, personally, subscribe. For example, I "could" (not that I would) take the source for Drools, rename everything and re-write the screens, and then call it "Texas Rules" - and it would be quite legal from what I have heard about the Apache license. Mark Proctor would know more about this than would I. Anyway, it seems quite neat and many companies are finding out that if they want to be in the software business rather than the banking busines (for example) that they can have their own proprietary version of most any Apache software - and re-sell it to their industry.

BTW, if any of you are in the insurance market, it seems that ACORD, http://www.acord.org , is THE company for de facto global e-commerce standards for insurance. This little company, pretty much unknown outside of insurance folks, was called to my attention by Daniel Brookshier who works for No Magic, an OO design company. He seems to think that they really are straight up and above board. Maybe we could have something like that for rulebased systems? But the customers would have to lead the charge on this one - not the vendors. Anyway, check it out and see what you think.

Next Week: We'll be talking about parallel rulebase systems and (maybe) statistical analysis of applications for the insurance industry that is based on the MYCIN work done back in the late 80's. Both interesting topics. And more on Benchmarks. I promise.

Meanwhile, remember, "To thine own self be true" is a nice thought - but being true to God is even more important. :-)

SDG
Yaakov