Community Articles: Opinions, Interviews, 分析
1 May 2001
Interview: Frank Hecker
Frank Hecker is perhaps most 井戸／弁護士席-known in Open Source circles for his 役割 in open-sourcing Netscape's code. A 理論家 and 分析家 of Open Source, Frank has continued to 令状 on the 発展させるing Open Source 環境. At 現在の, he is a 組織（システム）工学 経営者／支配人 for CollabNet, which is hosting OpenOffice.org for Sun Microsystems.
The interview below was 行為／行うd two weeks ago over the （期間が）わたる of a couple of days 経由で email.
Your biography, which can be 設立する on your home page, is fascinating. Perhaps most 利益／興味ing for our 目的s is the 役割 you played in open-sourcing Netscape's browser code. Would you want to discuss what went into your 決定／判定勝ち（する）?
I was only one of a number of people 伴う／関わるd in Netscape's 決定／判定勝ち（する） to 解放（する） Mozilla source code. If you're looking for a 包括的な and 正確な discussion of Netscape's 決定／判定勝ち（する）, you can find what I consider to be the best one in 一時期／支部 11 of Glyn Moody's 調書をとる／予約する "反逆者／反逆する Code." It's やめる a 絡まるd tale, and very different from how it's usually portrayed.
Before I continue, I should 公式文書，認める that my comments below are my own opinions only; I certainly can't speak for Netscape, and even though I still 参加する in mozilla.org activities I'm not speaking here for mozilla.org either, but only for myself.
However, to answer your question 関心ing my 関与 in the Mozilla 決定／判定勝ち（する）: I was the technical director of the Netscape 政府 sales group in the Washington, DC, area. The US 政府 is an unusual market for （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） 科学（工学）技術, in that 政府 顧客s often 要求する special 製品 features that are not of 利益／興味 to 商業の 顧客s. I spent a major part of my 職業 working with the Netscape marketing and 工学 groups in California to try and get them to 含む in Netscape 製品s the 追加するd features we needed for the 政府 market; in some 事例／患者s we even had custom 工学 事業／計画（する）s to develop 政府-明確な／細部 製品 features in the area of 安全, cryptography, and public 重要な 組織／基盤／下部構造 (PKI).
Over time I became very 失望させるd with the 伝統的な proprietary ソフトウェア 開発 model, where all 開発 had to be done inside the company and the only developers who had 接近 to source code were members of the 内部の 工学 groups. Thus when I read 内部の newsgroup postings from Jamie Zawinski and others 提案するing that Netscape 解放（する） source code, I was very 利益／興味d in the idea. However at the same time I knew that, 関わりなく how enthusiastic developers were about 解放（する）ing source code, nothing would happen unless Netscape's 上級の 経営者／支配人s also （機の）カム to believe that it was a good idea.
As the lead technical person for our sales group I 参加するd 直接／まっすぐに in our sales 成果／努力s to high-level 非軍事の and 軍の 公式の／役人s in the US 政府, 同様に as in our 内部の ロビーing 成果／努力s to Netscape (n)役員／(a)執行力のあるs from Jim Barksdale on 負かす／撃墜する; as a result I had a fair 量 of personal experience in how and why 上級の 経営者／支配人s made 決定／判定勝ち（する）s. I therefore took it upon myself to 令状 a formal 商売／仕事 事例／患者 for 解放（する）ing source code, one directed at Netscape 上級の 管理／経営 and not at developers.
The 重要な point I tried to make in the 文書 was that ーするために compete 効果的に Netscape needed more people and companies working with Netscape and 投資するd in Netscape's success--a success in which those others could 潜在的に 株. I believed that by both 解放（する）ing source code and engaging in collaborative 開発 of that code, Netscape could build closer and deeper 関係s with its 顧客s and partners. I also believed that 増加するd availability of source code and a more open 開発 成果／努力 would help attract others who could help 演説（する）／住所 particular market 必要物／必要条件s that Netscape could not always 演説（する）／住所 by itself. (As I've 公式文書，認めるd, this was of particular 利益／興味 to me.)
Working in a sales group I was also familiar with the need to 演説（する）／住所 反対s that might arise in the course of selling something to someone. Thus I spent a lot of time 令状ing 返答s to さまざまな 反対s that I thought people might have to the idea of 解放（する）ing source code. The end result was a 30-page 内部の white paper that got 循環させるd to Marc Andreessen and other Netscape 上級の 経営者／支配人s. It went into the mix along with comments from Netscape engineers like Jamie Zawinski and 特に ロビーing by Eric Hahn, who was Netscape's CTO at the time and had 提案するd 類似の ideas; Eric Hahn was probably the 選び出す／独身 person most 責任がある getting Netscape's (n)役員／(a)執行力のある 管理／経営 to make the ultimate 決定／判定勝ち（する） to 解放（する） the Mozilla code.
(Since it always gets について言及するd in relation to Netscape's Mozilla 決定／判定勝ち（する）, I should also 公式文書，認める that Eric Raymond's paper "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" was 言及／関連d by me and others who were ロビーing Netscape's 管理／経営. In my opinion the paper's importance in the 状況 of Netscape's 決定／判定勝ち（する） was おもに that it 供給するd some 独立した・無所属 validation of ideas that were already 存在 活発に discussed and 促進するd within Netscape. If you've ever tried to 促進する a 提案 within your organization, then you may have discovered that it's somewhat easier to do this if you can point to someone outside the organization who's 説 the same thing.)
In particular, if you 港／避難所't already 演説（する）／住所d the 問題／発行する above, in what ways did having 法人組織の／企業の 後援 alter the logic and practice of open-sourcing the code? That is, how were (and are) Netscape's 願望（する）s 影響する／感情ing the course of the 事業／計画（する）? And does the 法人組織の／企業の presence alter the way in which the 事業／計画（する） is regarded by the Open Source community?
明確に a 法人組織の／企業の-始めるd open source 事業／計画（する） can be perceived 異なって than a 事業／計画（する） created by 独立した・無所属 developers; that was certainly the 事例／患者 with Netscape and Mozilla. I've 公式文書，認めるd three problems in particular.
First, people tended to think of Netscape (and later, AOL) as a monolithic （独立の）存在, and all the Netscape developers as marching in lockstep in 一致 with some Netscape "party line"; they forgot that the Netscape developers are still developers, and will have ideas and opinions that may 異なる amongst themselves and even with their 法人組織の／企業の 管理／経営. (This may be obvious to anyone who's worked in a large 会社／団体, but not everyone's had that experience.) I discuss the 関わりあい／含蓄s of this in my answer to the next question.
It's true that Netscape 発揮するd 重要な 影響（力） over the technical direction of the 事業／計画（する）; for example, it was important to Netscape that Mozilla 含む a mail/news （弁護士の）依頼人 and not just a browser, because Netscape 手配中の，お尋ね者 to use Mozilla to build a 交替／補充 for Netscape 伝達者 4.x. However as far as I'm 関心d this is just an example of Netscape "scratching its own itch": to the extent that Netscape developers are the ones 令状ing the code, all other things 存在 equal they're going to 令状 code to 器具／実施する features of 利益／興味 to Netscape. However the 事業／計画（する） is open to other companies or 独立した・無所属 developers who want to get their own code into Mozilla, whether it's of 利益／興味 to Netscape or not. For example, IBM developers have 与える／捧げるd support for bi-directional languages like Arabic and Hebrew, Sun developers have 与える／捧げるd in a number of areas (many Java-関係のある), and other companies and 独立した・無所属 developers have 与える／捧げるd code to support embedding the Mozilla layout engine in other 使用／適用s.
Second, the Netscape developers were all 位置を示すd in one 場所 (almost all of them in one building) and they were very used to working 直面する-to-直面する; Netscape had 内部の 事業／計画（する） newsgroups and 事業／計画（する） web 場所／位置s, but the （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） on them was not always 正確な and 完全にする, 簡単に because people were busy and could rely on personal communication to fill in any （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） gaps. When the Mozilla 事業／計画（する） first started it was a struggle to get the Netscape developers to move all (or almost all) of their discussions to the public Mozilla newsgroups and mailing 名簿（に載せる）／表（にあげる）s, and to have them 令状 負かす／撃墜する and 地位，任命する on the Mozilla 場所／位置 important （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） that 伝統的に may have 存在するd only on whiteboards and in people's 長，率いるs.
Fortunately over time people were able to change their habits, to the point where I think that the Mozilla 事業／計画（する） does a pretty good 職業 of 存在 a "transparent" 事業／計画（する）, in the sense that almost all the 関連した （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） about the 事業／計画（する） activities is 公然と 利用できる in some form or other. (It's not always 井戸／弁護士席 組織するd and 平易な to find, but that's another problem....)
Finally, at least in the 早期に days, a lot of people were uncomfortable with the 商業の 面 of Mozilla, [and worried] that it was not a 伝統的な 事業／計画（する） started by volunteers, but rather a 事業／計画（する） 始めるd by a for-利益（をあげる） 会社／団体 to try and 達成する 明確な／細部 商売／仕事 goals. I believe that's much いっそう少なく of a problem today, both because 独立した・無所属 developers have gotten used to working with Netscape developers as developers and not as 法人組織の／企業の 代表者／国会議員s, and also because in the broader world there's been such a 広大な／多数の／重要な 量 of 商業の activity around Open Source and 解放する／自由な ソフトウェア--it's no longer unusual for companies to sponsor Open Source 事業／計画（する）s, or for 解放する／自由な ソフトウェア developers to be 雇うd by companies 特に to take advantage of their 専門的知識 and positions within 存在するing 事業／計画（する）s.
There will always be a 確かな 量 of 緊張 between companies trying to build profitable 商売／仕事s and developers trying to create the very best ソフトウェア they can, but I think that for the most part Netscape, other companies 伴う／関わるd with Mozilla, and the developers themselves have managed to find ways of working together that 許す all parties to get something of value out of the 事業／計画（する）.
mozilla.org, has a 尊敬（する）・点d governance board and a 詳細（に述べる）d roadmap. Would you want to discuss the 役割 a governance board plays in an OS 事業／計画（する）? And, if the 事業／計画（する） is 法人組織の／企業の sponsored, is the board as 決定的な?
mozilla.org (the organization, not the 場所／位置) 実行するs several 役割s. Probably the most important ones are serving as a 中立の party that can 調停する の中で the さまざまな parties 伴う／関わるd in Mozilla 開発 and 促進するing Mozilla as an open-source 事業／計画（する）, 独立した・無所属 of Netscape 6 and all the other 製品s that use Mozilla code.
The members of mozilla.org don't 現実に make that many 決定／判定勝ち（する）s about Mozilla 開発; what they do instead is 始める，決める 全体にわたる 政策s and directions, and 介入する to make 決定／判定勝ち（する）s when developers can't reach 協定 on their own. (Such 不一致s are not やむを得ず always between Netscape developers on one 味方する and 非，不，無-Netscape people on the other; often the 不一致s are between different 非，不，無-Netscape developers or even between Netscape developers in different groups.)
I believe that having an 自治権のある (or at least partly 自治権のある) "governance board" like mozilla.org is important even in 法人組織の／企業の-sponsored 事業／計画（する）s; in some senses it's even more important than in 事業／計画（する）s created and run by volunteers. As I について言及するd above, some people believe that the 活動／戦闘s of Netscape developers are based 単独で on Netscape 法人組織の／企業の 政策s and 戦略--that Netscape developers are under orders to make sure that Mozilla is developed in the way that Netscape wants, with no larger 目的. I think this is an 不公平な characterization: While Netscape developers do have an 義務 to their 雇用者 (as any 従業員 would), they also want to help make Mozilla a 広大な／多数の／重要な 製品 for everyone, not just for Netscape. (In fact, ますます Netscape developers are 存在 雇うd from the 階級s of Mozilla volunteer contributors.)
Having mozilla.org people 伴う／関わるd helps keep 事業／計画（する） 決定／判定勝ち（する） making 焦点（を合わせる）d on what's 権利 for Mozilla 全体にわたる, and helps 妨げる 不一致s over technical and other 問題／発行するs from degenerating into arguments about "what Netscape wants". If developers 雇うd by Netscape happen to 提案する a reasonable approach to a contentious 問題／発行する and mozilla.org agrees with them, mozilla.org can 正当化する its 決定／判定勝ち（する） and 答える／応じる to 批評 instead of leaving the Netscape developers to defend themselves against the 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金 of doing Netscape's bidding. 類似して, if 独立した・無所属 developers have a good idea and are having trouble getting attention for it, mozilla.org can 圧力（をかける） the 事例／患者 for it with the Netscape developers and 開発 経営者／支配人s working in that area.
同様に, as a follow-up, what 機能（する）／行事 does the roadmap play in the structure of the 事業／計画（する）?
I think the Mozilla roadmap 供給するs a needed structure and rhythm to 開発 activities from week to week and month to month. It helps people understand why during 確かな periods patches can't be taken or 要求する 増加するd review, it 準備するs them for experiencing 一時的な 不安定 予定 to major 上陸s of code changes, and it gives them something to look 今後 to, in the form of 近づいている milestone 解放（する）s.
The roadmap is 特に important now that Mozilla has 前進するd to a point where 多重の companies or groups want to ship 事業／計画（する）s based on it. Last year Netscape was the only company planning to ship a Mozilla-based 製品 and really needing a 詳細（に述べる）d and 完全にする 開発 schedule. Now there are enough people with a 火刑／賭ける in Mozilla's 進歩 that it's necessary to 計画（する） for periodic Mozilla 解放（する）s that they can use to create beta or 生産／産物 解放（する）s of their own 製品s, によれば whatever schedule they're working to.
I have どこかよそで 述べるd the 関係 between the sponsoring 会社／団体 and the community as a dialectic: the 願望（する）s of each are not 同一の but can only be realized together. But 組織するing the developer community so that it even sees itself as a community is itself a challenge. What 戦略s does Mozilla.org use to create the community as such, and to 支える 利益／興味 in developing Mozilla.org's next ソフトウェア?
First, in my opinion a number of people at Netscape were instrumental in setting the Mozilla 事業／計画（する） on the 権利 path when it 最初 started 支援する in 1998. I want to について言及する 特に Jamie Zawinski and Mitchell パン職人. (Jamie was the most active and 目だつ member of mozilla.org 早期に on, though he was never 現実に its 公式の／役人 "leader." Mitchell was 以前は a Netscape lawyer; she's now the Netscape 経営者／支配人 責任がある mozilla.org.)
Jamie Zawinski did a 広大な／多数の／重要な 職業 of 設立するing an 独立した・無所属 身元 for the Mozilla 事業／計画（する） at its 手始め; he ロビーd for 創造 of the mozilla.org web 場所／位置 独立した・無所属 of Netscape's 場所／位置, ロビーd for 創造 of mozilla.org as a separate group 献身的な to making the Mozilla 事業／計画（する） successful, and （売買）手数料，委託（する）／委員会／権限d and directed the 創造 of the Mozilla logo and "brand image" (to use marketing-speak for a moment). Most important, Jamie articulated a （疑いを）晴らす 見通し for the Mozilla 事業／計画（する） and for mozilla.org; his "使節団 声明" Mitchell パン職人 and others were 初めは 責任がある Netscape's 成果／努力s to create an open source license for the Mozilla code; this 結局 resulted in the 創造 of the Netscape Public License and then the Mozilla Public License. The 詳細（に述べる）s of the licenses are not as important in my opinion as the 過程 by which the licenses were created; Netscape was willing to 伴う／関わる in the 過程 not just a select few "専門家s" but anyone who had an 利益／興味 and 手配中の，お尋ね者 to 与える／捧げる comments. As a result of that 過程 Netscape made several 重要な changes to the licensing 手はず／準備, and I believe that was an 初期の factor in 保証するing people that Netscape was in fact willing to "listen to the community" as …に反対するd to 簡単に dictating to it.
I do not believe in "instant community." I believe that a true community 発展させるs only as people work together more closely and are able to 協力する to help solve 非，不，無-trivial problems. And certainly the Mozilla 事業／計画（する） had a lot of real problems to 打ち勝つ, starting with the need to make a hard 決定／判定勝ち（する） about whether to continue with the 初めの code base or to go for a 底（に届く）-up rewrite of the ソフトウェア. In the end the rewrite went 今後, which ended up 課すing the major schedule 延期する we've seen in getting Mozilla 1.0 shipped. However, as with the 初めの discussions about licensing, I think that because the さまざまな people working in the 事業／計画（する） were able to 首尾よく reach 合意 on "the 権利 thing to do", that helped 高める and 保存する the sense of community through the その後の events like Jamie leaving the 事業／計画（する） and people 非難するing Mozilla as a "failed 事業／計画（する）."
I should also について言及する here two other factors. First, besides the main Mozilla 事業／計画（する） we saw the 設立 of 独立した・無所属 Mozilla 場所／位置s, most 顕著に MozillaZine (設立するd by Chris Nelson). MozillaZine and other 場所／位置s 供給するd a 焦点（を合わせる） for Mozilla evangelism and other activities beyond the 核心 事業／計画（する）.
Second, Netscape QA staff and さまざまな QA volunteers worked together to 組織する the 成果／努力s of people who were not developers but who were willing to put in a lot of time 実験（する）ing Mozilla, とじ込み／提出するing bugs, and 評価するing and 立証するing bugs submitted by others. In my opinion the Mozilla QA team has done a 広大な／多数の／重要な 職業 of making people new to the 事業／計画（する） feel welcome, helping them learn about the 事業／計画（する） (which is やめる large and コンビナート／複合体), and giving them a chance to 与える／捧げる in ways that were 本人自身で 満足させるing to them.
