As far as I know, it is completely open source - not even semi open source like MySQL, where they have a commercial and a public license, or like jBoss, where you would have to pay for proper documentation. I think 37signals controls the source of Rails, so again, where is the difference?
I just checked, Spring has the Apache 2.0 license, which is very liberal I think (for example, not as restrictive as the GPL with it'S virality).
Of course the interests of SpringSource and 37signals are probably very different, although I think Rails is good publicity for 37signals (if not the only publicity).
If SpringSource lives on consulting, of course the question is allowed if the features they add are tailored towards making consulting necessary (as I think is a bit the case with the J2EE specification). My impression so far has not been like that, though.
37signals actually does not control Rails. There's no vendor behind it that stands to (directly) make money if more people adopt it.
One thing to remember about Rails was the context in which it was conceived. Rails was not designed as a framework; rather, it was extracted from a real project as a useful skeleton. It is "opinionated software" conceived and publicized as a reaction to the bloated frameworks in the Java world. Edge cases are pushed out into plugins, features generally have to be rejected several times before they make it into core, etc.
Of course they control Rails. Or are you telling me that I could this very minute submit some patch to Rails and announce that Rails 3.0 is out? I don't think so.
I don't deny that they might be different in orientation. But which one is a better bet, the one that tries to anticipate all your needs and make you happy (Spring), or the one that only cares for the needs of it's developers? Not saying either way - bloat might be a problem for some, but Spring is very modular, you can only use parts if you want to.
Spring earns more money if more people adapt it, so they try to make it as good as possible. What is the incentive for Rails, I don't know? Economically, their incentive would have to be to get their competition in trouble, to their own benefit? Perhaps they don't even use Rails internally ;-)
Actually Spring also grew out of frustration and personal need, it was a result of Rod Johnson's experiences as consultant, if I remember correctly.
Of course they control Rails. Or are you telling me that I could this very minute submit some patch to Rails and announce that Rails 3.0 is out? I don't think so.
This is a group of developers that you could become a part of if you were so inclined (the usual petty open source politics notwithstanding). This is markedly different from having a commercial vendor in control of the product.
I don't think they would just let anybody in. On the other hand, SpringSource probably wouldn't reject your free contributions to Spring either, if they are useful.
But which one is a better bet, the one that tries to anticipate all your needs and make you happy (Spring), or the one that only cares for the needs of it's developers?
I'm a developer with needs and desires that align with the goals of Rails, so I prefer Rails. In addition, I've got no interest in using Java for developing web applications, so that plays into it as well.
The beautiful truth is that no one is forcing anyone to use any of these projects. I am just happy to be making software at a time where there are so many frameworks and tools whose developers not only make their work available for free, but welcome my contributions if I'd like to put in the time.
Sure, I am not saying one should use the one or the other. I just think it is a major reason many people stick to Java. Essentially, using Ruby on Rails carries the risk that your project might eventually steer into territory outside of 37signals interests, and you get stuck (or have to invest into developing Rails). With java, usually all use cases are covered (except for closures).
I just checked, Spring has the Apache 2.0 license, which is very liberal I think (for example, not as restrictive as the GPL with it'S virality).
Of course the interests of SpringSource and 37signals are probably very different, although I think Rails is good publicity for 37signals (if not the only publicity).
If SpringSource lives on consulting, of course the question is allowed if the features they add are tailored towards making consulting necessary (as I think is a bit the case with the J2EE specification). My impression so far has not been like that, though.