> On 20 Apr 2015, at 12:48, Ron Wheeler <rwhee...@artifact-software.com> wrote: > > On 20/04/2015 3:11 PM, David E. Jones wrote: >>> On 20 Apr 2015, at 11:35, Ron Wheeler <rwhee...@artifact-software.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Would Moqui become a sub-project of OFBiz with distinct deliverable with an >>> Apache license? >>> Or is that too much community? >> IMO they are better as distinct projects. There is a chance Moqui Framework >> could become a separate ASF project, though the name "Apache Moqui" is oddly >> contradictory (I chose the name based on Moqui Marbles, but it is also >> another name for the Hopi tribe). More seriously, these days I like the >> distributed and moderated approaches used in the Linux kernel more than the >> community approach mandated by the ASF. > What would be the problem of it being part of OFBiz in the same way that FOP > and Batik are part of the XLMGraphics project or Jetspeed is part of the > Portals project. > A lot less work than a TLP but still benefiting from Apache. > Would not have to call of Apache Moqui. It would just be Moqui , part of > Apache OfBiz
XML Graphics and Portals are both umbrella projects, meant to have sub-projects, and OFBiz is not. OFBiz could be restructured that way, and perhaps even have sub-projects without that restructuring sort of like the Jackrabbit Oak project, but still not sure if it makes sense. On that note: if a Moqui-based (or Moqui and Mantle based) version of OFBiz were built it might make sense as a sub-project just like Oak is of Jackrabbit. On a far side note: Oak looks great but I wish it ran on something other than MongoDB so it could be embedded for dev and smaller deployments! The process of becoming a TLP isn't that much of a concern to me. It takes time, but is worth it to establish a firm foundation for the project going forward. The main issues that concern me are the various and changing policies of the ASF. I have a hard time seeing the point of trademarks for open source projects, for example. The community model is another concern, I don't like the structure as much as certain alternatives in the open source world (even if I used to think it was the best approach, or at least something similar to the ASF approach). It may be possible to manage a more distributed community and code base with various fork repositories and feature/issue branches in the style of git (ie actually using git within the ASF). During incubation the biggest community risk is _forcing_ a certain number of committers and PMC members. I don't want to scrape to include people in these roles as they are vital to the future of the project. I would rather let people come along, express interest, and thoroughly prove merit before they take on such a role. >> As for community, regardless of the structure the various Moqui projects are >> now in a good place for a bigger community and it is needed for more >> significant growth in the projects. There are parallels to OFBiz which was >> mostly two people until around 2004-2005 when the project exploded (we had >> other contributors before then, but most not so involved or enduring). >> Jacopo was the first really strong contributor in 2003, and remains to this >> day! I'm still looking for a "Jacopo" for Moqui... heck, maybe it'll be >> Jacopo. ;) (No pressure Jacopo: I know you're a busy man and doing fantastic >> and important work elsewhere including OFBiz, Hotwax, and other projects you >> contribute to.) >> >> As for licensing: the public domain "license" is even less restrictive than >> the Apache 2 license. The one thing that bothers me about the licensing >> approach, that I'll freely admit but that I'm not sure how to handle better, >> is the explicit patent grant that is in the Apache 2 license (which made it >> incompatible with GPL2, though GPL3 has it too so it is "compatible", ie no >> additional restrictions). In theory this shouldn't be a legal issue because >> releasing it as public domain means giving up most IP rights, and there is >> the prior art aspect of it too, but patent courts these days (at least in >> the USA) are awful and they don't seem to care about prior art unless you >> pay a few million USD to lawyers along with substantial court fees to get >> that recognized. In theory it shouldn't be an issue, not sure if it ever has >> been even for Apache 2 licensed code, but it could be and in theory the >> terms in the Apache 2 license make it cheaper to defend against patent >> claims (again in theory... chances are there would still be significant, >> possibly bankrupting, legal fees to defend against such). > Being a part of an Apache project makes it harder to try to steal the IP or > claim ownership. Because of the ASF legal fund? -David
