On 20/04/2015 5:07 PM, David E. Jones wrote:
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.
Not sure if this is key to the current discussion but I would not mind
hearing details of your concerns since we have put a bit of an effort
into that area recently.
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).
I suspect that the world is heading to git. I am just starting to get
acquanted with it and beginning to feel like a bit of a dinosaur using
SVN for our projects internally.
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.
One of the advantages of joning an existing project is that you are not
affected by the restriction on users and PMC members.
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?
and the reputation of Apache, the major sponsors and the number of
companies that would have big problems if the Apache license came under
attack.
Many of the big patent trolls and patent holders use Apache products in
their own products and operations. They would have a hard time
explaining to shareholders the costs and liabilities that they would
suffer if Apache licenses could not be trusted.
-David
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
