Quoting: 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.
That should be in another thread. Nevertheless, such can be said regarding a lot of (also unrelated) subjects/things which are still happily used by a great number. See the 'dinosaur' in this: http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/print-edition/20150404_WBC737_0.png Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* Services & Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail & Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 3:43 AM, Ron Wheeler <rwhee...@artifact-software.com > wrote: > 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 > > >
