Yes, in the past many also have claimed that that Dinosaur would be extinct in the short future...
I can relate to the other priorities and constraints. Should you be in the position: there might be an OFBiz track again at ACEU15 in Budapest later this year. Though I am not sure regarding the certainty of that. Directions at another level have changed... 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 12:12 PM, David E. Jones <d...@me.com> wrote: > > Fascinating diagram in that link from The Economist. I had no idea IBM had > such huge market share in the past! It's good to see the industry becoming > more "distributed", ie market share spread across a larger number of > companies. > > Thanks, nice to be engaged in the project here and there. No, I wasn't at > ApacheCon last week, a bit outside my current budgets (both time and > money), especially with competing priorities like visiting family and > friends... which I'm sure is the case for many would have liked to attend. > > -David > > > > On 21 Apr 2015, at 01:12, Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Nice to have you back and engaged, David. My apologies if I didn't > express > > that earlier. > > > > Were you at ACNA15 also? > > > > 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 8:59 AM, Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> 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 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >
