Folks, a couple of additional thoughts from the mentor peanut gallery:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Bechauf, Michael <[email protected]> wrote: > no question, there are ways to technically solve this easily. I guess the > question is what the overall business model for ESME is supposed to be. As a > Twitter clone, I think we all agree that there is a pretty shaky value > proposition. It may be a good scalable behind-firewall Twitter, but without > integration of some sort to enterprise systems, to receive events and trigger > processes, it may not be not enough. I believe this thread is underestimating the role of Apache (and its license) as an "universal donor" (to use Sam Ruby's analogy): our license is designed precisely to enable such integrations and extensions, as we don't pose any additional encumbrance on top of fair recognition and naming/trademark consistency. Anyone will be able to build such extensions, and license them as appropriate. The downside of it is that Apache cannot be a "universal receiver", so the amount of actual integrations we can host is limited. But we can most definitely advertise external efforts. Or document extensively how it is done. In short, when in Apache, you should think about building the best possible sockets and let others worry about the plugs. As long as ESME has a decent integration API, you should be all set. > As far as participation of SAP employees in ESME are concerned, you know what > to do. I am under the impression that under currect conditions no SAP > employee is authorized to sign an individual contributor agreement. You understand this means that SAP cannot have committers in the project? CCLAs are fine and required in case individuals contribute corporate IP, but we will still need the ICLA from the specific individual to grant commit access (see http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas). -- Gianugo Rabellino M: +44 779 5364 932 / +39 389 44 26 846 Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com
