On 18 Aug 2004, at 12:29, Ashish Srivastava wrote:
:0) Nice point. 20 developers will work part time (This figure could be
10, 15, 20 or 30) beacuse, as you said, there would need to be a critical
mass of initial contributors. If there are developers out there who consider
Replicator an exiting project to work on, then we wouldnt need to deploy
this number. It could come down to 3 - 5 developers.
I find this rather confusing. One of the criteria for exiting incubation is a *diverse* set of committers - i.e. an appropriate proportion of Daffodil "for-pay" developers but also non-Daffodil folks. If your idea of the original number of committers (coming with the donation of the project) varies between 3 and 30, I'm rather suspicious about who you consider to be a committer. Having no idea of the size of your codebase and your operations, I can tell you that the usual initial set of committers of other projects hardly ever surpasses 5 to 8 folks, and the rest will need to be voted in using common ASF procedures. You as a commercial entity have no control over this other than what is to be expected in a community project, and the Incubator will check whether you are following ASF guidelines.
We do expect it be very successful; however, lots of work needs to be done
on the same. Primarily, we need to ensure that Replicator can communicate
with every known database server. Once that is done, a suitable business
model (Red Hat, MySQL etc) can be built around it.
The branding boost won't hurt either. ;0)
Just one thing ... Can we get some feedback from readers of this mail with
regards to the provision of 'reasonable' attribution of code to the original
author?
To give you an idea about what is decent to add to an ASF distribution, have a look at the Cocoon CREDITS: http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/cocoon/trunk/CREDITS.txt? rev=30946&root=Apache-SVN&view=markup
Apart from such a file, it will be hard to find other attributions in the Cocoon codebase linkable to a specific single commercial entity, since having these would carry a false sense of ownership over the code or project. Of course, our license permits repackaging and redistribution, so you could always redistribute a more commercially labeled version of the code through your own website, perhaps with some value-added services, bearing in mind that the ASF license requires you to link back to us as the originators of the code.
Basically, Daffodil becomes Apache Daffodil, and it is up to you to build a business model around this publicly available ASF project, but the ASF will not serve as a "daffodil.org" entity alongside your "daffodil.com". I hope I'm making myself clear here. You *will* be relinquishing control up to the level that you carefully need to check whether this is what you want.
Another common issue is the inclusion of non-ASL licensed dependencies. The ASF currently has a policy of not redistributing LGPL/GPL-licensed code. Does your project depends on such code? Also, is there any way to assess what you are planning to donate?
Lastly, I would seriously recommend you to approach the db.apache.org project as well, which might help you to recruit some sponsors and/or interested developers.
HTH,
</Steven> -- Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source Java & XML An Orixo Member Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/ stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
