On 11/12/08, Bertrand Delacretaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> ...The full proposal is here: >> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/StonehengeProposal.. > > That says "future contributions could depend on proprietary systems > such as Microsoft .Net or commercial JEE servers", which IIUC means > that some parts of Stonehenge might not be buildable or testable using > open source tools.
good point apache has developed open source Java stuff for years, even when it was a closed, proprietary platform. but the status of java (closed but no charge) was well and widely known, and open source tools were developed to build and test. this is probably less true in this case. IMHO effective communication to new users and developers will be important, and contributors need to be comfortable working with open source people and tools. so i'd like to throw out a few points for discussion... 1. There should be no barrier for ports of open source code dependent on a proprietary platform to an open one (for example .net to - hypothetically - mono). One great thing about FOSS is that the code gains a life independent of it's creators. I think that everyone involved needs to be comfortable about this possibility, and accept that it's fine to happen on shore (as part of the project) rather than off shore. 2. when developing open source software for proprietary platforms, using open, publicly document APIs is important. AIUI this is the case for .NET 3. payment for development tools to contribute to the project may prove a barrier to new contributions. apache has always used open source build and test tools. this allows anyone with energy to dive in and contribute. i would hope that there would be no barriers to supporting open source build and test environments if volunteers stepped up to create and maintain them. 4. running continuous integration on shore may require licenses. it's important that contributors understand this and don't just start diving in. it may be better to start off shore. > We certainly already have some such code in our projects, and I'm no > against that - but I'd like the Stonehenge people to keep such parts > well separated, to allow people who only use open source tools to > benefit from the project as well. pioneering something like http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#labeling might be useful more widely - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
