Is the some reason to use CC0 rather than Apache?
Ron
On 22/05/2015 5:08 PM, David E. Jones wrote:
On 22 May 2015, at 11:29, David E. Jones d...@me.com wrote:
On 21 May 2015, at 06:28, Ron Wheeler rwhee...@artifact-software.com wrote:
I am not a lawyer and Apache's legal team should be
On 22 May 2015, at 11:29, David E. Jones d...@me.com wrote:
On 21 May 2015, at 06:28, Ron Wheeler rwhee...@artifact-software.com wrote:
I am not a lawyer and Apache's legal team should be approached before we
embark on a plan that involves the use of a third party tool that does not
On 21 May 2015, at 06:28, Ron Wheeler rwhee...@artifact-software.com wrote:
I am not a lawyer and Apache's legal team should be approached before we
embark on a plan that involves the use of a third party tool that does not
have an Apache license or a license that is known to be
Thank Scott… my thoughts are largely along these lines and have been for some
time: why migrate OFBiz data model, service, and applications to Moqui
Framework when there is also an opportunity to clean up the data model,
services, and make the applications more usable OOTB and more targeted to
I was curious about what that really means, finally found it by chance
http://opensource.org/faq#public-domain
Jacques
Le 20/04/2015 11:30, Adrian Crum a écrit :
Moqui is in the public domain. In other words, there is no license.
Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com
On
Advance cast of -1 in case I miss the vote if it ever comes.
Moqui is it's own eco-system. The only way to replace the framework with
Moqui is to rewrite the apps to be moqui apps. If that was done, what
does it have to do with OFBiz@Apache? We could rename the project to Apps
for Moqui and
I totally agree with your opinion about the license. The licensing is a
strong and often very important point for using (or not using) a
framework like OFBiz for building a company's software landscape.
From my experience with a lot of different customers using or
evaluating OFBiz the liberal
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, 21 May, 2015 4:28:52 PM
Subject: Re: Discussion: Replace framework by Moqui.
I am not a lawyer and Apache's legal team should be approached before we
embark on a plan that involves the use of a third party tool that does
not have an Apache license
@ofbiz.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, 21 May, 2015 4:28:52 PM
Subject: Re: Discussion: Replace framework by Moqui.
I am not a lawyer and Apache's legal team should be approached before we
embark on a plan that involves the use of a third party tool that does
not have an Apache license or a license that is known
, 21 May, 2015 4:28:52 PM
Subject: Re: Discussion: Replace framework by Moqui.
I am not a lawyer and Apache's legal team should be approached before we
embark on a plan that involves the use of a third party tool that does
not have an Apache license or a license that is known to be compatible
I am not a lawyer and Apache's legal team should be approached before we
embark on a plan that involves the use of a third party tool that does
not have an Apache license or a license that is known to be compatible
with inclusion in an Apache product.
At the moment, from my reading of the
?
Taher Alkhateeb
- Original Message -
From: Ron Wheeler rwhee...@artifact-software.com
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, 21 May, 2015 4:28:52 PM
Subject: Re: Discussion: Replace framework by Moqui.
I am not a lawyer and Apache's legal team should be approached before we
Oops, please excuse the doubled post.
Michael
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
@ofbiz.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, 21 May, 2015 5:53:39 PM
Subject: Re: Discussion: Replace framework by Moqui.
Actually, this discussion started 5 years ago, when David first proposed
rewriting the framework. He gave a good list of reasons why it was
necessary. We have been discussing it periodically
@ofbiz.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, 21 May, 2015 5:53:39 PM
Subject: Re: Discussion: Replace framework by Moqui.
Actually, this discussion started 5 years ago, when David first proposed
rewriting the framework. He gave a good list of reasons why it was
necessary. We have been discussing it periodically
-
From: Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, 21 May, 2015 5:53:39 PM
Subject: Re: Discussion: Replace framework by Moqui.
Actually, this discussion started 5 years ago, when David first proposed
rewriting the framework. He gave a good list
this.
Taher Alkhateeb
- Original Message -
From: Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, 21 May, 2015 5:53:39 PM
Subject: Re: Discussion: Replace framework by Moqui.
Actually, this discussion started 5 years ago, when David first proposed
rewriting
It does look like a lot of long-standing big issues are being looked at.
However, they are all independent projects that can be accepted or
rejected without affecting the other major projects.
Most of them (Maven, git, directory structure) are actually pretty short
to implement even if they
+1 to Jacopo's POV.
The discussion had been very good with a positive tone and a lot of
factual issues been raised.
I have not seen a POC project. This would seem to be a prerequisite for
a decision of this magnitude.
In the past, there has been a discussion about marketing the framework
On Apr 26, 2015, at 3:09 PM, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com
wrote:
How about Replace framework core functionality - like entity engine, service
engine, and security with Moqui.
Is that specific enough?
Not really: we have talked about bringing the whole Moqui codebase
We have to start somewhere. Replacing all of OFBiz with Moqui is a
non-starter. We simply don't have the resources for it. So let's start
small.
Instead of me trying to guess which suitable subject line is hidden in
your head, why don't you just tell us what you think is acceptable to
vote
On Apr 26, 2015, at 4:20 PM, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com
wrote:
We have to start somewhere. Replacing all of OFBiz with Moqui is a
non-starter. We simply don't have the resources for it. So let's start small.
Instead of me trying to guess which suitable subject line is
How about Replace framework core functionality - like entity engine,
service engine, and security with Moqui.
Is that specific enough?
Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com
On 4/26/2015 1:47 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
The discussion is interesting and fascinating but in
Hey Everyone,
It seems like too many massive changes are being looked at at the same
time. Moqui, Git, Maven and Directory Structure. Shouldn't all these items
be looked at given that one affects the other?
Taher Alkhateeb
On Apr 26, 2015 4:10 PM, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com
The discussion is interesting and fascinating but in this thread completely
different ideas have been expressed: from forking Moqui into OFBiz to rewriting
OFBiz applications from scratch on top of Moqui etc...
My vote will be negative if the vote will be as generic as replace OFBiz
framework
@Nicolas: The questions you raise are vaild. And ever present. Each will
find his/her own justification for the choice made. This project is not
about that. It offers a choice, based on a shared vision.
Best regards
Pierre Smits
*ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com*
Services Solutions for Cloud-
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
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
Le 20/04/2015 22:27, Pierre Smits a écrit :
@Nicolas: in the end it is code change. Does your point of view reflect a
veto?
If the code change and the backward compatibility is present, no worries.
We are an enterprise automation software not just a framework. Many
companies trust in this
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
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)
Le 21/04/2015 09:48, Nicolas Malin a écrit :
Le 20/04/2015 22:27, Pierre Smits a écrit :
@Nicolas: in the end it is code change. Does your point of view reflect a
veto?
If the code change and the backward compatibility is present, no worries.
We are an enterprise automation software not just a
On 20/04/2015 3:57 PM, Nicolas Malin wrote:
Le 20/04/2015 21:48, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
Would not have to call of Apache Moqui. It would just be Moqui , part
of Apache OfBiz
Ron, in other word, you propose to fork Moqui into Apache OFBiz ?
Nicolas
I am not proposing anything.
I am
+1. Co-exist would be the 1st step.
Anyway, I'd suggest Moqui to join Apache, for customers, Apache is a brand
means quality. Feel like we all back to 2006 now. David, in apache, you can
choose git and use github as a backup like Apache Isis does.
在 2015-4-21，上午4:23，Nicolas Malin
+1. Co-existing would be good as the 1st step.
Anyway, I'd suggest Moqui to join Apache, for customers, Apache is a brand
means quality. Feel like we all back to 2006 now. David, in apache, you can
choose git and use github as a backup like Apache Isis does.
在 2015-4-21，上午4:23，Nicolas Malin
I wonder how that would work. At some moment in time a two track approach
is more taxing than a one track. In the past we had commit wars, with this
(two long term tracks) we get that again at a whole different (higher
level).
To be a bit sarcastic here: there are also other Business Solutions
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
On 20 Apr 2015, at 13:21, Adrian Crum adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com
wrote:
On 4/20/2015 7:39 PM, David E. Jones wrote:
This is where I question whether it is a good idea to just replace the
framework and leave all else as-is in OFBiz. I know very well that bringing
this up is
On 04/20/2015 03:21 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 4/20/2015 7:39 PM, David E. Jones wrote:
This is where I question whether it is a good idea to just replace
the framework and leave all else as-is in OFBiz. I know very well
that bringing this up is likely to stall the discussion and reduce
the
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
On 4/20/2015 7:39 PM, David E. Jones wrote:
This is where I question whether it is a good idea to just replace the
framework and leave all else as-is in OFBiz. I know very well that bringing
this up is likely to stall the discussion and reduce the chances of OFBiz ever
using Moqui, and the
We have to be aware that every project (proprietary or Open Source)
somewhere in the lifespan faces the moment of breaking backwards
compatibility of their products. Even today there are still some products
whose owners had to walk that walk and survived But that is more about
the
@Nicolas: in the end it is code change. Does your point of view reflect a
veto?
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 Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:23 PM,
Hi Hans, all,
interesting discussion!
Could you explain in more detail how the overall architecture of this
proposal would look like?
What will be Moqui/Moqui based and what will be left in OFBiz?
I would ask the question: what is OFBiz without it's framework and the ERP?
Thanks and
Hi Adrian,
I'm really interested in your and other community members' opinions
about the 2nd point.
I think it could help to set up some kind of matrix with the different
points and some proposals of how to solve them/ implement them in
another way.
Thanks and regards,
Michael
ecomify.de
I agree a matrix would be nice to have, but most likely those issues
will be addressed as we try to integrate Moqui with the rest of the project.
Also, I performed my code analysis a year or two ago, so some of things
might have been fixed by now.
Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
Quoting Hans: 'getting David Jones back into the project'
Was he out? I didn't notice.
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
Moqui is in the public domain. In other words, there is no license.
Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com
On 4/20/2015 10:24 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Le 20/04/2015 09:47, Adrian Crum a écrit :
Generally speaking, I am in favor of using another framework. I have
two
Le 20/04/2015 09:47, Adrian Crum a écrit :
Generally speaking, I am in favor of using another framework. I have two
reservations about Moqui:
1. It is controlled by a single person - so responsiveness to issues are
dependent on that person's availability.
This is indeed a regression from
Generally speaking, I am in favor of using another framework. I have two
reservations about Moqui:
1. It is controlled by a single person - so responsiveness to issues are
dependent on that person's availability.
2. It repeats a lot of mistakes that have been made in OFBiz, so those
things
I'll admit I got a chuckle out of this one. Yes, my activity in OFBiz dropped
to pretty close to zero in 2010 after I started Moqui/Mantle/etc. I think that
was before you got more closely involved Pierre.
OpenHub keeps a good history of this, for commits anyway, though note that for
OFBiz
Something I missed to mention because it's obvious (the elephant in the room). I'm notably cautious because I don't know Moqui but its architecture.
So I can't imagine what moving to Moqui would mean for existing projects.
Maybe it's not that complicated and tools could be provided? It's an
On 20 Apr 2015, at 02:24, Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com
wrote:
Le 20/04/2015 09:47, Adrian Crum a écrit :
Generally speaking, I am in favor of using another framework. I have two
reservations about Moqui:
1. It is controlled by a single person - so responsiveness to
I chuckled too.
Op maandag 20 april 2015 heeft David E. Jones d...@me.com het volgende
geschreven:
I'll admit I got a chuckle out of this one. Yes, my activity in OFBiz
dropped to pretty close to zero in 2010 after I started Moqui/Mantle/etc. I
think that was before you got more closely
On 19 Apr 2015, at 22:31, Hans Bakker mailingl...@antwebsystems.com wrote:
Again, as discussed at the ApacheCon in Austin we should start setting up a
plan how to best move the ERP application to the Moqui framework. Moqui
should not be part of the Apache foundation however the ERP
I can relate to a lot David has written. I have my share of experiences
with Moqui.
We have to be aware that every project (proprietary or Open Source)
somewhere in the lifespan faces the moment of breaking backwards
compatibility of their products. Even today there are still some products
whose
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
Would Moqui become a sub-project of OFBiz with distinct deliverable with
an Apache license?
Or is that too much community?
Ron
On 20/04/2015 1:19 PM, David E. Jones wrote:
On 20 Apr 2015, at 02:24, Jacques Le Roux jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com wrote:
Le 20/04/2015 09:47, Adrian Crum a écrit
Long story short, I'd rather go the complete Moqui way :) But I'm not there
yet, not so far though...
Jacques
Le 20/04/2015 20:39, David E. Jones a écrit :
On 19 Apr 2015, at 22:31, Hans Bakker mailingl...@antwebsystems.com wrote:
Again, as discussed at the ApacheCon in Austin we should
Le 20/04/2015 21:48, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
Would not have to call of Apache Moqui. It would just be Moqui , part
of Apache OfBiz
Ron, in other word, you propose to fork Moqui into Apache OFBiz ?
Nicolas
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
Again, as discussed at the ApacheCon in Austin we should start setting
up a plan how to best move the ERP application to the Moqui framework.
Moqui should not be part of the Apache foundation however the ERP
application should remain there.
Not only will it improve development of the ERP
62 matches
Mail list logo
