On Oct 31, 2012, at 11:48 AM, Cory Johns wrote: > I know that licensing was a concern and motivation for splitting things > out, such as for the SCM tools which we're currently working on breaking > out of core.
I'd love to encourage folks to resolve the licensing issues, rather than risk having a subproject fall into neglect by being elsewhere. Cory and I were chatting elsewhere, and I wanted to bring some of that conversation back here. In the case of Apache httpd, there have been extensions (aka modules) that were developed as separate projects, and in pretty much every case those projects languished from lack of attention. It could be that other projects have had more success with this approach, but I've seen the same thing happen with extension modules on other projects where, because a sub-project was elsewhere, when that small subset of the developers moved on to other things, the sub-project was abandoned, but when a sub-project was included in the main repo (although not necessarily as part of the release) it got all sorts of attention and new life breathed into it. > > Not knowing how it might work with the Apache way of doing things, it seems > like a Neighborhood for Allura extensions would give a lot of the benefits > while allowing for things to be separated for licensing concerns. Has that > been considered as an option? If that neighborhood were hosted on the allura.apache.org installation of Allura, could we host code there that was not Apache licensed? I presume not, but if it were in a git repo elsewhere, and it wasn't part of the release, perhaps that wouldn't be a problem. I don't know if Apache has had a scenario like that before. -- Rich Bowen [email protected] Shosholoza
