On 2005.02.07, Vlad Seryakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Other's people time as much precious as mainline developers, that's > the attitude i am against of: "AOL is the biggest paid contributer and > has the right to define the direction, others can play with new things > at their homes"
This is the last time I'm going to say this: AOL (rightly) controls the work that its employees perform. AOL does not restrict what you do with AOLserver, what changes you make to it, etc. I am now the gatekeeper for what contributions (from AOL, and outside of AOL) go into the core. I don't believe that being an AOL employee has changed my attitude or behavior significantly towards the project. You can make whatever changes you like to AOLserver and release the source code for those changes. The AOLserver Public License protects your very right to do so. Getting those changes integrated into the official AOL distribution is a different story, but it is not the only way to make your changes available to the public. Do you think that the only way to get people to use your code is to have it included in the core AOLserver source distribution? If yes, why? If no, then why do you keep bringing this up as an issue? > I understand AOL's position that's why i'd like to propose development > version which can be different from the mainline. They can go into > different difections, exchange code that can run on both and exchange > bugfixes. I personally can find some time for it, anyway i do it > already, why not providing sources to others. But this version will > not depend on AOL and will not fit into AOL's time schedule, so no > pressure. Absolutely. There's nothing stopping you, or anyone else for that matter, from doing this. Well, there is one thing: a willingness to commit time and effort to doing it. Since this course of action has no bearing on AOL and AOL bears no influence on it, you can't use AOL's involvement as an excuse for why this can't be done, except for that very commitment of time and effort. > You see, for example, i wrote SNMP module, it requires some patches > against main code to run. I know several people already using it, they > found it, tried and start using. How many people is "several?" Are they refusing to upgrade to the latest AOLserver because your patch won't apply to it and you don't have the time to maintain the patch? Or, if you're maintaining patches against the latest AOLserver release, then what's the problem with them applying your patch and building their AOLserver? If integrating the changes would make it easier for people to stay current with the latest version of AOLserver, then there might be merit to integrating those changes. But, as I've learned over the years, people don't keep current for other reasons. The lack of getting these changes into the core isn't the primary reason why people aren't upgrading. Do you realize that even at AOL, we don't run the stock AOLserver that comes out of SourceForge? In our build process, we patch AOLserver then build it? Yes. There are changes to AOLserver which even AOL hasn't put into AOLserver. Did you think that AOL had special treatment because the project's more active contributors were AOL employees? It's not true. > Let's admit it, AS will never get so popular as apache or IIS and all > efforts for making it popular without something that will > differentiate it from apache is waste of time. Maybe I'm deluded, but I'm not ready to admit this yet. Just as we learned about the web browser war ... the web server war is far from over. -- Dossy -- Dossy Shiobara mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Panoptic Computer Network web: http://www.panoptic.com/ "He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70) -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with the body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
