Sal Mangano wrote:
however, the benefits of open source is that the code is still available, always will be, and you are free to do with it as you will.
Of course, I understand that is one of the benefits. But how many developers want the job of maintaining Avalon (or any other complex piece of open source) when they don't feel the current directions the source is taking fills their needs? Hence, the liability remains.
Anyone familiar with development in a corporate setting will understand that internal struggles are not unique to open source. In those cases it is just behind closed doors.
Of course. But what is often lacking in open source is the discipline
imposed on commercial software via good old fashion capitalism. I have heard
a million times that "Open Source is free as in speech not beer" but the
reality is that most open source is "free as in beer". This causes several
problems. When you accept something free and it changes out from under you,
what do you do? What rights do you have as a customer? Afterall you did not
pay anything? I think that in the back of the *some* open source developers
minds this is exactly what justfies their doing what they want and not what
the market is asking for, because there is no market in the traditional
sense.
I belive in open source and support open source so please don't flame me!
But I also belive as strongly in economic principles, capitalism and the
power econmics has to correct mistakes made by groups that provide a product
like software. Afterall, it may hurt a little to be flammed but it hurts a
lot when your revenue stream dries up because you did not listen to your
customers.
So keep it free as in speech but charge for the beer. This is the direction I think opens source needs to be moving lest it undermine itself in the long haul.
Sal,
while I completely understand your feelings, I would like to point out that you are equating open source with the avalon community, but this is unfair for all the other projects, for example the other apache ones, that do not exhibit such social dynamics.
The ASF board of directors considers the avalon community as malfunctioning and several of us directors are working, without their board hats on, so try to find a definitive answer that will keep this project alive.
You are right: having the source available and covered by an OSI-certified license does *NOT* make it free. That's why the ASF believe in community diversity as a control form way more than individual leadership. That's why we say that community is more important than code.
The current technical leadership of the avalon community indicated explicitly and in several occasions that he does not believe in these values.
This disconnection is creating all this negative energy and too many people are sick and tired of having to dissipate this energy to keep up with its operation, therefore the need for a resolution.
With my ASF director on, I can only apologize and guarantee you that your concerns are well between us already and have been there for a few years now and that we are making our collective best effort to solve this issue once and for all with the least impact on existing and future interests.
-- Stefano.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
