I don’t think it is intractable to come up with a definition that we use for inclusion.
1. List no alternative offerings at all. 2. List only those offerings that deploy precisely a released version of Cassandra. 3. List only those offerings that deploy precisely a released version of Cassandra with modifications that extend a list of public APIs. 4. List only those offerings that deploy precisely a released version of Cassandra with modifications that extend a list of public APIs, or are themselves published under ASL v2. Listing a product on our website implicitly endorses that offering, and we should absolutely be restrictive about what we endorse. I’m -1 unconditionally endorsing competing products, and products that are not themselves clearly some derivative work that is accessible to the community under similar terms. If we cannot agree on a set of conditions, options (1) and (2) are simple, easy to administer, adequately restrictive and not inconsistently permissive. I don’t think this website is going to drive a lot of traffic to any of these businesses, so I doubt any of them should be upset at any loss of revenue. The question is simply one of principle for us as a project. From: Benjamin Lerer <b.le...@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, 29 June 2021 at 08:10 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org <dev@cassandra.apache.org> Subject: Re: Additions to Cassandra ecosystem page? I feel that we are going into a too restrictive direction. I believe that we have more to win by being open and welcoming. -1 for the strict approach and for the licences. Le mar. 29 juin 2021 à 00:40, Ben Bromhead <b...@instaclustr.com> a écrit : > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 2:38 AM Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > The obvious core responsibility of the website should be to ASLv2 > > permissively licensed Apache Cassandra and secondarily to CQL as a > protocol > > IMO. I don't think we as a project should be tracking derivative works, > > forks, or other things built on top of the code-base and certainly not > > things with wildly varied licensing (AGPL, proprietary closed, etc). > > > > To go that route we either become fully inclusive of everything or become > > Kingmakers, and either way there's the consequence of inconsistent levels > > of vetting, maintenance, and dilution of what it means to "be Cassandra". > > There's plenty of other websites for other projects and everyone has > access > > to search engines. > > > > This makes sense to me as a line in the sand to draw if we are going down a > strict path. > > It would be up to whoever wants to be added to the list to demonstrate this > is the case. > > There would still be some degree of honesty required as well on the service > providers part. >
