Andrus Adamchik wrote: > > Actually we had a similar discussion some time ago, and also related > to DataViews. Forking and relicensing is an easy option: > > http://objectstyle.org/cayenne/lists/cayenne-devel/2007/04/0035.html > > Whoever wants to work on a fork, I suggest you contact Adrian > Wiesmann (who is likely reading this list). I think he already did a > fork and placed it on SourceForge (?) > Well, as I mentioned, I'm not interested in "forking" but "moving" :). I saw Adrian's work - it's not a standalone SF project, but part of some other one, and as you say - it's a *fork* :).
Andrus Adamchik wrote: > > I disagree that Apache license as such is unfriendly to GUI projects > (at least I haven't heard any reasonable argument to back that idea), > but the fact that most existing libraries converged around (L)GPL > could definitely play its role as a high barrier to entry. Although > there are notable exceptions - JGoodies uses BSD license. > Yes, sure - the exception that confirms the rule :). The thumb rule I heard on many JUGs(and forums) is that "if you want a tool or GUI use LGLP, if you want a general library than use BSD or Apache". I got no explanation why is that so (beyond "lawyers found this as the best combination"), but it seems that developers apply it :). Andrus Adamchik wrote: > > Finally I have no idea why people are so afraid to contribute to > Apache. There are no barriers, except for the ones that any > established project would have, namely that the people involved in > the project value their reputation built over the years, and > therefore require new contributors to go through the karma building > process, before giving them write access. I think that's very > reasonable. > Well I can give you a few reasons, but I suppose "true Apache believers" will dismiss them and will consider "flame" :). This is not my intention, but to give you another point of view - that of *your users*. #1 - most people do open source work in their free time, and this for fun and only as long as it makes fun. (Well there might be exceptions - maybe on Apache.org there are more "employees" doing open source work in their "work time" than somewhere else). #2 - submitting patches to an issue tracking system is no fun. There's no direct feedback, there's no "instant gratification", and for sure it does not compare with a simply making a quick check in and getting feedback for your changes. #2.1 - in many Apache projects, issues (with patches but with simple code snippets too) take months to get into the code - if they ever get. A simple browse of the Apache JIRA shows this state: there are even a few projects where this takes years :) - Velocity, JAMES, Commons VFS - just to mention a few (and your users know them even if they don't express their frustration with that state). #3 - getting commit rights is waaaay too complicated on Apache.org - on sourceforge it takes only one click :). If it's not OK what that developer does, the rights can be revoked anytime, and the code rollbacked - nobody gets upset and nobody is loosing time - the time frame where the contributor is in "fun state" is kept :). #4 - on SF unlike Apache.org most people spend no time on licensing discussions (nor really do they care) or voting with the most strange voting ever invented: "veto" for everybody :) :) :). (on Apache JAMES this veto this leads to constant blocking in the last 3 years, and on other projects to always choose the "least common denominator", or developers being Ueber-cautious - this simply kills creativity, and 100% kills fun :) ). I hope, you don't take this as a flame but as an insight in the perspective of your users trying to help. Thank you, Demetrios. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/DataViews---Proposal---move-to-sourceforge%21-tf4743504.html#a13572442 Sent from the Cayenne - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
