Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> write: > Hunsberger, Peter wrote: > > I think you miss the issue here: there's certainly no equivalency > > between "one-man-effort" and "open source". > > This last week has seen some intense license conflicts between very > large open source projects: XFree86, Apache, and FSF/GNU have > all made > choices that have lead to (or could lead to) changes in various > distributions. Changing licenses is not merely the province > of "one man" > operations.
Sure, but that's not the real issue (other than the fact I'd to see everyone adopt a Apache friendly license)... > > It seems that on one hand > > you complain that you can't afford the time to provide free support > > for everyone using Jisp, then on the other you want people > to accept > > code that has only you supporting it. > > One reason for Jisp 3.0, by the way, was to reduce my support > load. The > old version of Jisp was not "robust", to use a marketroid term. Fair enough; reading between the lines, I guess you're partly saying that prior versions of Jisp weren't robust enough to be readily adopted by a community? > > The solution to your (and the Cocoon > > communities) dilemma is not to have a restrictive license > (as I think > > you agree), or to accept "one-man-efforts", but rather, to have a > > community supporting the code. Once you have a community > supporting > > the code you will personally no longer be "pestered" to > provide free > > support. (OTOH, as one of the primary developers of the > code base you > > will be seen as having value for anyone willing to put up consultant > > dollars....) > > Perhaps. > > > Now, exactly, how you go about building a community is another > > question. But, it seems that perhaps some of the Cocoon project > > members might be willing to help? > > I'm open to concrete suggestions. Wish I could put my money where my mouth is on this issue (so to speak); at this point I have to drop out of the discussion...
