On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Noah Slater<[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 09:30:19PM -0700, Chris Anderson wrote: >> I'd be comfortable with the remedy of working with our upstream >> projects to absorb any patches we have outstanding. In the long run, >> once we have all our patches cleaned up, we could look at satisfying >> our dependencies using some curl shell scripts to download mochiweb, >> ibrowse, etc from a repository. > > Remedy for what? What actual problem does this solve?
I see why maintaining our own forks of other projects would be bad, from purely a technical standpoint. I don't think they are a blocker, but I'd like to get to the point where we can easily validate that we're not forking upstream packages, just for technical health. Chris > > Speaking from a legal perspective, there is nothing "at Apache" that > prevents people for doing source code copy, in small or large (a.k.a forks), > PROVIDED that the license allows it. I saw you mentioning BSD (modified I > hope) and MIT X, and those licenses require attribution and few other > things, so if that is done, there is no legal contention here. Now you said > that Apache doesn't fork... well the reason behind that (I think) is that we > are all lazy, it takes a lot of energy to maintain forks. And we don't do it > to compete with the original project, out of courtesy... is that your > complaint? > > - > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200908.mbox/<[email protected]> > > We already have a vendor directory to help us manage external code bases, and > as > long as we are prepared to continue using that properly, I don't understand > what > problem this would be a remedy for. > > Best, > > -- > Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater > -- Chris Anderson http://jchrisa.net http://couch.io
