On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:54 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > On 3/5/2012 12:29 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 10:08 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. >> <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: >>> A proposal to adopt mod_combine is attached. >>> >>> [ ] Option 1: adopt as trunk module >>> [ ] Option 2: adopt only as subproject >> [X] Option 3: do not adopt > > Before tallying, I just wanted to clarify your thoughts, Jeff. > > If this module has a place in the public commons, I'm going to guess > that the BBC doesn't have an efficient open source development arm > who are prepared to deal with licensing and the ongoing concerns of > publishing source code for free. > > So I tend to doubt that there is another vehicle other than the ASF > that would support Graham publishing this to the community. If you > don't believe it merits a subproject, then the two options remaining > would be a sandbox / unpublished module al la mod_arm4 (and I don't > think we want to propagate such examples), or a labs project for now. > > So based on your concerns, how do you recommend Graham proceed with > this code?
Doesn't everyone have a half-dozen or [many] more modules which are interesting for some purpose, might be useful for other developers to look at for one reason or another, but do not merit a sub-project or inclusion in the core server? I watch over a few I wrote that are in the same boat -- offered to the project, rejected (or at least not warmly welcomed), still used by a few other people who need to access the current versions. It can be awkward if a current (or, eventually, past) employer agrees to ASL and agrees to make it some part of httpd (if accepted) but it doesn't end up with a permanent home there, and thus isn't really the ASF's but isn't Jeff's or Graham's either in the normal sense. Is that what needs to be solved, or is this an issue of whether it gets downloaded from apache.org?
